Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Miscellaneous 89
1) Note to all progressives - not every year is 1932.............2) Note to all Tea Partiers - not every year is 1980.............3) I hate to age myself here, but I can actually remember back to a time when Republicans didn't genuflect to tax-cuts/the concept of never, EVER, raising them. Now, this isn't to say that they wouldn't try to tighten the belt a little bit prior to raising them. But, folks, I'm telling you here, if Howard Baker, Gerry Ford, Bob Michael, etc. ever had to choose between raising taxes and having the deficit mushroom, they'd flat-out raise those taxes every time....They believed in paying the bills, I guess is what I'm saying.............4) I have no idea how many of those recorded jailhouse visits between Casey Anthony and her parents that the jury ever saw. BUT, if they saw the ones that I saw....and still gave credence to that cockamamie defense explanation that the father disposed of the body, then, yeah, those frigging jurors are flat-out imbeciles. That poor bastard had NO IDEA where his little granddaughter was. I mean, yeah, common sense and his experience as a law enforcement officer were probably pushing him hard in a scary direction, but for the defense to say that he himself was involved - that, in my opinion, was defense attorney lawyering at it's very worst.............5) And now we have some of these jurors speaking out. One of them the other day said that she couldn't convict because she didn't know the exact mode of death. I mean, what, she wanted a videotape or something? First of all, in a lot of murder cases/convictions, we DON'T know the exact mode of death (Scott Peterson, for example). Sometimes they don't even have a frigging body I hear. Of course, if these if these same jurors wanted a more detailed narrative, hows about this one? Casey Anthony a) chloroformed the kid (either to intentionally kill her or to put her to sleep and she died accidentally), b) put the damned duct tape over her nose and mouth, c) put her in the trunk, and d) dumped her lifeless body in the swamp.............6) Well, either that or Zanny the Nanny did it.............7) What probably pisses me off more than anything, though, is the fact that Ms. Anthony and her attorney BOTH know knew that that child's body had already been disposed of - a) while all of the searching for her was taking place and b) while Casey was giving her parents the major run-around. That, folks, to me, is pretty close to evil. Hopefully here, any money that the woman gets will be taken from her in court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
So where was the failure of our judicial system? What would you change?
Probably nothing, Jerry. I'm just venting because it feels good.
Venting is good! We all should probably do a little more of it.
I did not follow the trial. This is what Nancy Grace is criticized for. The disappearance of little White kids is extensively covered while the disappearance of little Black kids isn't.
So Will is outraged about the case he's heard of, but what about the other cases he hasn't heard of?
I can't respond to the "notes" to progressives and teabaggers because I'm not sure what the hell Will is getting at.
Nancy Grace, who I consider an asshole, doesn't just cover white victims. And what are you saying here, that I care less when black people are killed? That seems to be what you're implying.
Its just WD's white guilt showing through again.
Rusty, just because WD played the race card, doesn't mean you have to also.
According to what I've heard, Nancy Grace (and the news media in general) are guilty of giving more coverage to white good-looking humans, and less to anyone else.
I don't know why dmarks says I "played the race card". Does he believe racism is a thing of the past and has been totally eradicated from our society? I've heard some Conservatives try to suggest such BS is true...
"White guilt" is a term used by those who oppose affirmative action and similar programs that are designed to address past injustices and ongoing racism. If someone uses the term it strongly suggests to me that the person harbors racist sentiments.
"Community Organizer", "Obie", "your BOY" and "White Guilt"... all could be interpreted as racist, and Rusty uses such phrases quite frequently. I think it's pretty clear what the evidence suggests.
Anyway, my primary point (the one that Will missed) is that this particular story has received an extraordinary amount of coverage... but what about those that haven't?
My suggestion was that Will is outraged because the news media is telling him to be outraged (it had absolutely nothing to with black or white).
Me, I'm not going to care about this particular tragedy more than the others just because it got more news coverage.
WD said: "I don't know why dmarks says I "played the race card".
Because you DID. You brought race into the discussion (in the form of accusing Grace of being racist, something Will disproved)
"Does he believe racism is a thing of the past and has been totally eradicated from our society?"
It's all over the place. From real estate red lining, to the re-invigorated Michigan university policy (a leftist one) of denying people university admission for having the wrong skin color.
But we weren't discussing race in general. We were discussing Nancy Grace.
