The Case For Real Freedom: Reactions To The Issues Of The New American Fascism
It has been months since my last blog. In that time frame, I sat and watched many sunsets {hence my visual image}. I was truly retired, but the last month or two has rekindled my concern for our nation and the increasingly ludicrous nature of our politics. Thus, this particular blog.
I am probably going to get some on the right quite angry. Frankly, I'm past the point of caring whether or not there is anger among those who accept the nonsense that some of the media and elected representatives are spewing, rather than having intelligent discussion about the real issues of the day. Just a few examples prior to some in depth analysis. First, there is no such thing as " the great replacement theory". It is a meme or the White supremacist right. We are a nation of immigrants and there must be equality among all Americans or future Americans. Second, there is no reason to believe that pro-choice individuals will force anti-choice people to have abortions. Third, there is no evidence of "Critical Race Theory being taught anywhere other than in selected graduate school programs where it is an appropriate course of study. Each of these are lunatic fringe ideas that have led to the rise of single issue voters. It may be to the Republican's credit or discredit that if they get enough single issue voters to their side, the underlying extremism of the party core can sneak in and remain in power. It has led to legislators and justices who are either simply incompetent and / or criminal. It is, quite simply, un-American and anti-democratic.
Let me start by emphatically stating that what is happening to our great nation is the polar opposite of American democracy. It is, and always has been, the basis for the rise of fascist and other totalitarian forms of government. The goal of this great nation has always been the movement towards equal rights for ALL Americans; the ability to practice what you believe while allowing others to practice their beliefs without impingement, as long as that practice is legal. It has been a long hard slog, but to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, the arc of justice bends towards freedom.
This article will look at some of the most divisive issues and attempt to explain why the one issue voter is almost always working against their own interests.
ABORTION:
Realistically, no one on either side of this issue argues that any woman must have an abortion. It is, for those of us who believe in choice, a decision that must be made by the individual woman in consult with those she chooses to involve or be advised by. Roe v. Wade did exactly that. It did not take away any person's rights. It gave, however, an entire majority of Americans a right of privacy {yes, there are more women than men in our country}. The ability to make decisions based on both their and any potential offspring's well being is a private one.
I will agree with the anti-choice minority in this nation that abortion is not birth control and should not be used as such. The vast majority of abortions fall into one of the following categories: [1] a change in status that affects the economic viability of carrying a fetus to term {financial, divorce or separation}, [2] a change in the health status of the mother, [3] rape or incest, [4] catastrophic condition of the fetus, or [5] juvenile status of the prospective mother. Each of these are major life events and require the potential mother to make life altering decisions.
Women are not chattel who belong to a man. Outlawing abortion will not keep women who can afford to travel from having an abortion. It will only affect poor, basically minority women who will potentially have their lives destroyed by this ban.
For those who don't see that potential outcome, I advise that they should read Margaret Atwood's great dystopian novel, The Handmaid's Tale. Anti-choice legislation is a violation of freedom. This is everything that is opposite the American dream. This is what the repeal of Roe v. Wade will lead to. If you still want to hold onto your anti-choice views, think for a moment of the other freedoms that are based on the right to privacy. Do you and your loved one use contraception? Check out Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 {1965} {known as Griswold v. Connecticut}. Without Roe, the government may end you right to decide when to have a child, since that ruling followed the same implied right to privacy as Roe v. Wade. If one right to privacy is not there, neither is another. Do any people you know have a spouse of a different skin color? Check out Loving v. Virginia, 388, U.S. 1 {1967}. Without Roe, the right to marry whomever you choose is in danger. How about Gay marriage? Check out Obergefell v. Hodges {2015}. That is another right to privacy. It is not unthinkable that even marriages between people of different faiths could have their right to marry threatened if Roe disappears.
If any one of the above rights are stricken, and they will be, all of our rights are in danger. We will all be in danger of the same realization that Martin Niemoller wrote during World War II. Niemoller was a Lutheran Minister in Germany prior to the war. Niemoller's quote is most prescient today:
" First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out----because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out----because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out----because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me---and there was no one left to speak for me."
Remember, Niemoller eventually spent seven years in a concentration camp because he believed that the fascists of his day would stop at step 1.
The real lesson is that fascists never stop while there is anyone left to persecute!
2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS
Yes, the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Our Founding Fathers had this basically right. They wrote a document in the late eighteenth century that was unique and visionary. Their vision, however, was not that this or any of our rights are inviolate. If they believed that, there would never be a constitutional amendment process. We would have a perfvect society. We all know that isn't the case. Otherwise there wouldn't be 33 amendments that have modified the original document.
Our founders lived in a world of single shot rifles. They lived in a a country that had no standing, national military, no repeating or automatic weapons, and which relied on hunting for their food. It was a country that needed gun rights for all. Mass murders, school shootings, and gang violence were unknown occurrences. There was not way of doing background checks, mental health checks, or criminal history checks. If our visionary founders could have envisioned these problems, there is little doubt, that in their wisdom, the second amendment would read differently.
Yes, we have a right to bear arms, but we also have a right to live without madmen and criminals killing thousands because, in their madness, they have the right to buy and use a gun without check. Freedom doesn't mean unfettered ability to something. Real freedom provides for safety. We must have second amendment rights, but temper those rights with 21st century logic and control. Poll after poll has shown that most gun owners have no problems with reasonable controls { 52-61% depending on the polling. There is little doubt that the percentage will increase with the massacre in Buffalo.
VOTING RIGHTS:
The following statistics are from Politico's 2022 poll on voting rights:
Access to early voting----65% support, 23% oppose
Prohibiting partisan gerrymandering----64% support, 19% oppose
Making it illegal to prevent someone from registering--- 62% support, 24% oppose
Expandiung same day voter registration----- 56% support, 30% oppose
Expanding automatic voter registration---- 52% support, 32% oppose.
These are the statistics, but they don't tell the whole story. As nations move from democracy to fascism or communism, one of the first things that are restricted is the right to vote freely. No one believes that Putin received 96% of the vote in his last election. The Libyans did not elect Khadaffi with 99.2% of the vote. Along with padded electoral totals, dissenting opinions are suppressed. Democracy requires universal voting, not attempts at suppression. What we are seeing in today's Republican dominated states are attempts at disenfranchisement. Take the vote away from those who oppose you, and power will be theirs forever. Every democracy loving American should be opposing this trend with everything in our power. We must vote these autocrats out of office if our American experiment is to succeed.
We can not take voting lightly. Our nation has, for too long denied people their right to vote. Women couldn't vote until the early 20th century. People of color were debnied their voting rights until the 1960s. People who did not own property were denied the right to vote in the constitution. We were wrong then, but can't afford to backslide into that wrong now.
RACIAL ANIMUS
Let's not even talk about "Black Lives Matter". They do, just as Brown Lives, White lives, and Native American lives. It is a truth, however, that as a privileged White man, I never had to warn my son about worrying that some misguided police officer could and would kill him just because he was White and drove a nice car. I never had to tell my daughter that shwe could be abused by the police solely because she is White. The truth is that we can't say that all lives matter until, Black, Brown, and Native American lives matter as much as mine.
As a retired University professor with degrees in history, psychology, and education, the concept of Critical Race Theory being taught in our K-12 schools is both ludicrous and wrong. Children in a democracy should learn about both the positives and negatives of our history at appropriate times and at appropriate levels. In the words of the Spanish-American philosopher, George Santayana, "Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." We should be encouraging schools to teach those lessons to help us become a "more perfect union".
For a nation that prides itself on progress, we are certainly learning to hate our citizens of color and our immigrant brethren. This will only reverse much of our progress made in the 20th century. It is an anti-democratic meme. If children can be taught to hate and fear others, there is no need to accept Irish, Italian, Asian, or any other group as worthy Americans. It is a recipe for a second civil war. It is a validation of systemic racism that can only be changed if we elect those who recognize our faults and build on our strengths. The Hebrew language has a saying that really should become an American credo----Am Echad---We are one. It is true that our strength lies in our diversity. We have to work together as one people so that we truly believe that we are the great melting pot. That stew is and should continue to be our greatest positive, not a weakness.
We must continue to move forward. To let people who are autocrats and fascists win the day will mark the end of our democracy.
Pardon the length of the article. There was a lot to talk about. I hope it is interesting and thought provoking commentary.
Thanks for writing this Doc.
I sure am surprised nobody took umbrage with the article - obviously it's the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and nobody can find any way to deny it.
I actually hoped that this would encourage some discourse, even angry discourse. I hoped that with all of the insanity that is going on now, people would be engaged in the truly large issues that face us. I'm thinking that the me-ism around inflation, supply chain issues, and the like are more important to most people on the site.
It seems that people don't always see threats to our freedom{s} as being individually critical. What isn't always understood is that when freedom is threatened, every right we assume will always be there is in danger of being lost. Maybe there will be some discussion in the next day or two.
What some second amendment rights people do not understand, or don't want to understand is the right also has the right to be regulated.
Some people think it should be unfettered.
