WatchI've stayed mostly quiet on this issue because I'm not a big believer in racism. Human beings are genetically predisposed to avoid strangers, and one of the criteria is race and species. Both blacks and whites and others have numerous reasons to be pissed off at each other, and it's best not to fan the flames by pretending it's anything more than it is. Both blacks and whites on the left are often too hysterical about racial issues, and most people on the right can't get through the day without bleating "RACE CARD!".
However this publication by the well known neoconservative slime machine National Review editor John Derbyshire is about to change my mind. John Derbyshire isn't some KKK jerk in the shadows and the National Review isn't some rogue fringe website. In fact National Review articles are directly wired into Newscrap and frequently quoted without editing.
I just have one editorial comment myself: Republicans, get your fucking people in line before you incite a genuine race war! You mouth-breathing zombie pricks have no excuses this time. The next Republican jackoff that defends the right against charges of racism should go soak his head in the toilet.
Here's the link. You may have trouble pulling it up because "firestorm" doesn't quite cover it and the servers are crashing:
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire
Short version:
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
I'm speechless and really wish I hadn't read that. What an ignorant fucking asshole.
It's ironic how talking about "the talk" and the very real racism that exists could trigger this kind of thing.
Sad to say but I think it could be politics. Obama's advantage is that to many of us his race is incidental, and not something we think about often. The right would love it if he was in a position where he had to get into the middle of racial ugliness, asserting himself in ways that allows them to pander to peoples fears and prejudices.
Note the comments from Newt and others (on this site) about how terrible it was that Obama said "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon"
Wtf ? Overreaction to anyone asserting the fact that how he looked may well have been a factor in his being killed. What's that about anyway ?
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
What, he was offended when he learned about "the talk ?"
At least they fired him quickly.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/07/national-review-fires-john-derbyshire_n_1410273.html?1333840125&ref=media
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
marcus says
Yes they had no choice, but it still leaves a genuine hardcore racist publishing tainted material for the National Review for years.
Millions of earnest denials from the right all gone in a puff of smoke. It's impossible for a Republican to ever claim "We're not racist" again. John Derbyshire was a heavy advocate for the Tea Party too.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167276/john-derbyshire-national-review-and-conservatives-race-problem
Follow
Befriend
40 threads
2,652 comments
Not all conservatives are racist, but if you're racist you're probably a conservative.
(yes, there are racist liberals, too, but they're the exception that proves the rule).
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Are you kidding? 10b, 10c and 10e are probably statements given out by most large city police departments across America.
Police departments are local law enforcement agencies of the government, are they not?
Choose one: Political correctness or personal safety. Duh.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
I'm glad you're admitting to be shamelessly racist. Honesty is the best policy.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog, I stand by my statement that most law enforcement agencies in America give out similar warnings to 10 b,c and e.
I also noticed you chickened out of answering the simple question: If you had to choose one, which would it be, Political correctness or personal safety?
My guess is that you will duck and dodge and refuse to answer, again. Prove me wrong.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
You didn't ask a question. You said a rhetorical "choose one". How can I chicken out of answering something you didn't even ask? Is your life so devoid of success that you've got to invent one?
I would choose personal safety over political correctness. So would pretty much everyone. The problem is we're not talking about that are we.
Honest Abe says
I always prove you wrong other than when you prove yourself wrong.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Agreed. Many would choose personal safety than "political correctness". It just seemed like you disparaged John Derbyshire over political correctness, thats all.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
I disparaged John Derbyshire for being a racist prick, inspiring fear and hatred of blacks, and publishing something that will make everything he's afraid of far worse. If he doesn't want to walk around in poor black neighborhoods, then maybe he'd be more comfortable in poor Hispanic neighborhoods or poor white neighborhoods. No? Then why would he incite a race war by signaling out blacks?
Besides none of that was my main point. My main point is that you and your friends who post on this board defended the Republican party and the Republican media against charges of being racist.
Boy I bet you feel stupid now!
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
iwog says
No he doesn't. But his comments say everything that needs to be said.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
My main point is that you and your friends defend the government against charges of creeping tyranny. The best thing you could do to help the 1%'s...if you REALLY care, would be to reestablish limited, constitutional government.