""White guilt" is a term used by those who oppose affirmative action and similar programs that are designed to address past injustices and ongoing racism. "
Actually
1) Affirmative action racism does NOT address past injustices, since it gives absolutely no regard to whether or not the individuals who benefit or punish have been involved injustice in the past. It punishes people for skin color, not actual wrong doing. It rewards people for skin color, not whether or not they suffered anything at all.
2) Affirmative action creates ongoing racism by forcing businesses, government agencies, etc to deny and promote people based on skin color rather than real qualifications. If you favor this racist policy, you are by the definition of the word a racist.
I consistently oppose all racism. Whether it is Jim Crow against one race or affirmative action against another.
So, wd, I'm outraged because the media tells me to be outraged? What do you think - I'm a carbon copy of you watching Keith Olbermann?............And even if Nancy Grace did cover more black victims, you'd probably STILL have a problem with it - this, in that most of the black crime is black on black crime. You'd say that she was unfairly attacking the black perpetrator. Everything has to have an angle with you.
Will: Perhaps what we are dealing with is some sort of racism by which Grace should cover stories based on the skin color of victims, instead of other non-racist determinations of merit.
Not that WD is a racist, but perhaps he is, since he just earlier defended a policy (affirmative action) which explicitly punishes and rewards people based on skin color, instead of actual valid (non-racist) reasons. For now I give him the benefit of the doubt.
I just get the feeling that he is always ready to pounce; the politically incorrect word, sentiment, etc.. Like when Rusty uttered, "your boy", I knew (and, yeah, maybe Rusty did, too - he, the provocateur) that he would hammer him. I knew it!!
Will: I just get the feeling that he is always ready to pounce... Like when Rusty uttered, "your boy", I knew... that he would hammer him.
Totally false. I gave Rusty the benefit of the doubt at first. I thought he was just insulting the president in general. Certainly I did it when doofus was president (and I continue to do so). But the evidence as stacked up over time. He uses ALL the code words. I don't know how you can deny it Will.
I fully support affirmative action by the way, so you can stuff your "benefit of the doubt" dmarks. He cries about "racism" against Whites! This is the hallmark of a genuine racist, IMO. Or maybe he's just an extremely misinformed individual (I don't take accusations of racism lightly).
dmarks: You brought race into the discussion (in the form of accusing Grace of being racist, something Will disproved).
So it's OK when you do it -- by bringing up your bogus claim that affirmative action is racist against whites, but not OK when I discuss REAL racial biases?
Also, I didn't say Nancy Grace is racist, therefore Will could not have "disproved" it.
Check out the comments in response to this YouTube video: Missing White Women Syndrome.
Excepting the first racist comment, I think the other commenters nailed it.
WD said: "I fully support affirmative action by the way, so you can stuff your "benefit of the doubt" dmarks."
So you are supporting racism.
"He cries about "racism" against Whites!"
I dislike ANY racism, and condemn any of it when I see it.
""This is the hallmark of a genuine racist, IMO."
You are being illogical. Pointing out and condemning all forms of racism is the hallmark of someone who is not racist at all.
"I don't take accusations of racism lightly"
Yet you embrace a blatantly racist policy....
"-- by bringing up your bogus claim that affirmative action is racist against whites, but not OK when I discuss REAL racial biases"
Actually, I never mentioned whites. My actual arguments are solid and hard to defeat with logic, so you made up one that is easier to defeat. And it is. But... it is not mine.
Affirmative action is very racist since it demands that skin color be used as a criterion to judge human worth: to punish and reward people. The controversial University of Michigan admissions policy is a clear and specific example of this type of policy. It gives people of a certain skin color a special boost, advantage (puts then in the front of the bus, if we think in terms of Jim Crow), while it cuts down others.
It does so without any regard to injustice or historic disadvantage, since the situations of these individuals is never taken into account.
Thus, under the blatant racism of affirmative action, the daughters of President Obama (black scions of wealth and power) get a special boost in applying at universities, while dirt-poor children of Ukrainian immigrants get ground into the dirt even more because their skin color is white.
That's pure racism at work.
dmarks: I never mentioned whites. My actual arguments are solid and hard to defeat with logic, so you made up one that is easier to defeat. And it is. But... it is not mine.
Of course it is! This is EXACTLY why you slam affirmative action, the purpose of which is to "compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination".
The "ruling class" of our culture are Whites, and those who have historically been discriminated against are Blacks. If you bring up affirmative action you're bringing up the persecution of Blacks by Whites, so your claim that "Actually, I never mentioned whites", is inaccurate.
Also, "Pure racism" has GOT to be a term those advocating White power use.
