Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Affirmative Action in the Wedding Notices?

Admit it: You regular sneak a peek at the New York Times Sunday wedding announcements, as a kind of highbrow People magazine (which was only created to shorten the perception of the waiting time in doctor and dentist offices).

The NYT wedding announcements are typically blue-blooded affairs—-Thurston Howell the Fifth, grandson of Thurston Howell the Third, lost on a three-hour cruise in 1964, marries Buffy Trumpington-Cadbury, etc. Of course, the Times pays homage to diversity by being sure to include minorities of all stripes, but these are usually high achiving minorities, i.e., Harvard Law Grads, Ford Foundation program officers, scientists, and so forth.

It would seem, however, that the Times has to lower its standards dramatically to include announcements of gay partnerships. Today, for example, includes a notice for the nuptuals of Anthony Brown and Gary Spino. Brown is "of counsel" to a law firm in East Rockaway (not exactly Fifth Avenue white shoe territory), having earned his law degree from Brooklyn Law School, and Spino is an office manager for an osteopath.

Not likely that a hetero couple with such credentials would make the wedding page. The Times former "public editor," Daniel Okrent, criticized the paper’s coverage of gay marriage for its "cheerleading" tone, which extends, so it would seem, to its wedding notices.

Discussions - 83 Comments

Interesting, Mr. Hayward, that you start off your post ostensibly with disdain for the elitism conveyed by the NYTimes wedding notices, and finish with a fine display of it yourself, putting down a gay couple for their humble credentials. Do you think that low achievers, as those whom you’ve named presumably are, shouldn’t have announcements of their "nuptuals" (sic) in the Times, or are you suggesting something more egalitarian, that all low-achievers SHOULD, regardless of sexual orientation? Since your blog is certainly not anti-gay, and appeals to all intelligent web surfers, I hope that these gay commoners don’t happen upon your denigrating assessment.

Ian- You must be mistaken! The right would never sink so low as you suggest, here: Why, read the following from a posting from this very website!

This is a heck of a morning. I get up earlier than ususal (about five) and learn about continued mischief in London and then this: The Left is actually making out that Judge Roberts may well be gay. After all this is a guy who studied French and Latin in high school, was on the wrestling team, and participated in the choir, and, oh yes, there is this: at least once he wore plaid pants. Of course, you understand we’re not saying he is gay, besides even if he is it’s OK by us because are are on the Left and we don’t care, we’re just pointing all this out. Do with it what you will, say they. Isn’t this something? To what lengths will the Left go? They are beneath contempt, says Powerline.

Posted by Peter Schramm | Link to this Entry | Comments [5] | 7/22/2005 7:08 AM

So, you see, Ian. Right-wingers love gays, and hate homophobia. You can put this in your collection: We are winning the war in Iraq, we are winning the war on terrorism, Karl Rove is a victim, Liberals hate freedom, Republicans reach out to African Americans, Roberts can’t remember if he paid dues, what’s good for business is good for America, no child left behind.......

You see, Ian, it’s all a part of compassionate conservativism. Why don’t you believe them?

Were you looking at the editorial wedding section - the true chosen few - or the newly added paid wedding section? Amy Sohn described it thusly in a Feb. article in NewYorkMetro.com.:

"The Times’ asking price is $48 a line, which means that even the most economical couples will have to spring almost $1,000 for a bare-bones, twenty-line announcement. Adding a decent-size picture could up the total by another several hundred dollars. What the brides are fretting about most is not the cost but the stigma: The paid notices will be clearly delineated under a banner that reads “Social Announcements,” in a six-column format different from the “Weddings” page—thereby eliminating all the prestige. Where is the coup in appearing in the Gray Lady if everyone knows you paid her off?"

But no, there’s nothing for me to admit. I don’t sneak a peek at the wedding announcements in the NYTimes because I don’t care, one way or the other. It’s easy for me to think of 1,001 better ways to kill time than that. The whole game is pathetic.

Do you think that low achievers, as those whom you’ve named presumably are, shouldn’t have announcements of their "nuptuals" (sic) in the Times, or are you suggesting something more egalitarian, that all low-achievers SHOULD, regardless of sexual orientation? He thinks the Times breaks its own (unwritten) rules to propagandize for homosexual "marriage". And that’s pretty much what he said, and pretty much all he said. Duh.