PS I case you haven't noticed, I'm more a libertarian than anything else. Libs tax and spend, Repub's borrow and spend. Both seem to embrace war, both seem to enlarge government - none of which is healthy for human wellbeing.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
I've refuted this 100 times and I'll refute it 100 more because people like you don't listen. Ever.
When you remove government, you don't replace it with freedom. You replace it with aristocracy and the tyranny of wealth. Government stands between you and people who would make you a slave. That is its primary purpose. You spit in the faces of the founding fathers who knew who the enemy was. You're a disgrace to your country and your heritage.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog, you STILL haven't learned, Government isn't the solution to America's problems. And who EVER said to REMOVE government????? I said LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT...which is what our founding fathers wanted.
Its you, your liberal friends and your president who are shredding the constitution.
You have your head so far up your rearend that you are a disgrace to the human race.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
I understand Abe's need to defend his team, even if all he has is emotion and bluster. Our founding fathers were in a different time but Iwog's right and at least he makes a very clear argument.
iwog says
It's about balance and no matter how imbalanced it get's Abe's type will always argue for it to be more so.
Privatized prisons. Fully privatized health care, except medicare - but they want to privatize that. Privatized miltary. Privatized schools.
We have a system where privately owned prisons lobby against relaxation of drug laws. That's just one glaring example of how messed up our system is.
http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2012/3/25_Incarceration_Nation.html
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
If government isn't the solution to America's problems, how did slavery end? How did women get the right to own property? How did we pull children out of coal mines? Why are there seat belts in cars? Why do children no longer die from expired milk? How come we haven't destroyed all our forests like Great Britain did?
Corporations are almost always on the wrong side of history. Government for all its flaws is almost always on the right side of history. You don't have the fucking option to replace government with NOTHING. Someone is going to fill the vacuum, and that someone is going to want you starving so you'll work for almost nothing.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
There won't be any race riots, you already know that. After President Johnson saw them that hot summer he cranked up the "war on poverty" and everything else to keep people quiet.
No thinking person will want to sacrifice their being caught in the streets and failing a drug test thereby risk losing some benefits.
If you dislike something some nobody wrote somewhere, write an editorial back.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
The founders didn't want an absence of government, they wanted a limited power executive branch, and a limited power federal government. They specifically tried to extremely limit the power of the executive to prevent someone acting like a king of England over us.
Having lived in New England, the towns had government called Selectmen, and then went up from there. Government was considered local and not central.
The founders could not have envisioned nor perhaps approved of a :department of education, department of energy, department of homeland security, department of transportation, the FBI having nation wide police powers, TSA in airports, etc.
Not all of the above are worthless, but the idea that rejecting central planning and control means rejecting government is absurd.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
True.
And there's no "free market" without government to break up monopolies and trusts.
It's time for Zombie Teddy Roosevelt to run for president. We need a new "Square Deal."
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
iwog says
But weren't many of the founders members of the aristocracy themselves? A few of them also owned slaves, if I'm not mistaken.
Follow
Befriend (9)
70 threads
930 comments
San Leandro, CA
A persistent, primitive human trait is the inclusion of religion to define the parameters of their very own GANG. Catholic/Protestant/Christian/Judaism/Islam.
Works great for racism too. It provides a feeling of security and also used to intimidate.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
Some caveats are in order. Derbyshire did not publish this article in National Review, and National Review fired Derbyshire over it. If one thinks that it is at all salient that NBC fired the editor who edited the Zimmerman call, then these facts should impress.
Derbyshire was apparently something of an envelope-pusher on race. Surely one could come up with controversial remarks that he published in NR, and which NR did not fire him for making. But tarring NR over the content of this particular article is not appropriate. There was nothing they could have done to prevent its publication, and they did everything they could to condemn it.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwoggg, for about the 100th time...who ever said to "replace government with nothing"???? It must have been YOU - because it sure wasn't me.
What I said, and continue to say, is to replace big, oppressive, ever-growing, Omnipotent, interventionist government with LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Got it?
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
I guess most of you guys were never mugged.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Most would be considered middle class. They owned enough land to sustain their families and their slaves but little else. Quite a few died with more debts than assets. Jefferson comes to mind.
The real aristocracy either went back to Britain or fled to Canada.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Honest Abe says
You're lying. You want to see every restriction on the free market removed. Oh sure you want government to enforce corporate contracts and protect rich people from the riff raff and make war when you can profit from it, but when it comes to government protecting workers from huge rich corporations? You want it gutted and left for dead.