"This is EXACTLY why you slam affirmative action"
No. I slam it because it is explicitly racist. There is no other reason. I would oppose any other racist policies if people came forth here to defend them. But for now only you are defending instances of racism here.
"the purpose of which is to "compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation"
Affirmative action does not do this at all. It gives rich people a boost of they are of a certain skin color, without any regard to whether or not this person has been discriminated against, persecuted, or exploited. It also punishes people of other skin colors, whether or not they perpetrated any persecution at all.
If what you are doing is actually trying to punish and reward people because of what others of their same skin color did (or received) in the past, you are being even more racist. Engaging in a sort of racial profiling. This is quite unjust.
"...by the ruling class of a culture, and to address existing discrimination"."
Completely untrue. Most (if not all) affirmative action policies give absolutely no consideration as to whether or not an individual has been discriminated against. If you find one, let me know.
"The "ruling class" of our culture are Whites"
Actually, many of our rulers are Blacks, including the top ruler of all. Sorry you are incorrect on this. The ruling class term has a meaning: it's the people who actually rule.
"If you bring up affirmative action you're bringing up the persecution of Blacks by Whites"
No, I am bringing up a specific racist policy, which I oppose purely because it is racist, not because of the skin color of the victims of its racism.
so your claim that "Actually, I never mentioned whites", is inaccurate.
"Also, "Pure racism" has GOT to be a term those advocating White power use."
Huh? There's no logic to that. I oppose all policies which are purely racist. This includes redlining, racist quotas (affirmative action) to hire people on skin color instead of real merit, and Jim Crow. Identifying each of these as "pure racism" has nothing do with white power.
The difference here is that I oppose all racism, while you are passionately supporting this one proven racist policy.
Here, we can get into specifics of one these racist policies. From Wikipedia, on U of M:
"The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicant, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth only 12 points."
See, there is explicit punishment and reward based on skin color. Something very akin to ordering seating rights on a bus based on race in the Jim Crow era. And there is a distinct lack of any consideration given to whether or not any of the individuals affected by this have been discriminated against, or practice discrimination.
This firmly meets definition 2 of racism: "2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race." as this policy discriminates for and against people based on race. You can't weasel out of this one.
Oh, and by the way, you linked to a site to prove that my condemnation of pure racism was a white power thing. The site you linked to in fact had no reference to the "pure racism" term at all. A big Oops on your part.
While the phrase is not in your supporting link in any form, a Google search is englightening and shows that the truth is the opposite of what you claim:
Two instances use "pure racism" to condemn injustice inside African nations.
Two instances complaining of white racism against blacks.
One by leftists that use the 'pure racism" condemnation against the Tea Party.
A few instances complaining of forms of anti-Native American racism.
A couple that are too vague to tell.
Just one instance in the top 10 is found by an Obama-basher, quite possibly a white supremacist blogger.
So there you have it. Proof that condemnation of "pure racism" is not a white power thing.
dmarks: So there you have it. Proof that condemnation of "pure racism" is not a white power thing.
I made a casual observation that, in my opinion, "pure racism" sounds like a term those who advocate white power might use. My link was not intended to be proof that my causal observation was a fact.
Comments CAN be comprised of both facts and opinions. In fact, I'd say that is what we are MOSTLY doing here: voicing our opinions. If you think you can forbid me from voicing my opinion I say you can stuff your "oops" where the sun doesn't shine.
dmarks: Here, we can get into specifics of one these racist policies. From Wikipedia...
My definition of "affirmative action" was from Wikipedia! So, when I quote Wikipedia the information is "Completely untrue", but then you quote Wikipedia to "prove" your point?
dmarks: See, there is explicit punishment and reward based on skin color.
Completely untrue. I don't see where it says there is any kind of a point deduction for being white. Your "explicit punishment" doesn't exist. Affirmative action isn't "racist", it's pro-diversity.
WD said: "I made a casual observation that, in my opinion, "pure racism" sounds like a term those who advocate white power might use."
It's beyond casual. It's careless. Even the most cursory thought given to the matter would bring out the point that white supremacists revel in racism, and would rarely use phrases which condemn it.
"My definition of "affirmative action" was from Wikipedia! So, when I quote Wikipedia the information is "Completely untrue", but then you quote Wikipedia to "prove" your point?"
Why the quotes around prove? Is there any doubt at all that the University of Michigan policy, which spells out which people get rewarded for which skin color, is racist?
The truth can be found in both quotations. Those who favor affirmative action claim that its goals are like what you quote in Wikipedia.
