Yoy can't get further left in the mag field than Mother.
Everything they say can be taken with large grains of salt and Socialism.
Great reading in place of an enema.See their history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Jones_(magazine)
i would be offended if such lack of reasoning is directly affiliated with socialism.
It seems to me that people who turn to government to control their lives have little interest in taking control of it themselves. Thus, we have well over half a century of government welfare, affirmative action and prefferantial treamtment of certain segments of the population with little, if any, growth seen from those communities as a whole. It's sickening.
you know i have to wonder about people that whine about affirmative action. you say it's done nothing, but then in california you have whiners that want to abolish it because it was TOO effective and the asians are just dominating and devouring the UC system. which is it? it worked or it didn't? you hate it either way...
and the fact is it's not even an informed opinion, it's all generalizations because there are poor and uneducated asians too. in fact in california, asians occupy both extremes... kinda like whites, whoa.
ROSS IN RANGE
Race, Values, the O.J. Verdict, and Right-To-Carry, or
A Statistician Explains a Conundrum
By John Ross
this entire article is a shame. i particularly despise the part that suggests white america would not have a raving celebration that someone got off the hook for murdering a "racial other." GET REAL, it'd BEEN HAPPENING. let's not cover up reality of much of the evil that REALLY exists in the world with overarching generlizations about political and social opinion which cannot be known for fact or justified as such.
the unique socioeconomic context of the oj trial was people SHOULDN'T have had a clear cut verdict they were "voting" for. rich dominant culture should have been rooting for a rich man to win. rich dominant culture should also have been rooting for the "other" to lose.
poor minority other should have voted for not guilty, but poor minority other should also have held the rich bastard accountable, to promote a moral equality in justice.
we can all see that nothing is "as it should have been"
Imagine that during The Howie Long Trial there is the revelation that one of the black cops involved with Howie�s arrest disliked whites and had used the terms "white devil" and "honky" in the past.
please imagine with me if it's even possible that while howie is being called honky and white devil he is actually socioeconomically and sociopolitically inferior. and then i'll show you someone who's really got some racial bias under his skin.
Re-interpreting the intent of the Founding Fathers based upon the social and political rhetoric of today. She is interpreting is as she WISHES it to be.
absolutely shameful, because it is by fundamental philosophy of government that i find the second amendment to justified. debasing it off some post facto or on the basis of add on reasonings that don't get to the origins of the political philosophy is like saying someone is wrong after you redefined the meaning of what you were discussing.
The NFA was a response to the Mafia, and the GCA was a response to the Civil Rights Movement. The Second was about kicking butt- whether it be tyranny or King George.
i want to throw more gas on the fire. WHAT IF it WAS made to keep blacks down by arming white slave owners? our country has obviously made the mistake about slavery... we corrected it. now that 2nd amendment is afforded to blacks and whites alike (let's take an ideal world without exceptions for example first). do we abolish the 2nd which is or at least CAN be used for freedom and liberty just because it was originated (in a ficticious sense) in racial or racist motivation? the FACT is it's not racist now right?
Yet, somehow it is assumed that only a White person can be a racist. Yet it is accepted that the South is the whipping boy for the country’s societal ills.
i'm of the opinion that anyone can be racist. but when it comes to racial violence, or violation of an individual's rights or livelihood can only be perpetrated by those who have power.
it's easy to dish out and accept any number of racial innuendoes, in fact it's even legal to some extent as part of free speech (as opposed to spitting or something else which is assault--another type of violence--and has NO place in anywhere). i am willing to accept this "problem" (as surely it is a "problem") for the sake of liberty, freedom and that free speech should not be infringed.
that aside, when we start violence at BEYOND words and thoughts, who are the perpetrators of what?
As far as race, my opinion is that it's only an issue because people make it an issue.
The world is full of ignorant morons.
They'll target you because you're Asian, or because you're blind, or because you're a woman.
Or they'll target you because you're the white protestant male who is the source of all their problems.
Either way, morons are morons.
In an ideal world they'd all be smart enough to google "moron", see their pictures associated with that term, and rehabilitate themselves.
But alas, this is not an ideal world.
this is certainly an oversimplification and that also suggests something about your ability or desire to solve the "issue" which in my opinion comes from understanding... a little more than just naming everyone else a moron...