Very clever to try and make this a conversation about ALL government when no one was talking about ALL government.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
You're going to compare the Zimmerman edit, which may have been a mistake for time or may not have been, with Derbyshire condemning the entire black race?
Really????
Neoconservatives will try to make Derbyshire look like a rogue element in an otherwise pure movement. It will be complete bullshit but they will try.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Can we resurrect the old Democrats? You know, the New Deal Democrats? Sans the racist Southern Dixiecrats?
I'm tired of having to choose between Neocons and New Left 60's radicals.
Follow
Befriend (41)
91 threads
1,806 comments
Iwog, I have never, ever said replace government with nothing. Not once, ever. Limited, constitutional government is the solution.
Do I want EVERY restriction removed from free enterprise? No. Most of them - it depends which one's. Many of them, yes. Particulary the ones which are barriers to new businesses. You know - many of the retarded zoning restrictions, "permits", fee's, government red tape, micro-management, added taxes, the burden of regulatory compliance, and the like.
Do I want government to protect corperate contracts? No. I want government to enforce the law and protect ALL contracts. Or is it in you're make believe world that "some contracts are more equal than others"? Hahaha
And again, in case you haven't noticed, I'm probably more anti-war (and war profiteering) than you.
But I don't expect any type of intelligent response from you, just some stupid rant, a couple of barbs and some swear words thrown in for good measure. That seems to be your MO.
Follow
Befriend (5)
1,070 comments
Santa Cruz, CA
Why tired? Start a group of like minded people on facebook or craigslist, etc.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
iwog says
You're doing what you rightly call out fools here for doing: obfuscating and dodging. To answer your enthusiastically punctuated question: yes. And to put it back to you: why not? (???)
(You won't answer, because you can't.)
Whether the employee was spouting racism, or doctoring recordings, or plagiarizing, or inventing false stories doesn't really matter. The crux of this question is if and how an organization can distance itself from the morally indefensible actions of a rogue or stupid employee. If that's possible for NBC, in principle, then it's possible for NR. Only after it's shown that the organization bears responsibility should the nature of the offense be seriously considered.
If I call you a murderer, the claim doesn't become any more true for being heinous. This is obvious, yes?
In terms of determining responsibilty: the only salient difference here is that NBC is trying to distance itself from something done on company time, in its own newsrooms, and published under its own brand. NR, on the other hand, is attempting to distance itself from something an employee did on his own time and published elsewhere, completely outside their control.
If you don't want "the neoconservatives" (what does foreign policy have to do with this? I'll presume you're talking about NR here...) to distance themselves from this (in an intellectually honest way) then you should be looking up the things Derbyshire wrote for them, which they published, and which they did not immediately fire him for.
From the tone of Lowry's announcement, I'd bet that such content exists. But it is not in evidence, as it were.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
I've never dodged a question in my life and I never will. I don't know how.
That being said, I have no idea what you're asking me. Why not what? As far as your answer of "Yes" is concerned, it really isn't enough. How is the condemnation of any contact with an entire race the same as omitting a word or two?
Is it possible you're asking me "why not" without providing the "why" yourself?
msilenus says
So what? NBC admitted an error. What more do you want them to do? News organizations cut segments out of quotes all the time because they are trying to package the news into small enough pieces so the average consumer can handle it. You don't know if it was intentional and neither do I. However under no circumstances are these two incidents comparable.
It's NORMAL for all the news stations to sensationalize every story and publish it with as much drama as possible. Where Newscorp differs is they ALWAYS force a bias to the right while most other media is playing to the audience.
Follow
Befriend (3)
8 threads
335 comments
You asked me if I'm "Really???" going to compare two things. I said yes, and then asked why not. As in: why is it not appropriate to compare those two cases?
The question stands.
Follow
Befriend (4)
28 threads
776 comments
iwog says
O boy...slavery didn't exactly end. If you read the 13th amendment it was made illegal..unless duly convicted of a crime. You cannot claim something ended when the terms "unless" are added to the criminality of it. The 13th amendment was largely invoked when chain gangs were imposed. In short the government nationalized the process and regulated that it would only be imposed on those convicted of crimes. And it was used by southern states to get cheap labor from former slaves to perform reconstruction.
We pulled children out of coal mines from preventing children from working in the first place. FDR did that although there are exceptions in acting and farmwork for children.