Exactly. Now for the sake of discussion. Pat Buchanan:
But this is not Pat B.'s first 'outing' (2021) with this so-called 'theory' - :
Just an inkling of stuff that has been 'stirred' up in the minds and hearts of conservatives going back twenty or more years!
[Deleted]
What no one on the right seems to understand is that the "great replacement" has been around for ages. Every time there is a wave of immigrants that do not meet the background checks of the "majority", there is something akin to a great replacement that stirs up. Whether it was Irish Catholics fleeing the potato famine, or Italian Catholics, or Eastern European Jews, or Chinese workers coming in through the west, those that feared American assimilation brought up a canard that, at least resembled, "great replacement". They failed because the strength of our nation has always been diversity.
Buchanan had always been a zenophobe, not a legitimate scholar.
I never fully understood how CNN often gave Pat Buchanan work, despite his known xenophobia. He bounced from show to show there. And then there was Glenn Beck. Now Tucker Carlson.
There is something implied here too. 1.) These public speakers for their own reasons are truly fearful that this country as they know it will not exist in the future, or 2.) They have been stockpiling guns and weapons for so long a time and now they feel the time has come to use them. Yes, this option means there are folks seeking to start a race war.
Unfortunately, many, if not most, people fail to recognize the threat posed by autocrats and fascists.
Some, driven by ideology, falsely label actual democrats as autocrats and fascists. We see that on NT.
Good post, Doc.
It is a very good post. I am glad someone has taken the time to bring out these nuance points that are 'all around us' left unwritten.
It's good to read the unwritten nuance points.
and which unwritten nuance points do you want me to write about...... if appropriate, I'll be happy to accommodate.
[Deleted]
Emphatically. Liberals believe in the concept of real world justice and diversity of choices. No liberal worth his or her 'salt' is interested in enforcing a pregnancy or stripping away of embryo or fetus in a girl or woman—including conservative girls and women.
We have already seen House abortion bill passage and its wait for the same passage in the Senate. There is no mention of what conservatives, per se should or should not do regarding termination of a pregnancy in the house bill!
Well said, per se.
Very nicely written. Your points are well stated and should open up discussion.
As an original inhabitant of this land, the replacement theory isn't, to me anything new. It was been used against Native Americans for hundreds of years. Now, those that did their best to eliminate us are now whining about being replaced. If it wasn't so ridiculous it would be funny.
the insurrectionist party has managed to change the meaning of CRT from critical race theory to caucasian replacement theory.
Sadly that seems to be the case.
Due to overly enlarged amygdala, the right wing operates on the basis of fear.
Also, it goes to show that there are people, in the majority, who simply have no intention of helping or even letting this country be a land of equality and equity. Their instincts have always been and are to keep whole groups of citizens (including women) oppressed and under (let's call it what it is) white male domination. Which is what the constitution (as a tool of the people of the time) clearly was planning when it conceptualized and implemented. Apparently, minorities are here in this country for the benefit of said white males-according to their way of looking at it.
I do note that there has been and will continue to be a great amount of race discussion pouring out from my 'pen,' but this is because there is a great amount of dangerous propaganda and combative politics of race that has occurred in this country's history and is being dregged up from the bottom to repeat itself in the here and now.
It would be funny, if it wasn't so dangerous. Whenever we look at "the other ones", we lose sight of the fact that we are all one... Persecution only works when you can differentiate differences. The fools that believe in that tripe are sitting ducks for the recruitment by hate mongers. What we see when this happens are mass murders, random, hate based killings and the pitiful attempt to shift blame to the real victims. Unfortunately, too many in Congress and our state legislators don't speak up against it and become tacit or overt followers themselves.
The current iteration of "the great replacement" theory can be traced back with virtual certainty to one situation , or rather the convergence of two things. Barack Obama's rise in politics to the point where it appeared he could be elected president of the United States, and at around the same time, the conclusion drawn by social scientists that sometime in the next few decades the US white population would become a numerical minority.
In the back of their minds many whites realized that demographics were trending away from America continuing as a "white" country. White birthrates were down compared with non white. But it was the arrival of Obama , who clearly could win, that caused the big freakout that culminated in the racist "birther" movement and the racist "tea party". Mark Meadows, now known as the ultra MAGA congressman then chief of staff for Trump , first ran for Congress in 2012. One of his selling points to his conservative constituents was that he would send Obama "back to kenya" (Africa).
Why do so many whites care whether or not this is a "white" country? Because subconsciously they wonder how they will be treated by the majority if it is not.
I understand fear of change. I understand fear of the other. I understand a need for survival. I even understand selfish-greed. What I do not understand and can not accept is theft, lies, deceptions, and outright and deliberate attempts to recapture citizens who have done the 'work' to be free already from their oppressors (in their own land).
The audacity from some in the majority to demonstrate to their fellow citizens-by their actions and conduct-how they will never see us as equals no matter what we do or how civil we are to them is astounding. And then these folks proceed to take measures necessary to try to 'pick a fight' for the purposes of committing wholesale slaughter (again) all while paying lip-service to their love for liberties and freedoms, plural.
And in power to do what exactly/? Hold back the collective good? Revise history to fabricate that what we were in our infancy was and is so much better than what we are today? Ridiculous! As long as there is suppression in this country there is room for betterment, progress, and moving forward. When republicans are in power, this nation becomes rheumatic with life becoming painful, dragging, and a drain on all who are not conservative in nature.
We simply can not transplant the present into the past. That is, this nation can not return to its womb (state).
So again, in power to do what exactly? To demonstrate (yet again) that all the "apologies" for past misdeeds done to certain groups were just lip-service and on second thought, conservatives were right all along in their first dealings and suppressions against their fellow countrymen?
The man who is crying both "fascism" and "Handmaid's Tale" supposedly wants intelligent discussion. How do you intend to get from "irrational fear" to "intelligent discussion"?
I realize you've been watching sunsets and all, so you might have missed the fact that Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House. Because there was this very non-fascist "election" thing about 18 months ago. Now, I'm pretty sure you're not arguing that Democrats are totalitarian fascists, so you'll understand that you're not making a lot of sense in the current context.
Many liberals try to argue that Trump was a fascist. But the real commonality between all fascist dictators is... they don't lose elections. The elections are not even close. They get removed when they die, violently or otherwise.
Exactly. Do you see how this works? You can't vote out a fascist dictator... and yet..... we voted out Donald Trump. Hmmmm.
You have a number of other very odd statements and presumptions here. In no particular order:
Who actually believes they will be forced to have an abortion? Please cite them.
Then why the near-hysterical objection to codifying this already standing practice?
Odd. Are we sure childbirth "destroys" a woman's life About 10,000 kids are born in the US every day. 40% of those to unwed mothers. 400 teenagers give birth in the US every day. About 1.4 million black or Hispanic babies were born in 2020. So is that 1.4 million lives "destroyed"? Seems incredibly unlikely.
You are absolutely correct. They don't. But they have negative amounts of confidence that anyone who believes America is on the path to "The Handmade's Tale" is capable of anything close to "reasonable". They have a point.
Dude... get out more. Seriously. Talk to some people with trucker hats on. They're really not as evil as you imagine.
Let's take your points....one at a time
Democrats control congress and the presidency: Nowhere have I stated that every Democrat is a rational player. If that was the case, they would hold together like the lemming Republicans have through this insanity. There was a time when Republican's thought for themselves and voted on their real beliefs. If you look at these recent votes, not a single vote for a Democrat induced bill, even when there has been verbal support for the position that the majority of Democrats are espousing.
You can't vote out a fascist dictator: You're right, but don't you realize that was exactly what Trump, his cronies, and the mob was trying to do on 1/6. Even the Trump pressure on the Georgia secretary of state was designed to move fascism forward.
You don't destroy lives by making women carry to term: Simply put....Bull! Granted most children are wanted, but there are those who fall into the five categories I've cited. These are lives that are traumatized and often destroyed. But, even more important is that the decision should and must be between the woman, her confidants, and if she so chooses, her God {or Goddess}.
Reasonable gun control......how about a national standard for background checks? limiting the sale of high magazine arms? not allowing people to buy more than a certain number of guns a month? You may not think that's reasonable, but at least they are proposals to reign in the chaos.
On your last point, talk to the governors of Florida and Texas who are supporting total abortion bans, restricting voting, not allowing texts that are peer reviewed and accurate into the schools, allow open carry into places of worship, etc. You are spouting crap and you know it.
" You are spouting crap and you know it."
The whole seed is a crock of imagined non-existent problems
A one-liner attack delivered in the form of a drive-by 'hit' adds no value to this discussion.
We have them now. Anytime anybody buys a gun from a licensed dealer that person must undergo a background check thru NICS. The bigger issue to this is that the federal government has not put any teeth into the system and does not enforce reporting to the NICS system so there are some people who should not be allowed to purchase the gun but because the info was not sent on to the NICS system the background check fails.
This is a little confusing, do you mean high capacity magazines or firearms that allow the attachment of high capacity magazines?
Seems a little heavy-handed to punish legal law-abiding gun owners with a restriction like this IMO. Could we put a limit on the number of bottles of beer a person is allowed to buy in a month? After all, do they need more than one a day? While a restriction like this might seem to make sense to limit the volume a straw purchaser can make it's IMO too broad brushed.