My dad always told me that "People are just people, you have good and bad from every country, race, and religion." I have found that to be true. I grew up in a pretty much all white town, blacks were not wanted here, but it was not really an overt thing. I played sports and traveled around the state and ended up making a lot of black friends, I worked out and got into a little boxing/martial arts, and made some Asian, and Latino friends. In the process I found that my dad's words were very true. So while I grew up around some who were prejudice, I was both taught and learned to give people a chance. Now then I spent some time with some of my black friends from the Chattanooga area, went and played ball in a few places where I was the only white guy there, and I can honestly say that I was treated by some there in a very "impolite" fashion, all for being white, and NOT staying where I should. Had the same type of experience with both Asian's and Latino's as well.
i think there are many stories like this, in fact all stories must be like this. the fact is that humans form groups, social collectives that they think can benefit them. you see it in high school, church, work, government, countries, states, ethnicities, nations etc etc etc. in fact this is natural and logical. problems with these scenarios are that we are in a small world these days. no one is an island, although many wish to be. it's hard to find people who agree with you. it's hard to find a line of reasoning that doesn't cross paths negatively with others. there's too many individuals.
with all this in mind, is tolerance not necessary? and by making that statment, isn't that what this is all about? tolerance? and my punch line, does tolerance not come with greater understanding of everything?
<RANT>But that wall only works one way. Only whites are silenced. I for one am sooooo sick of the nonstop accusations of racism from black "activists", especially when just about every white person in America walks on eggshells when it comes to race and fears making the slightest error that could even remotely be construed as racist. Meanwhile even prominent blacks (Sharpton, Wright, Jackson, Berry) openly exhibit their racism like it was a Nobel Prize, and rank-and-file blacks feel perfectly justified and righteous in their race-based hatred and denigration of "whitey" and "crackers."</RANT>
are you not already displaying the same type of "verbal or mental" racism? and so what if they hate you so much? antigunners are prejudice in the same way. what is with the frustration? you want to be able to express your racism without feeling bad? what are we really talking about here? people that are insistant on expressing their racism without feeling bad will do so. if you feel bad for it then stop, if you don't then carry on. there are plenty of people on both sides, doing both expressing and keeping silent. what's wrong??? you want ALL the blacks that are being openly racist to get checked? not gonna happen, just like it won't happen that ALL the whites that are openly racist get stopped...
let's be real here.
Here is where it falls apart.
I reject the qualifier that to be racism, it must be applying power to injure someone. This implies A.) that only a person in a position of power can be a racist, and B.) Racism only exists through action. I find those qualifiers ridiculous. I’ve met plenty of people who could be called racists who have NO power over another person, nor have they taken any action against another person. Yet, they are clearly racist.
I can show you examples in our culture where the term “Racist” has been applied and widely accepted where neither of the above conditions are present. Where society fails the test of intellectual honesty is in cases where that SAME measurement and condemnation is NOT applied to others.
We’re going to get ourselves into a whole pile of it if we ever applied things evenly across the board…especially if we were truly to apply the definitions we have been presented.
I’ll explain.
this is why i don't use the racist/prejudice nomenclature. i use the racist/violence nomenclature. you are not allowed to condemn someone for speaking freely, but once they cross the--boundary and that threshold IS LOW--it should become unacceptable to intolerant.
Most reasonable people would concede that neither the KKK nor any various “Neo-Nazi” organizations have any real power or influence in the USA. To varying degrees, they may have had some influence at one time, but that day is gone. So….
this is where the definition of power being used is the social science definition, or ethnic studies definition. it's a very humanties way of putting things. the fact is power in this sense is enforcing something on someone else. this can be putting a gun to their head, or making a law that says they can't have guns. it can be spitting on them or it can be cussing them out so bad that they cry. all these things are violence caused by "power" of an individual or a group. regardless... once it crosses that threshold of thought and speech, it should be unacceptable to be so intolerant.
If a person has that preference, and then votes in that manner, they have shown preference, are in a position of power (a vote) and takes action (votes.) Therefore a person who votes for Obama where his race is a considered component in their decision-making process IS a racist.
it won't be violence until obama passes some antiwhite laws (which i don't hope he tries to do). and in that case you can call them racist or prejudice but they're not enacting any violence yet.
in response to your "closing arguments" jwarren.
i agree with you and i just articulated differently, to me, understanding brings tolerance, to you, respect and communication bring tolerance. it's all the same. the endgame is to be able to live amongst one another, not even to like each other, just live side by side without someone violating someone else.
in that sense i think people need to stop playing down the other side. every time i hear some stuff about race card, i think to myself, why mention it??? we know it for what it is, even if it is sometimes bull**** but take this thought...
as minority there were many times in life when i was the subject of some racial violence in either a childish or professional way, either or. that brought about in me a sensitivity, one that is commonly observed by both "victims," "perpetrators" and bystanders of racial violence/violation.
this hypersensitivity ripples through the generations like a wave, depending on what time the first pebble is dropped and how much understanding and education comes over the life time. if there's anything we know about ripples in a pond its that they subside. youthful ferver brings big ripples, and yes there are surges and resurgence of racially motivated agendas on all sides. but it's like youthful Democrats turning into aged libertarians... eventually things settle out if the right efforts are placed towards understanding, respect and communication.
one problem with the race subject is that it's ugly and gets ugly and this natural progression towards moderation and tolerance is many times hindered, slowed or just reversed all together because of the ugly nature of the debate and the grouping nature of humans.