But when one looks at actual specific affirmative action policies, as I have done, you will see little or no regard given to situations of past or present discrimination, and plenty of hard undeniable racism.
"Completely untrue. I don't see where it says there is any kind of a point deduction for being white. Your "explicit punishment" doesn't exist."
Sorry, I assumed that anyone discussing affirmative action might have some familiarity with the most significant case of the era. I assumed too much.
I suggest you read up on it to find out that it is NOT the case where every member of every possible race got a 20 point boost.
"Affirmative action isn't "racist", it's pro-diversity."
The first part of the sentence is not merely an incorrect opinion, it is uninformed and false. I already showed with a specific example how one famous affirmative action policy is very racist. And 'pro-diversity" does not preclude being racist. If you persecute people for having the wrong skin color on the way to achieve your "diversity" goals, that is still racism.
dmarks: It's beyond casual. It's careless.
They would condemn it if they thought it was racist against White people like them. This is why you're condemning affirmative action, because you think it's discriminatory against Whites.
I said that "Pure racism" sounds to me like something those who advocate "White Power" would say, and I stand by that observation.
I've got quotes around "prove" because you didn't prove your point, you only think you did.
dmarks: I suggest you read up on it to find out that it is NOT the case where every member of every possible race got a 20 point boost.
I am aware that only minorities got the extra points. The reason is to promote diversity. What I said was that white students did not receive a 20-point deduction. It's not in there. I suggest YOU read more carefully. It might cut down on all the false allegations you've been making.
dmarks: If you persecute people for having the wrong skin color on the way to achieve your "diversity" goals, that is still racism.
The "wrong" skin color? Come on, we all know you mean White! You're claiming reverse racism, which is something genuine racists often do.
Also, nobody is being persecuted except White people, and that's just in your imagination.
WD: "They would condemn it if they thought it was racist against White people like them."
You are lying. Accusing me of racism when you have no evidence of any.
WD: "This is why you're condemning affirmative action, because you think it's discriminatory against Whites."
It's not a matter of me thinking. It's a matter of fact. The fact that affirmative action is blatantly racist against whites, Asian-Americans, Native Americans (often included and forgotten) and other groups.
"I said that "Pure racism" sounds to me like something those who advocate "White Power" would say, and I stand by that observation."
Even though it was proven to be a wild unsupported guess not supported by facts.
"I've got quotes around "prove" because you didn't prove your point, you only think you did."
I did, most certainly.
"I am aware that only minorities got the extra points."
A clear admission that the policy is racist. Case closed.
"The reason is to promote diversity."
Again, racist policy to promote diversity is still racist.
"The "wrong" skin color? Come on, we all know you mean White!"
No, you are lying again. I've consistently oppose all forms of racism, and in fact I've been the only one here mentioning examples other than affirmative action.
"You're claiming reverse racism"
Caught you in another lie. I never claimed reverse racism. Go ahead and text search this entire discussion. It's your argument, not mine. I am merely pointing out the fact that this policy is racist. Not reverse-racist, but racist.
"Also, nobody is being persecuted except White people, and that's just in your imagination."
Any individual denied opportunity because of institutional racism such as red-lining, Jim Crow, or affirmative action is a victim of racism. And that's a fact. That's what racism is. It's not imagination.
It's fact. The U of M policy is explicitly racist. If it removed ALL consideration to skin color, it would be non-racist.
But it takes a hell of a lot of imagination to claim that racial discrimination in the name of "diversity" is somehow not racial discrimination.
Bigots often have different reasons WHY they institute racist policies. Some better than others. But that never makes it any less racist.
dmarks: Caught you in another lie. I never claimed reverse racism. Go ahead and text search this entire discussion.
Actually, I just caught you in a lie. While you didn't use the words "reverse racism", this is EXACTLY what you are describing. Do you think if you describe something but don't name it... you can claim I'm lying when I call you on it?
Anyway, it's OK if you think I'm a racist and a liar dmarks, because I really don't give a shit what you think about me. I know you're wrong. And I'm going to continue to support Affirmative Action and diversity.
I think that a college campus and/or work environment can benefit greatly from a diverse population. But I also don't think that this should be arrived at strictly by quotas. Have race be one factor among many. For example, accept a black student who, while they have a slightly lesser test score, has excelled in another way; leadership at their high school, volunteerism, the fact that they might have done very well at a lousy school, work history (they had to work, the white applicant didn't), etc.. Make it more of a total package type of thing.
Post a Comment