Reasonable gun laws are all in the eye of the beholder, what one person says is reasonable is overreach for another. After all, some people think that banning "assault weapons" are common sense but to me it's not. Long guns, of which "assault weapons" are a subset only account for 3% of all gun homicides so for 2021 there were 19,384 homicides involving guns so 3% of that is 581. And remember that the homicides by "assault weapon" is only a part of that.
Taking the Buffalo shooting as an example, as the shooter had been detained and given a mental health exam less than one year ago why was he even allowed to purchase a gun in the first place. Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on why people are doing this sort of action and prevent the issue from occurring? Let's put some teeth into the NICS system to insure that all states and reporting entities are getting all the information in on a timely basis. Let's work on HIPPA laws to insure that mental health issues are being worked on and a temporary hold is put on the ability of a person to buy a gun. These seem like common sense responses to me, what do you think?
My F'in problem is you and your foul mouth.
Imo technology is outgrowing the laws. Like with those, what do you call it, 3d printed guns. Or the kits people can buy to make their own.
Another thing is people don't want to talk about mental health and who or why people should be disqualified.
I'm sure that it is for those living in a closet with a blindfold on.
Laws can be modified as needed. 3D printed guns can be regulated but again it's only the honest responsible gun owner who will follow the law. As far as the kits, change the law so that those parts have serial numbers. I'm not saying that laws cannot be modified, the difference is where we come down on what is a common sense change.
You are correct, this is a huge issue because of the entire stigma around mental health. One thing we never hear about after a shooting is was the individual being proscribed any drugs for mental health issues. There were a few from the past, the two from Columbine if I remember were initially reported as taking prescription medication as part of mental treatment. We also know that there are some of those drugs that will adversely affect some people while being very positive for others. But within days of the incident all mention of any such thing goes away.
Dealing with mental health issues is one of the harder pieces of this puzzle that I think should really be a larger part of the solution. It's either that or like how you can eliminate the prospect of drowning by removing all water, have Congress ban ALL guns and send the police door to door to confiscate them all. And then build a really big wall around the country to prevent smuggling guns in. Crazy I know. But banning something has not worked yet, why would anybody think it would work for this issue. We have to do the harder work of identifying those who should not have access to guns in the first place IMO.
I am actually for people being able to have guns. I would never want to take that away. It just seems we are stuck between two extremes, completely unregulated or a ban. There doesn't seem to be many people that want to work with what we have and make it better.
There will always be a criminal element. I saw an article the other day where they found another tunnel from Mexico being used to smuggle things.
That's my complaint about Congress. Neither party really wants to solve the problem because it's become a huge cudgel they can use to beat the other side up while they gin up their base. And there are way too many mindless sheep who will only bleat the partisan talking points rather than engage in meaningful discussion. What we need in this is a national discussion so that Congress has no choice but to listen, but so long as those willing to actually discuss the issue are in the minority and the majority continues to shout out their one-sided ideas with no consideration for compromise this issue will never be resolved.
We are stuck living in a simile of an old beer commercial. "Tastes Great" / "Less Filling"
Only in the minds of the ridiculous right and the white supremacists that seem to be driving Republican politics these days. When we start to see any positive attempts to find solutions to the nation's problems will Republicans gain any respect from those of us on the left, or those traditional Republicans who have left the party over the last six years.
We can only hope that as more and more crazy candidates are nominated by the current crop of Republicans, the demise of Republican fascism will happen quickly.
How would you, on the right address these problems?
Basically, gun debate is a semantics game meant to go nowheres. As I have stated or implied before, when a new majority of the citizenry gets sick and tired of this 'GUN ADDICTION' change will happen! By which time, most of us will have post-traumatic stress syndrome brought on by a society that takes our money promising to keep us safe. . . we are not safe. If you and I can't safely get away from gun violence because of the color of something "routine" like skin - what the what?!
How is that not the discussion taking place?
What do you mean? What is the semantics issue?
Do you mean Constitutional Amendment change or something lesser?
How much are they taking from you? How unsafe do you feel?
Isn't that what we are doing?
I'm not sure that I actually agree with you. The extremes do appear to dominate the discussion, and it often appears that there isn't any centrist ground. I find that both interesting and problematical.
I, like you, would zealously defend the second amendment. The problem that I see is that the discussion is all or nothing. That is certainly not the case with our other Constitutional freedoms. We have amended that Constitution 33 times and have brought the original rights up to date. We need to do the same thing with the second amendment. Just as we now have limits on free speech, or have provided voting rights{?} to increasing numbers of Americans, we should be able to make modifications to the second amendment to meet 21st century sensibilities. There is nothing to say that either extreme should be sacrosanct, but there does appear to be a growing consensus that we have to do something to control the killing.
Amen to that!
My objections are about the hyperbole....the melodrama... the idiotically large group of educated adults who abandon reason and composure for blind emotion and run around squawking that the sky is falling. The sky just isn't falling. It may not be all sunshine and unicorns the way you would like it to be, but (sometimes angry) disagreement is central to the health of this nation.
He is not Darth Trump. The Handmaid's Tale is not happening. This is not the end of America. This IS America. This is how it works.
I'm sorry...your position is that in order to be "rational", they all have to vote lockstep?? Do you hear yourself? And you think they're irrational?
Which you just said is "irrational".
We're seeing a large amount of idiotically partisan legislation that is proposed solely so the politician in question can use it on the campaign trail. That's not new, nor is it particularly damaging because most of it won't pass.
I realize that's the prevailing liberal position. I fully agree that Trump is a shady bastard and his entire life has been one progression of shady shit. I am a solid "never Trumper", unless and until the Democrats nominate a lunatic like Bernie or AOC. Trump and his henchmen may have broken the law surrounding the Jan 6 situation, and I'm sure charges will be brought if that is found to be true. But let's remember....Nixon hired burglars. If Trump did indeed break the law, it wouldn't be the first time it's happened, and we're no closer to becoming a fascist state now than we were then.
OK. We're getting somewhere. Whether I agree with it or not, I respect your view on abortion. More fundamentally, I respect your right to hold that view and espouse it publicly. I do not think you evil for holding it. I do take issue with the melodrama. We start with things like "destroying women's lives" and before you know it we've convinced ourselves that a $10 copay for birth control constitutes a "war on women".
What we need to acknowledge about abortion is that both sides have defensible positions given the starting points they believe to be axiomatic.
Again, I think the major issue here is that liberals really only want to talk about gun control after they've been made aware of an incident where what they deem to be a significant number of white people have been killed in a single setting. Then, their proposed solutions are to restrict and inconvenience the hundreds of millions of law-abiding gun owners, to whom they utterly refuse to listen.
Additionally, gun control is one of those issues that politicians love to campaign on, and once reasonable measures are instated, they lose that dog whistle. That's also why we haven't done anything about student loans, which may be the easiest problem in history to solve.
So that's a hard "no" on actually meeting your fellow Americans and potentially disrupting your prejudice. Disappointing stance for a retired educator.
Excellent point, and not just limited to gun control.
I think that's much easier said than done, largely because as Ender says:
As a nation, we've allowed "feelings" to become more valuable than rational thought. This article is a perfect example. Once that happens, we gravitate to tribes who validate those feelings, villainize the opposing tribe(s), and abandon any serious attempt at reason.
Equivocation. How many millions of guns are purchased every year through 'private' sales?
Another equivocation. If there is a market for high capacity magazines, it's likely a manufacturer will produce them.
I love when you and yours throw out the 'law-abiding bun owners' crap. They're all 'law-abiding' until they aren't.
The fact is that historically, many mass shooters stock up on weapons and ammo just prior to attacking.
And yet you contribute to that problematical situation.....
State your 'buy-in" for change. Start us off, please.
This is not helpful.
Maybe you missed the fact that he's complaining about extremism in the seed of his own extremist article.
Certainly.
First, we can reduce over gun deaths by over 50% if states allow assisted suicide so people can choose a less messy way.
Second, states can pass restriction laws that don't violate the 2nd Amendment. The Heller decision struck down a handgun ban in DC, and established the right for individuals to have a gun for self-defense in the home. SCOTUS then further expanded private gun ownership protection in McDonald v. City of Chicago, binding state and local law to the 2nd Amendment.
This doesn't prevent states from passing laws on such restrictions as not allowing firearms in government buildings, schools and polling places, extended magazines, assault weapons, carry, etc.
Third, the federal government can expand back ground checks, limit the availability of automatic weapons, etc. without violating the 2nd Amendment.
Finally, with enough political pressure, the 2nd Amendment could be further amended. The change could be proposed either by the Congress, through a passed by a two-thirds vote, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from two-thirds of the state legislatures.
I have, now tag, you're it.
And your comment is?
All you're doing is shifting goal posts around so that you can argue..
Please explain what is ambiguous in my statement. That simple sentence was that if a person buys a gun from a LICENSED DEALER that person MUST undergo a background check thru NICS. That's Federal law. Had absolutely nothing to do with private sales. It was in response to his question of how about a national standard for background checks. If you don't like the current standard then work to change the standard or propose a standard you would like to see.