Seat belts in car exist because companies invented them and Chevy screwed up with the Corvair. If you eliminate that car chances are it would have taken another decade or so to put them in. Children can still die from expired milk if they don't know how to read!
If you claim to be on the left that is fine but how can it be argued that everyone is intelligent and empowered but yet everything is wrong? Government was understandable when there was no recourse but with the internet these days there is.
As for NBC they edited not just the news but a 911 call transcript which is technically a governmental account....that's bad...really bad.
A mistake is only a mistake if they admitted to it and found it. By allowing other parties to find it first and then waiting to make a response it implies that it was not. If no one brought it up would NBC have admitted to it? The media usually has people check things. Then again the NYT had the jason blair issue which pretty much caused it to drop like a rock in credibility.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
That piece about homosexuality is somewhat tame, but it does show what a pandering idiot he is. I think he confuses tolerance of homosexuality with liking the concept, which is absurd.
Of course for a man who is not gay, the literal thought of man on man sex isn't going to be appealing. But only a moron would think that accepting homosexuals (out of the closet) into society without judgement, is the same as being able to relate to their sexual preferences.
"That opinion was, after all, well-nigh universal 30 or 40 years ago"
That's quite an argument. Let's send them back to the closet. They should live in shame and know that their inclinations are the perversions that they are. Don't dirty us with the ugly knowledge that these minority preferences exist.
He should ask himself why like most men he probably is less disturbed by gay women than by gay men (the reason is obvious: a man can relate to sexual attraction to women).
He passes the moron test in my book. Not that he didn't already.
I agree with Iwog. NR is in the business of sharing opinion. One of their very regular writers shared some very ugly opinions, that reflect on them.
As for the NBC mistake, that was just a stupid mistake. And maybe it does tarnish their image of objectivity. But they are a news organization who at high levels pride themselves on not being about bias or opinion.
In the NR case it's more like something true about the Tea Party and many hard core republicans slipped out. They accidently released just alittle bit too much opinion.
See Ben Adler (http://www.thenation.com/blog/167276/john-derbyshire-national-review-and-conservatives-race-problem ) -
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
msilenus says
Figures. You'd ask me a question you refused to answer yourself namely why it's appropriate to compare those two cases.
I already answered you in part. One was probably a mistake OR an attempt to over-sensationalize the story for media consumption. The other is a hate filled rant condemning an entire race.
They are different at every level. One is a personal drama involving two men. The other has broad implications for millions of people belonging to the African race. One may or may not attempt to label a single individual as a racist, the other is without any doubt an attempt to condemn all blacks in every situation.
So what's your side? You didn't present a side so we don't know, you just said they were the same. Furthermore you made this insane childish assertion:
msilenus says
I am not a member of the American fascist movement. I am not a brainwashed robot programmed by Newscorp. I HAVE the ability to think for myself, answer questions, and make intelligent arguments. Marcus and Thunder have done the same.
There is no parity between the right and the left. I often say right-wingers can't answer my questions, which is probably why you decided to mock me, however when I say it I'm telling the truth. You're not. I suggest you absorb this lesson and ask yourself why that's the case.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,572 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
mdovell says
Seatbelts exist in cars because they were mandated by the government. In this case, automobile producers fought the regulations because they didn't want their cars to be considered unsafe. In all my other examples, it was government forcing corporations to do the right thing, in many cases with violent opposition.
Government is the only tool people have against wealth. Destroying it is destroying the ability of people to reign in power. Republicans have no intention of removing government and leaving a vacuum. They have people waiting in the wings that are all too ready to restrict freedom in lots of creative ways.
Company housing, company stores, 80 hour work weeks, pollution, toxic working conditions, unsafe products, and forced mediation with a 99% success rate for the corporation in any dispute. That's what you're voting for when you vote Republican.
Follow
Befriend (5)
168 threads
5,098 comments
mdovell says
Seat belts and the Corvair were two independent auto safety issues championed by Ralph Nader. The Corvair was said to be crash prone. We had one back in the late 60s.
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,415 comments
Davis, CA
marcus says
Ralph Nader unjustly takes the credit for seat belts.
THIS incredible man is who we should credit with all the lives saved by seat belts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp
John Stapp was present when LBJ signed the 1966 seatbelt requirement into law.