So again, what is ambiguous in that sentence or just admit you are moving goalposts again.
Non sequitur ... He made a statement that I did not understand and I asked for clarification on what he meant. Especially in this case, context fucking matters.
So you seem to be in favor of pre-emptive punishment, the old Guilty until Proven Innocent routine. Let me know when the police are in your neighborhood handing out speeding tickets to owners of red cars because they may exceed the speed limit someday. Or charge every person who walks into a grocery store with theft because they may someday eat a fucking grape to see how they taste. How many gun owners in this country have owned guns for many years and still remain law-abiding?
You've said before how you respond to just the pieces of a reply that strike your interest. Maybe someday you will learn to also include the context around the comments, but maybe that's just beyond your ability.
At least those of us on the left are offering recommendations. Where are recommendations and willingness to accept compromise coming from the right. I am willing to talk about compromises on controlling gun violence. I have no objection to any woman who wants to carry to term doing just that. I have no problem with signature verification for on site voting {happening in many states}. I have no problem with violence on the left being dealt with firmly, as long as the equivocal violence on the right is also dealt with firmly.
What I have no compromise on are things like "replacement theory", "critical race theory" for school age children, book bannings in school of necessary literature and history, or denying any American the right to vote {and making that right more accessible. Those type of things are the lunacy of Q-Anon and other conspiracy theorists.
Now come back with some areas those of you on the right are willing to discuss.
Your pretense that it qualifies as a national standard.
Riiiiight...
You seem to be intentionally posting obtuse comments.
Again, context fucking matters. His initial question was
I responded with
That is the law, that is the national standard. Doesn't matter where you are purchasing a firearm, if you are buying from a licensed dealer you MUST undergo the background check thru NICS. You don't want to accept it, that's your fucking problem.
Now you're telling me what I think?
Still no intelligent response back from you. All you can do is hurl insults and attempt to argue. It's obvious you don't want discussion. So I'm done with you, enjoy the rest of your day because as far as I'm concerned it's back on ignore for you.
Tribalism is intellectually lazy. It takes about 30 seconds to Google some Republican sponsored legislation that will make people's lives better. Here, this was 7 seconds worth of clicking.
Are you? I'm skeptical Because that would mean a willingness to talk about the overwhelming majority of gun violence, which does not occur with AR-15s.
Are you actually willing to talk about the statistical facts that real life gun violence disproportionately involves black people shooting other black people with handguns? Are you willing to talk about what needs to be done about that? Or do you only care about gun violence committed by white guys with rifles?
There is not a logical compromise on abortion. I'm not sure why people think anybody else cares about their opinion. Either you believe the child's life begins at conception, in which case abortion is murder...or you believe it begins later, in which case it's not murder. Both of those are held as axiomatic by the respective camps, and everything else they believe follows that. Personally, I'm not sure where life begins, so I don't argue the subject, except to refute the batshit hysteria that is currently rampant.
This is an easy solution. Put photos on the voter registration cards. If you're disabled or something and can't get to a registration site, we'll send somebody to you. We then require every state to offer at least 3 weeks of early voting from 7am-7pm, in person only, voter registration card or other govt issue ID required.
I'm skeptical again, because you guys are laughably famous for calling absolutely any level of pro-lefty violence a "peaceful protest". Do you realize that the average BLM "protest" in 2020 resulted in $750k property damage? If your article wasn't basically a laundry list of lefty positions from Daily Kos, complete with "fascists" and "Handmaid's Tale" thrown in to score points with Millennial white girls, I might be more optimistic that you meant this.
Again...you worry about a bunch of redneck idiots protesting in DC for a couple of hours, but you have yet to mention the groovy liberals who actually declared independence from the United States, took over a Seattle neighborhood, extorted the residents, allowed rapes and murders, and kept it going for a month.
Bunch of idiots who are detached from reality. It's the RW version of AOC supporters.
If it's not happening because it's not appropriate, why the hysteria about codifying that? Have you actually read any of the laws that have been passed? To what section of which law do you object?
It's not like they don't teach about slavery, or Jim Crow or MLK. What "necessary" books have been banned?
The ridiculous thing here is that most of the supposedly fascist legislation in question actually improves and standardizes voting access.
What is extremist about the author's opinion on this?
First, I am all for it. Which states will agree to not fight against new assisted suicide laws (since a high percentage of conservatives are religious and pro-life)?
Second, an AR-15 is one "h" of a handgun. And I am pretty sure carrying such a weapon publicly when there is no chance of an invasion should be a violation of some kind in an of itself: Is it though?
Thirdly, and gun lobbyists and republican house and senate: What more do I need to say about them?
Finally, see third paragraph.
I haven't polled states, do you see this as all or nothing?\
I don't know what you are trying to say.
I don't need you to say anything, you asked me for ideas.
Exactly.
You have to be kidding...... You are an intelligent human being making asinine arguments.
I make a statement and you immediately imply that I am being less than honest in what I say.
First, I have supported the right to own arms my entire life. Living in PA, I've been to too many gun shows where too many private sales without appropriate background checks have been made. I'm certain that the same thing occurs in other states. You should google some of the NBC and CBS exposees of these shows.
Second, how about a viability clause for abortion. If the child can live outside of the womb, we can talk about abortion limitations. Until that point, the woman must be more than chattel, carrying some guy's seed and her egg. It's also interesting that those of you on the right won't talk about rape, incest exceptions in the screwed up trigger laws on the books in red states.
Third. just once..... stop with the false equivalency argument that equates property damage with killing. Sorry....they are not the same. The legitimate protests against the murder of unarmed minority men are much more compelling than the violent mass attack on the Capital by idiots who believe Q-Anon and a potentially criminal ex-president who is delusional.
Fourth, among the books that schools in Texas and/or Florida are considering or have already banned are classics like Tom Sawyer, The Biography of Harriet Tubman, To Kill A Mockingbird, etc. This, along with the absurdist banning of math textbooks in Florida should tell even the most ignorant reader how absurdist this really is. Textbooks in schools should be included or excluded by people who have at least a passing understanding of the school curriculum. Parents still have the right to pull their child{ren} out of instruction that they find objectionable.
Fifth, decreasing the number of voting sites in Black and Hispanic areas while increasing access to the ballot in Republican leaning areas does not make voting access easier. Purging the roles of voters in only Black and Hispanic areas does not improve voting access. Indicating that every election that the Republicans lose is stolen and trying to get Secretaries of State to illegally empower alternate electors disenfranchises majorities in any state that this tactic is employed in. With any luck and a reliance on the law, hopefully the asses that tried to defraud the American electorate will not see any more elections until they finish some well deserved prison sentences.
How do they look different than sales with appropriate checks?
But you didn't.
Do you mean like Fetal Protection Laws?
Exactly, you don't see any Dem districts banning Huck Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird.
What was the decrease in Black and Hispanic turn-out in 2020?
No, I do not see it as all or nothing, however where your 'final solution' of suicide is operating, it won't be working in those other places. Moreover, if you have not polled or collected data then you knowledge is incomplete. I am pretty sure conservative states will protest assisted suicide. It is a decided position for them.
AR-15? What the "h" are these humans intent on killing? Since we have have policing forces, national guard, and a standing military industrial complex against enemy invasion. What do we internally need to pump multiple times with bullets? Animals? No. And case in point: these mass killers are not going after the places where guns are such as: police departments, gangsters, and gangs.
Mass murders and spree killers are not looking for a fair fight - are they?
And since you need nothing more, that's all.
Probably.
Good point.
A 'National standard' would include ALL gun sales.
No, I'm doubting your assertion. Context matters...
Judging from your comments, you wouldn't recognize one.
Says the man with the graduate degree screaming fascism and Handmaid's Tale.
Not what I said at all. I even explained it for you.
A point I never mentioned, much less challenged. I simply said I was skeptical you would be willing to talk about the vast majority of handgun violence, which does not happen with large-capacity magazines and is not perpetrated by people with large gun collections. The fact that you chose to ignore that entire theme validates the skepticism.
As I said, I'm not really committed either way on abortion. I see and understand both sides and how they come to their strongly held beliefs. It's a practice I recommend, BTW. So I have no objection to the measures you mention, but you're never going to get meaningful concessions from committed pro-lifers on those things. They see that fetus the same way they see a 2 year old. Nobody is going to agree to killing a toddler because they were conceived during a rape.
You seem to be fond of the word, but the idea that a woman in the United States is somehow "chattel" is ludicrous. You claim you want intelligent discussion. Well, intelligent discussion and melodrama are mutually exclusive.
Do cite me indicating such. And maybe read more carefully. This is twice you've misrepresented what I actually said.
"Legitimate"? Riiiiight. Because looting the local Target is definitely "legitimate". Why is it "legitimate" for an angry mob to burn, loot, and destroy homes and businesses in Dallas over something that happened in Minneapolis?
Why is it more "legitimate" for a group to take over a section of Seattle (because of something that happened in Minneapolis), declare independence from the US, and extort residents based on race than it is for an angry mob to kick down the door of the Capitol, take pictures with their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk, hang around for a couple hours and then piss off to happy hour? People were killed in both incidents. Why are some supposedly "legitimate" and others not?
So far the clear pattern is that things are "legitimate" to you as long as the perpetrators are on Team Lefty, in which case you clearly seem willing to excuse and rationalize absolutely anything they do.
But in the real world, none of that shit is acceptable.
Changing the curriculum does not constitute "banning" anything. For the record, schools cannot ban books. No books have been banned, and no books will be banned, by schools or anybody else. As a former public educator with my own graduate degree, I can attest that curriculum changes all the time and has done so for decades. Replacing Hamlet with The Rime of the Ancient Mariner does not, in fact, "ban" Hamlet. In high school, I read The Scarlett Letter. My son read To Kill A Mockingbird. That does not mean we "banned" Hawthorne.
We took Home Economics out of the curriculum. That does not mean we banned sewing.
The fact is you NEED it to be a theme, even though black on black crime festering as it does-wholly separate and apart from spree and mass murders of this sort- in the black community is a separate category of crime and violence.
You need a deflection. So then, you can pull out your "deficiency" stats in those poor people "see how they act" and then dilute the fact that a WHITE BOY 18 YEARS OLD has been persuaded by some other whites to take into himself the disease of racism, step outside his community, take up arms, and go find some innocent black people (and separate innocent whites who got in the way) to execute on account of him doing something to preserve white dominion.
Talking about the problems of blacks and their community, won't help explain or justify why he did it, or why some whites tell themselves lies about black people and other minorities who simply want to be good citizens in their homeland.
Now then Jack_TX, if you must come for someone on the black on black crime theme, come at me and we will have a discussion about it and how white privilege and blind spots kept active in the lives of minorities helps you avoid mentioning, and relieving the structural attitudes that perpetuate grittiness in the black community.
They can not be allowed to do that. A fetus is in many varied ways not a two years old. These pro-lifers need to be 'shaken out of their stupor'—not given a pass to be more delusional.
Okay, if girls and women are not 'chattel' why treat them as the sum of their parts? Why don't conservatives trust a girl or woman to want to birth a child and issue it from her womb? Why not ASK girls and women if they can manage the process and the ordeal that comes after. Why do conservatives go find a narrative and stake a claim to other humans (liberals including and especially) bodies.
Because according the the telling, no conservative girl or woman worth her 'salt' would abort a fetus, right? Right? Riiiiiight?
So yes, if conservative are demanding liberals girls and women give birth because 'they' say so and fault the constitution as not be grounds for privacy - then, she is being treated like African slaves were treated: without respect and without say so. Why? Because apparently girls and women are on a path backwards to a time and place where females in our country had not rights and privileges that a (white) man ought to respect under law.
And if conservatives can't see the regression trajectory they are setting up (they do) for rights and privileges for minorities and women in this country by holding up the constitution as the be all that ends all, that is a problem for conservatives and not for anybody who is a liberal!
Therefore, what you could find no law to enforce against the residents of those states? Should the insurrectionists have picked their own local to target so they could follow the law and get off scot free? They went to Washington, D.C. en masse, broke up apparatuses and did not take into account that you can't do that there! Why? Because a capital city of a country is a special category of land and all kinds of responsibility is called for when one or en masse attack it.
Now do tell me you understand the differences in degrees. If not I will be happy to help!
Then you should understand why playing semantic word games does not change reality where rubber meets road: contact takes place and translates upward.There is problem in what some conservatives are causing to happen. And instead of you spending your time trying to tell other old retirees like me and others what words mean, perhaps you can ask why is it necessary for children not to face the realities that some of their ancestors were unusually cruel people?
Why does it not bother you that some conservatives never apologize for the detestable treatment of minorities by the majority through the history of this country?
Why do you, a former educator, not understand the wisdom in the phrase, 'those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat it'? Or words to its effect. Surely as an educator those efficiency standards and professional code you worked under would not permit educators to 'dumb down' curriculum as a goal of teaching.
So why do you it now with a disguise of feelings: (which you often pretend to look down on in discussions here) a narrative that young whites should not be made to feel shame for what their 'elders' did to get this country away from Native Americans, and other unfortunate groups of now citizens? And what conservatives are presently lying to themselves about in order to keep this country from being a proper land of equality and equity?
During the course of my career, I've coached over 1500 black boys between the ages of 5 and 19. I've hosted team dinners and study halls in my home. When these boys see my wife in public, they run up and hug her like they're family. Because they are.
I would love to be able to tell those mothers that their sons have no more chance of being shot to death than mine does. That's absolutely not the case, everybody knows it and absolutely nobody is willing to address it.
The actual fact you will avoid with all desperation is that white liberals do not give a solitary shit about gun violence against you or any other black person. They only care about gun violence when a white person kills other white people with an AR-15. This is all about their "feelings", [deleted]
I think you'll find the Constitution says they can believe whatever they want.
Exactly, size, age, hair growth, stand on tiptoes. walk, climb on and down from furniture, etc.
You nailed it CB, don't let those pro-lifers tell you different.
Are you paying attention at all?
Let's be clear... If you kick down the door of the Capitol while Congress is in session, you should expect to be gunned down like a terrorist. If you are lucky enough to survive the event, you should rot in prison for a very long time.
Let's also be clear. If you declare independence from the United States, you should expect the US military to roll tanks in over your stupid secessionist ass. If you are lucky enough to survive the event, you should rot in prison for a very long time, preferably sharing a cell with one of the assholes mentioned above.
No. People forget that those in Congress are not our rulers. They are our representatives. They work for us. When the representatives' offices are deemed sacred ground and the offices of the people they represent are deemed expendable, our republic is upside down.
That's offensive and insane. It's one of the most idiotic comments I've ever read on this site.
Exactly, it’s not like the wealthy white Maryland liberals don’t give a shit about Baltimore, they just don’t know what to do.
By which you mean "understanding that different words mean different things".
For the same reason it doesn't bother me that you don't apologize for crimes other black people commit. You had nothing to do with it. Why should you apologize?
White liberals like apologies, because it doesn't cost them anything and they can "feel better" as they go back to their insulated lives.
I'm curious, how much do apologies reverse income or wealth inequality? 5%? More? Less? How many of those black gun victims would have been saved by people who never owned slaves apologizing for something that ended 150 years ago? If I apologized for Jim Crow, how many points would that raise the average black kid's SAT score?
I wish that were true. In fact, US public education curriculum has been steadily and systematically "dumbed down" for decades... for poor and minority kids. Affluent white kids like mine have never learned more.
Make no mistake, it's not pretend.
[deleted]
Did the United States government exist in 1850, and 1900, and 1950?
Individuals dont "owe" the oppressed peoples anything, the government does. We have the same government we had in pre civil war America, when the federal government tolerated slavery. We have the same government we had in 1900 when Jim Crow was allowed to stand and oppress blacks. The US Supreme Court around that time affirmed that "separate but equal", which gave us "colored " water fountains . Jim Crow was a function of the government, the same US government that exists today. In 1950, when black veterans were denied the same GI benefits whites received there existed the same United States government that we have today.
The idea that past wrongs never need to be righted because "I wasnt alive 150 years ago" is complete nonsense. It doesnt matter whether or not you were alive. You aren't that special.
Exactly, the government should ensure that African Americans have a standard of living equal to what they would have had their ancestors never been enslaved and brought here.
Why?
Your comment doesnt even make sense, at least not in relation to what I said.
I dont even care about reparations. What we do have to do though is have a reckoning that accounts for the wrongs that have been done to people of color for hundreds of years.
What are you all so afraid of? It is inexplicable.
I'm sorry, let's discuss it.
Ok.
What do you have in mind?
I'm not afraid, why did you think so?
Exactly.
Is it too late for you now for further discussion tonight? Perhaps we could pick this important topic back up tomorrow?
Look Jack, I accept that you mean well when you talk about associations between you and blacks of varying persuasions. I can't verify it, but I can relate to it. But, you do realize that I have oftentimes mentioned that I have not only went to schools with whites of all backgrounds, but that I have dated whites as well. Hey, I was nearly engaged to white liberal, before he landed in a coma from a motorcycle accident. So, I have lain with whites and breathed their breath during intimacy, female and male especially. And certainly with all that I have deep and abiding discussions with the same.
So what exactly are you trying to sell me about white liberals that you think I don't know?
BTW, what part about white people marching in the streets with minorities about minority issues confounds you that this all a game for whites? Don't you realize that some white males are marching in solidarity with their fellow citizens over this fool in the grocery store pretending to do "it" in their name?
One can only ask: Are you willing to march with minorities too?
Maybe because if they aren't responsible for it, they owe you and others nothing in the way of apology.
Why apologize for something you didn't do?
Where does this "dumbing down" occur? It certainly sounds like something you should discuss with your local school board if it is happening where you live. What dumbing down is taking place, and where?
Perhaps the sheer ludicrousness of what you want is why.
Why should today's young white male feel shame for something their ancestors did? That is really silly. The US is still here, who took it anywhere or away from anyone?
One more thing, I would NEVER presume to tell you what Mia Love, Herman Cain (deceased), Alan Keyes, Tim Scott, "50 cents," or Kanye West (Yeezy!), and a host of other black conservatives feel about being conservatives.
I don't get why they are in this political experience for themselves, and not supportive (while in the republican party) of the 'other' blacks who by force of numbers lifted them out of the many sewers of project life virtually on their shoulders. Far be it from me to try to diminish their conservatism by condemning white conservatives as not giving any shits about them. I don't understand it. It ain't for me. But, you do give a shit about Yeezy, right?
Decency and humility and empathy cause sensible people to feel remorseful and regretful for the atrocities our kind are capable of. For genocides and for slavery and for wanton cruelty to humans and beasts throughout our shared history, if only so we learn to dedicate ourselves to always being better than our shamefully shared basest human capacities.
You are probably incapable of understanding.
There is a difference between recognizing what atrocities mankind is capable of and owing someone an apology because of the color of your skin.
Sensible people can recognize that quite easily.
I owe no one an apology for something that happened decades before I was even born.
I will leave the senseless, useless "apologies" to the guilt-ridden white liberals.
After you read my post, do tell me what part you don't think I can understand, and why. Or was your sole goal meant to be insulting?
Exactly. But be delusional on their own dime, not liberal girls' and women's dimes. Liberals don't care if conservatives have babies at all or not!
But, we don't need entertaining right now, can you wait and come back later?
Self awareness is the key to understanding...
If you still are not seeing it maybe this helps.
Well, you should go to court and claim standing and get your 'freak-on.' I don't know, Jack! Why are you dropping this on us in here? I, we, don't have any standing in court to bring a case. Go. To. Court.
You last paragraph doubles back on itself. That is, it's circular. It needs. . . checking on.
But the problem for you is some white conservatives do have something to do with it then and now. And apparently it's you who can't process that conservatives hate progress that advances minorities outside of the conservative sphere of consciousness. Which is why conservatives can't be content that liberals don't want babies just for babies' sake.
Good night. More AM Friday!
Are you self-aware enough to even read what I posted and respond accordingly?
I can tell you really believe that nonsense.
You shouldn't make up stuff like that.
I am sorry you are disturbed.
Perhaps actually answering questions would relieve some of your angst.
I think there should be institutions and resources in place to mitigate the permanent damage done by slavery.
OTOH, the Freakanomics podcast had a pretty good couple of episodes about reparations and the most interesting part was on race neutral solutions, like baby bonds.
I can always wait for you, CB.
That is one hell of a specious statement loaded up with assumptions. Granted, suicide accounts for over 50% gun related deaths, but I think that a large percentage of those would not meet the criteria for assisted suicide (meaning medically "appropriate") in any event. Besides, that does nothing to address the deaths that are not suicide, which is more of the problem at hand.
Criteria? Aren’t you pro-choice? Why do you want the government telling you what you can’t do with your own body?
Personally, I do not think that any person has the right to tell any other person what to do with their body under general circumstances. That is my opinion and extends as far as my body. Incidentally (and beside the point), that opinion originates from long ago when I followed the Ayn Rand school of Objectivist Ethics. I have since found my "soul" and my compassion for others. I have experience in situations dealing with suicide and can state that a suicidal person is quite often not thinking clearly.
I also feel that life begins at conception (there is really no other way to view two living cells joining and growing). But, when combined with the opinion from above, I find myself unable to foist my will upon another being. In other words, I have no right, no authority, to force others to conform to my opinion. I can try to explain why I feel the way that I do, offer some of the logic behind my reasoning, but that is the extent of my personal interference in another's life. The other must ultimately make their own decision.
When have you ever known words to be action in themselves? Don't talk dumb. There is such a thing as over-explaining. Every adult understands the power of an apology, for what goodwill it delivers. So, I won't deign to be overlong trying to explain it to you. Just remember home-training and whatever life experiences you have apologizing for wrongs you may have committed against some one other the other.
And what will help black kids if some conservatives becoming part of a holistic approach to solving this nation's problem, issues, and national neurosis, rather than being combative, and trying to pretend this nation is 'perfect' in its failings towards its citizenry of all stripes.
You will have to wait a bit longer, I am on my way out for a very long Friday! Bid me, you, well! Buh-bye!
What a thoughtful, well written response. This is very rare here, Thank you, I appreciate the time you spent explaining your thinking and I agree with you.
Enjoy your Friday, I’m currently on the road as well.
What is it with your 'exactly' bullshit.
Almost invariably, you follow 'exactly' with a strawman comment.
Is that what you view as contributing in good faith?
Drinker, was throwing out its usual red-herring. Stuff that can't work, because you know. . . CONSERVATIVES!!!
I replied to a comment “The idea that past wrongs never need to be righted because "I wasnt alive 150 years ago" is complete nonsense.”
My exactly indicated agreement with an idea on one method of righting the wrongs. Sorry if you disagree with that contribution.
Went right over his/her head! Weeeeee!
What stuff can’t work?
Who has done that to the poor, minority kids in NYC, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, LA, etc.?
Told me what?
A remarkably dense response. Why? Because the living standards of interest and topic is the U.S. standard, and being a 'Smart ass" to write a one-liner tantamount to saying, "Go back to Africa!" exposes a persistent mindset in today's conservatism.
Let me clear it up for you. The United States is where it is today because of immigration-voluntary AND forced. It is the diversity here that is the story because the best energies of this nation's collective minds across the spectrum of its citizenry (here and abroad) make us exceptional, highly valued, and highly flavored.
So your bull patty slight against Africa's ranking in the world aside, this land is black American homeland just as much as it is white American land! Of course, shout out to the beautiful Native American people who while being beset upon 'host' all others here.
An the United States is a multifaceted amalgamation of people and things. While our nation has historically been known for its "white-leadership face forward," do not deceive yourself into believing that whites did it all without the intellect of all its diversified people of color who have given their all to help advance and achieve this country's preeminent status in the world.
I suggested nothing of the kind.
Completly agree, I personally like many immigrants better than native born.
Again, completely agree.
It’s good that you didn’t forget to add them in at the end.
I won’t and I haven’t.
The ability to read your post and completely misconstrue what you wrote is astounding!
How does he do it?
I think that he lets his biases run away with him.
It just always cracks me up when anyone calls for "unity" and "tolerance" and "fairness" all while trash-talking conservatives with every breath.
And I think you try too hard at doubletalk.
Double talk?
I find if I just read his comments and try to understand what he has actually written instead of trying to put MY spin on HIS comments, I understand quite well what he means.
No double talk.
Anyway, I will be out for the whole day too. Have a nice rest of your day!
Enjoy
Bullshit. You weren't agreeing with something in John's comment. You posted a strawman.
YOU are the one that interjected this method:
NOT John.
So, your 'exactly' bullshit has nothing to do with agreement and everything to do with a bad faith pretense of making a 'contribution'.
I’m sorry that I confused you. I agreed with JR’s point that “the idea that past wrongs never need to be righted because "I wasnt alive 150 years ago" is complete nonsense.”
You say method, I said solution, potayto, potahto.
Again, sorry for your confusion.
Looks like "exactly" is a trigger word.
Maybe I should preface it with a warning.
If you're claiming to be sorry it should be for mischaracterizing my comment.
Yet you failed to address John's actual posit and instead interjected your 'method'.
Actually, as everyone can see for themselves, YOU called it a 'method'. Just another bad faith 'contribution'.
Obtuse.
Don't believe it will help in this case!
If that warning stated that your 'exactly' means something closer to 'not at all', it would at least be less disingenuous.
I am fascinated by the discussion of "exactly"!
Highly entertaining!
Tittilating stuff!
Lol!
Look, I’ve already apologized twice for your slowness to understand, I’m not going to go for three.
The witty repartee seems pretty one-sided.
You win!
Yet as your comment illustrates, since both were based on bullshit, they were disingenuous as per your MO.
I don't even know why you deal with that bs. Never has an argument been made on the actual content of a post pr article, but simply saying you are wrong.
Anything to argue something THEY want to argue.
Besides, most of their posts are obtuse.
Your entitled to your opinions but don’t think of them as facts.
You never know when someone may flip the switch and see the light.
The closer something is to truth, the more likely someone is to find it offensive.
But do tell... Regale us all with tales of your actions that have improved the lives of black people in your community.
Excellent. Do explain this to CB, who seems to believe white conservatives owe minorities apologies.
I agree. We the people, as represented by the US Government as well as all state and local governments, owe minorities the same opportunities enjoyed by white Americans. I believe you and I agree that they do not currently enjoy those same opportunities.
Do cite where I have indicated this view. Before you worry about wrongs that stopped 150 years ago, you might want to try stopping the wrongs still occurring today. Do be forewarned, those solutions require far more than writing a check or swapping out a statue.
What I am trying to show you about white liberals that you willfully refuse to see is that they have demonstrated clearly and repeatedly that they care ONLY about their own emotions and that they believe most black people to be incapable of any number of basic life functions.
Black people protest to try to change things. White people protest because it makes them feel better.
What has all that marching achieved? Over 200 black people were killed by police in the year after George Floyd's death.
They painted a few streets, took down a few statues, and renamed a few schools. They did completely symbolic things that were 100% directed at making them feel less guilty.
The fact is that protesting almost never achieves anything, and hasn't achieved anything of significance in well over 50 years. Serious people don't protest. They sue.
When we start to see lawsuits against things like public school districts for discrimination based on decades-long differences in test scores, or municipalities sued over disproportionate numbers of black citizens being killed by police, you will know the protesters have been replaced by effective people and you'll see things start to actually change.
No. And that's the point. Why would anyone care? What are they going to do? Stand around with a few signs, shout a few slogans? If it they get really serious they may go for a walk with signs and slogans? How does that do anything except make them feel better? What tangible action do you expect to see now that the white kids have arrived? Please understand that any expectation greater than "none" will result in disappointment.
They're not going to achieve anything. They're going to march around until they feel better, and then they're going to go back to their comfy lives while black people continue to struggle. But don't worry, we'll start this process all over again the next time a black police killing makes the news.
Oh hell no. Hell to the no. I don't march. I think those people are morons. The most moronic thing about them is that they imagine they are somehow distinguishable from the other set of morons they hate. "Oh no... we're Blue State Morons....that's totally different than being a Red State Moron...those people are evil....now come with us while we break window".
No....if you ever see me protesting you should run, because somebody it holding me at gunpoint.
You sound defensive. . . why is that? What wrongs, plural, stopped 150 years and is it your contention that blacks and other minorities don't need those apologies that are flowing from Congress and several of the state legislatures? Why? Are the apologies meaningless?
Okay, you have staked a position. Who is this 'White liberal' you have in mind, expose him or her. Please proceed. In fact, be liberal to expose more by name if you wish.
What does that even mean? "White people protest because it makes them feel better. ???? What the. . . . You must be talking about white liberals again because your track record is feelings deliver nothing of value for conservatives. Although, evidently, conservatives are UPSET (feeling) about abortion of any type. And guns, conservatives evidently have feelings about guns. And shame evidently conservatives feel about shame, because they are laboring now to pretend that what they were guilty of in the past didn't happen or need not be felt by their children.
So what do you conservatives do as people who do not intend to feel any empathy for liberals? In case, you wonder, yes we liberals don't find it essential to demonize and dehumanize conservatives. Just in case you wonder about that.
.
Perhaps not completely meaningless.
White liberals ridden with guilt will feel better about themselves for apologizing for stuff they had nothing to do with.
Perhaps the people receiving the apology will feel better for a moment or two.
But as far as actually accomplishing anything in the long run, this won't do it.
I have seen enough of your posts degrading conservatives to call bull shit on that claim.
No need to wonder about it at all.
I'm sorry. You're late. Sue somebody for the love of humanity already! BTW, protest is legal and it works. But, of course, conservatives are non-feeling right now and are remorselessly pursuing selfish ambition with a high disregard for social justice. (Conservatives treat "social justice" as a pejorative. Done on purpose as a means to take away its power. Epic fail.)
Could it be this is why you have such disdain for people of color "marches"?
I am not going to dignify that one. You've lost all sense of perspective on that one. And, I don't plan on talking you and your co-conspirators through it either!
Projection, much?
Thus proving my post 14.1.128 true.
Because you're reading things into my comments that I haven't said or implied. Again.
Slavery was outlawed over 150 years ago.
Out of curiosity, how much of your electric bill can you pay with an apology? How much gas can you put in your car? Is ground beef in your grocery store priced in terms of apologies per pound?
Yes, those apologies would be meaningless. They are especially meaningless because the legislators in question have absolutely no intention of stopping the institutional racism that is still ongoing in the current day.
Any and every white liberal who claims to care about the plight of black Americans and considers "protesting" to be an achievement.
Which words exactly do you find confusing?
Yes. Obviously.
No, I'm talking about white conservatives, also.
Sure. Perfect example. They're upset. So they go hold signs in front of an abortion clinic or protest in front of a politician's office or hold a big "right to life" march because it allows them to vent and allows them to rationalize to themselves that at least they've "done something" to advance their cause. In the end, the only thing they achieve is feeling better about themselves for making the effort.
You still can't tell me what any of these morons have achieved.
Personally, I feel a lot less empathy for liberals than I do their victims.
You personally may not. But some liberals simply can't stop themselves.
One must have standing in order to sue. I'm not a minority, ergo I have no standing.
Yes. So is stabbing the back of your hand with a fork. That doesn't mean it's helpful.
Do tell us all what it has achieved in the last 50 years.
It's more a complete disagreement with the prevailing lefty definition of "social justice".
Yes, and will continue to do so until it's defined properly.
It never had power. If it actually had power, we would be talking about it in the past tense and pointing to all the measurable achievements as evidence of how powerful it was.
You're underestimating. I have that level of disdain for ALL marches that are not part of a parade with a marching band. But don't stop with marches. Include protests, vigils, boycotts, petitions, sit-ins, rallies, and anything labeled "occupy" (how stupid are those people).
Which half of that do you disagree with? That white liberals are comfy or that black people still struggle?
Fascinating that anything revolving around what these people actually achieve scares you away.
I don't pay my bills with apologies. It is a nonsensical question. However, as an educator, I am pretty sure you understand the effectual power of an apology. So why come here and belabor it just to be stubborn?
Now then, if you recognize that institutional racism is alive 'today' why write screeds about pretending we can fix problems in this country with protests, marches, and other effective tactics and strategies?
So your 'white liberal' counter-charge is just some abstract consciousness thing you are feeling anger against right now. Got it.
Exactly, CB, you're right to be dismissive of Jack's abstract consciousness ass it has nothing to do with you. He's just an angry man and you're an open, sensitive one.
When somebody quotes a sentence or portion of one consider it the highlighted area in question. Asking which word is confusing is a delaying tactic. Here is some help: There are positive results found in protesting and marches or else people (including conservatives) would not do it. Secondly, why is it even necessary to remark on a nuance point about white liberal feelings about marching, as though white liberals are not arrested, not 'stoned,' not trampled, not 'hosed,' or not entitled to be spiritually uplifted through the efforts of participation?
The 'put-down' to white liberals is one of desperation.
Nay, you are the NT that has no respect for what you pejoratively label, "feelings." Just stuff some cash in and good to go, eh?
This willy-nilly attack on everybody is nonsensical. Are you grounded in anything that we can discuss here? It is hard to have an exchange of ideas with someone whe does not have a stated position, and appears to take positions anchored in mid-air!
I have been accused by an unnamed 'offender,' that I dislike, dehumanize, and demonize some conservatives. That is one man's perspective. What I do is tell it like it is. Conservatives are provoking liberals every day with their efforts, strategies, and executions to limit liberal freedoms. I call it 'liberal freedoms,' because no 'true' conservative wants to admit to participation in any action or activity to which liberals pledge themselves—publicly. That is, if a liberal supports it - conservatives will counter it blindly. Example: January 6, 2021 insurrection. The House republicans and Senate republicans responded with proper outrage that they were 'home-invaded' while on the premises! But then, they one by one and collectively quenched their outrage once convinced they would rather have Trump support than constitutionally defending the nation in the face of white conservative privilege.
A class action suit still requires standing. That is, there would need to be participatory families involved. You could suggest it to black lawyers in your area, since you encounter, have knowledge, and have passion about this issue.
CB, I as a white, European heritage, male, affirm my white collective responsibility, for the horror of African-American slavery and the follow-on systemic racism perpetuated by my ancestors on yours. I feel obligated whenever possible, to shed light on and speak the truth about my peoples actions, past and present, and I'll never be able to admit to it enough.
My forefathers profited from the labor and talent stolen from Black people. My forefathers didn't live in the South and I don't know when they first immigrated here but never the less, I know that in some way that I have profited from slavery.
I acknowledge, regret and offer my deepest apology for the white men perpetuating slavery. and racism.
Even after white men fought and died in our great Civil War, I acknowledge, regret and offer our deepest apology for what white people did after that war. Even though they weren't part of Jim Crow, they failed to go South and put an end to it. The failed likewise, in the North, to end the systemic racism that denied to generations of Black Americans freedom, equality and opportunities that are a birthright.
My apology is completely insignificant by itself and I have much work to do to right the wrongs of my people. As a white, privileged man, I can never understand pain and injury we have caused nor completely appreciate what Black people have don e for this country.
I don't ask for forgiveness for the unforgivable, or understanding for the ignorance of white men. All I can ask is that you point me in the direction of beginning to right the wrongs and how best to make amends.
Thank you for you time.
When the tea-party showed up in Washington, D.C. during the Obama presidency and 'showed out' on the steps of the Capitol - what did it achieve in the republican party. You. Tell. Me.
BTW, though I am not there, I am told that there are protest everyday over something in Washington, D.C. What say you? Is it a waste of time. BTW, lobbyists shelling out funds in D.C. is not about just giving away money. Such men and women are using a form of 'paid' protests to get change or stall change in government.
Your argument against protest is nothing more than a personal bias put on repeat display, Texan. I don't have to drag out all the cases of protestations that 'win' change to satiate or anger you. Read a book on protestations through history for yourself!
If only life could be so 'black and white' and without grays. (Sigh.) But it can not. And, it must be nice to be so satisfied with the state of the world you live in—wait. . . you are not smiling. What's wrong?
"Projection" in psychology means that which is doing the speaking. Conservatives will continue in their 'comfy' live (but unhappy lives because they can not squash liberals) while ogling over the fence into the liberals' back yard looking for something to insult, ambush, or 'deny.' It's a form of conservative greed.
Indeed. I am literally quaking in my boots with fear. /s
And you introduced the word, "ass" into this: Why? What's up with that?
Thank you. You can stand with democracy. Stand against 'the old guard' that continues to exist no matter how many times its political heads, plural, are removed. Black people and people of color are woven into the fabric of this nation. Some of us, as 'material,' were sewned in forcefully, yet other material colors were removed and left on the seamstress' floor. We were all here then, and we are all here now.
We would like first an end to the political struggles to be something less than 'one people' borne out of many migrants and Native people. And second, we would like justice, equality, and fairness to be the American way for all and not just something aspirational but not achievable. Due to hateful, biasss, 'strongmen and women,' racists institutions which keep 'erecting' themselves up as 'towers' of division for each new generation of the citizenry to confront and have to overcome.
Like any people who are giving their all to the cause of liberty and freedom, blacks and other people of color simply want to be 'wanted,' treated with decency, respected for our ideas in this country. And, of course, for the country to move forward as one instead of standing still in divisions.
I meant as, don’t know why there are two S’s, You have every right to be suspicious.
Here is something special to make your day:
Congress Apologizes for Slavery, Jim Crow : NPR
Now that an apology has been noted, what say you on the effectiveness of said apology?
Has your life become enriched or improved because of some words spoken as an apology?
Has minority lives in general improved because of said apology?
Or do you demand yet more apologies?
He has, repeatedly.
You keep looking over the answers to the very questions you ask.
He clearly stated that:
I do believe that would include liberals, conservatives, and anyone not aligned with either group.
Why keep asking basically the same question when you have the answers you seek right in front of you?
Have no idea. You get out of school what you put into it. The only dumbing down that I see is from people who don't have any intention of interacting with public schools. There is an awfully lot of teeth gnashing that goes on about "the children" of the country... until school budgets get voted on.
You don't say. Really? Who knew?
So what are they worth, exactly?
So...answering your question is "belaboring". Riiiiight.
I have specifically said...repeatedly.... that protests and marches do NOT fix those problems. Please pay attention.
No, you listen! Your comment about apologies holding no sway (with you you mean) was utter bull patty. And, you know that to be so—educator! But you tried to blow 'smoke' about it anyway! Moreover, you got caught pretending not to understand institutional racism and conservative status quo-ism, until your own conscience revolted and you 'vomited' out the truth:
It is our job as members of humanity to bring those who choose to go afar off, back to their 'first love' which is other people and not isolation ideology alone.
Please list those for us.
I've already told you why they do it.
Really? You think a march for racial equality is great if the only positive result is "spiritual uplift" for white liberals?
If you're happy with that, then OK. Personally, my standards are higher.
What standard is that Trump supporter. Pssst: Transactional politics simply means selfish gain and benefits, in this specific case through continuation of oppression of poor minorities by select whites who get up each morning looking for and working to not share their privileges with another!
Just so you know, in the 'universe of abstractions' no one may really know what in a protest rally or march is effectual in getting results from onlookers and power-brokers. Like a multi-faceted diamond there are more 'sides' being illuminated and exploding in detail that the impact spreads all around.
Nothing. That. Is. The. Point. Glad we're coming to agreement.
Absolutely a waste of time.
Who, specifically?
So no examples then. OK.
You are correct.
That is untrue. Tea-party protests on the streets, resulted in a Tea-party caucus in congress today. Where they vote on conservative direction for the House and Senate. Your protest at work!
Get your own examples, you're a former educator so I know you know how to read and 'do' research.
The Tea Party predates the Obama presidency by several years.
Are you sure?
Great piece, Doc. Hope to see more of your work in the future
ditto
In the sixties, thereabouts, when Dr. King made this statement it was a useful piece of rhetoric. However, as time marches on, its purpose is weakened by foes who have no interest whatsoever in justice for other outside their scope of influencing. Selfish foes who show up to these columns to dissemble (hide their real intentions), diminish, and dilute discussion. Chaos-makers. Yes, these "regressors" were around before, doing, and after Dr. King uttered the phrase. And they are as stubborn and deliberate as ever.
Ah, the New American Fascism. Be afraid, be very afraid. But that buzzword intellectualism always ignores a key component necessary for the rise of Fascism. That key component is political parties.
Under Fascism a political party assumed higher authority than government. Government became an extension of a political party. The political party controlled the executive, legislative, and judicial institutions of government. The political party favored party members and controlled elections to benefit party favorites. The political party, itself, was controlled by a select elite that manipulated the political party in an autocratic manner. That select elite used the political party to establish a highly centralized, autocratic government.
So, the real danger to democracy comes from political parties. Weakening decentralized government is a threat to democracy. Government becoming an extension of political parties ultimately destroys democracy. Any New American Fascism would be the result of political parties becoming too powerful and undemocratic.
Roe v. Wade was imposed onto the country by an autocratic institution of government. The Supreme Court does not represent the people. The Supreme Court is not accountable to the people. Political parties are trying to obtain control over that autocratic institution of government. The Roe v. Wade decision was not reached in a democratic manner.
The central issue indirectly addressed by Roe v. Wade is when the rights of people come into force. And Roe v. Wade addressed that issue with circumspect intellectualism.
Is a stillborn a person? The baby has been birthed but is dead. Does that mean the corpse is biological waste that need not be given the respect of a person?
Why isn't removing a fetus through the birth canal a birth? What differentiates a fetus deliberately killed in the womb from a stillborn?
Law. And, you should know this because conservatives argue constitutional contract law as the day is long. But yet, here you are taking a 'chisel' to a(nother) SCOTUS precedence.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
What connection do you see between this and partial birth abortions?
How about that connection through SCOTUS precedence? You know, those orators of what is constitutional law, what is not, and what is stare decisis?
How about it?
Again, what is the connection that you're trying to draw with contract law?
A stud muffin explaining how something just went right over his head (and kept on going and going )!
I've made an attempt to play to your perceived strengths, but that has not fared any better so. . . I suggest we let it alone.
I don't know what you mean, so...
Thanks, you really cleared that up. Why do you find him a stud muffin?
High cheekbones "to die for."
No worries.
Whatever turns you on.
What, me worry?
Do voting rights apply to primary elections? Primary elections are administered by the government yet political parties claim autocratic control over who can vote and how people can vote. People are not allowed to vote in all the political party primaries.
If political parties assume autocratic control over the selection of candidates and conduct of elections then how can voting be an exercise in democracy? Political parties are actually limiting the right to vote.
What is the point of this 'exercise,' Nerm? We have systems for many reasons. They may not be perfect, but at the least they are actionable, participatory (a key component), and workable.
The irony with this one is how remarkable it is to see those conservatives who demand the greatest excesses of freedoms for themselves from any taint of tyranny, will deliberately hound and persecute liberals all throughout the course of their lives. These types of goings on have been occurring or waiting in abeyance since the beginning of our country. And frankly, enough is enough!
I do believe it is high time to stop playing the victim and take personal responsibility.
The second amendment is a high context (impressionistic, not detailed) statement about safety and self-defense from others who use guns and other weapons to harm their fellow citizens. In this way, the law is appropriate and practical.
However, some conservatives wish to ignore totally the value of low context (which fills in essential details) meaning within the bill of rights as a counter to wholly treating rights as black and white, and thus, having a dangerous and deadly control over many of our lives. That is, protecting a right to self-defense from harm should not be used as a cover to allow others to bring about the same amount, or worse, set of harms.
Here is the straight 'skinny' on this one: These conservatives are not 'stupid,' what they are is deliberate. There is a strong desire in the conservative movement to set back equal rights and equity through a pretense and cover of color-blindness. Colorblindness for these people 'deploying' it today is a charade.
These conservatives are "survivalists" in the sense that they look for any and all ways and means, to keep this country in a one-sided 'tilt' of a white majority.
It has always been the case with a select conservative population within the majority (not all whites of course) to look for and execute ways to slow or halt the advancements of people of color in this country. A country which some conservatives perennially view as 'owned' by whites,—'er now the appropriated deployed is: Conservatives.
As a result, these conservatives, select as they are, deliberate as they are too, intend to 'whitewash' their minds and to raise generations of white youth borne into a 'combat mode' mindset where what has been apologized for is not readily known or accessible without effort. In order to continue their select quest for the past 'glory' of this country looking to its supposedly >white< history when "America was great" ; and in the process, re-subjugating (if necessary (and it will be)) minorities by any means necessary.
Lose our democracy? Corporations are people, wealth is speech. Decorum and respect for the lie.
Appears we already have.
There is an antidote. It is ugly. Do onto them as they will do onto you.