"So, you see, Ian. Right-wingers love gays, and hate homophobia. You can put this in your collection: We are winning the war in Iraq, we are winning the war on terrorism, Karl Rove is a victim, Liberals hate freedom, Republicans reach out to African Americans, Roberts can’t remember if he paid dues, what’s good for business is good for America, no child left behind......."

Fung, it’s this type of sarcasm that makes people in the "Red States" vote against the Democrats every time. Yes, actually, Liberal DO hate freedom. Except for the freedom of criminals and terrorists. They’re VERY concerned about freedom for those people. And yes, Republicans actually do reach out to blacks. Look at at Colin Powell and Condi Rice, for example. If the Republican Party is so racist, why would they recruit blacks and Spanish people like Alberto Gonzales to such high ranking positions? Let’s see your smug answer for that one.

Sandra- Please: The Red states vote based on sarcasm? Not the candidate, but the level of sarcasm expressed by important people like bloggers? If you are right about that, then the bubbas of fascism are in bigger trouble than I thought.

In answer to your question about Rice and Powell, there is a difference between changing the window dressing, and changing the contents of the store. The reason that the Republican Party HAS TO reach out to African Americans and other ethnic minorities is that everyone knows that the Republican Party is the rich, white man’s party. Few people are fooled by tokenism, these days. By the way, while I hate Rice, I think very highly of Colin Powell, and I think it is too bad what the Bush Administration put him through: making him ride shotgun on a wagon-full of lies about wmd’s, and other false pieces of evidence for the UN. So please don’t interpret my opinion about Bush’s motives as a statement about Powell’s (or Rice’s) character or qualifications.

Liberals DO hate freedom? Sandra, if you have bought that stupid lie, then I truly feel sorry for you, as well. What a shame, that there are people willing to give up even the freedom to think for themselves. To believe that disagreeing with a party is equivalent to hating freedom. Do you know that Liberal and Liberty share the same semantic roots? So you know why? Because Liberals value personal, individual, intellectual, religious, and expressive freedom.

It is the tendency of people to swallow that line of garbage that allows cult leaders to enjoy unquestioning obedience from their followers. And, for totalitarian ideologues to enjoy the same. Jews caused the war, gay marriage threatens YOUR marriage, liberals hate freedom. Swallow that, and you’re on the first step to losing your real freedoms.

Is Gonzales really from Spain?

Actually, Fung, people like Hitler depended on folks like you...haters and people who thought they had been wronged by "those" people. You really should read your own words sometime...they drip venom. Indeed, I have a new theory about you. You disappear for a few days and then the toxins (in your own head) begin a critical buildup. To "discharge," you come over to a perfectly nice center-right website and spew on the rest of us. Nice...how thoughtful.

As for racism, when will black folks and assorted others escape the Democrat plantation? Of course we aren’t going to welcome minorities who are socialist or racist themselves, but there’s ample room for thoughtful minority voters who desire actual IMPROVEMENT in their lives.

ELC - I think you’re the first spokesperson for a blogger I’ve run across. It must be so exciting to work so closely with him that you even know what he THINKS!! Is that a well-paid position?

Sandra - Nice post - did you borrow those tired old talking points from Dain?

Dain (the real one) - This is a great quote: "Of course we aren’t going to welcome minorities who are socialist or racist themselves..." Oh yeah, I bet the socialists are just beating down your door, right?? That’s really too bad that the Republicans don’t have a big enough tent for the socialists, who I’m sure are just dying to share a platform and agenda with you.

When you recruit these "black folks," be sure to show them the growing gap, during Republican administrations, between white median income, and Black median income, as well as the growth in poverty rates overall. Be sure to show them the growing gap between Black arrests and White arrests, then the growing gap between prison sentences for Blacks as opposed to those for Whites. Be sure to show them that.

Be sure to show them what "supply side economics," and "trickle-down" theory have done for people of color!

Then, point to Colin Powell, and Condie Rice, and tell them, "Hey, if they can do it, then so can you!" Then wait around for the response. Try doing in person, instead of when you are protected by cyberspace. Share with them your earlier rant about the poor white people who have lost such ground to the eithnic minorities while Dems dominated the Supreme Court. Complain to them about how you and your white male capitalist fat-cats can’t find a job. And how Share with them your "theories" about "Race" and intelligence.

Try that, in person with a real person of color, and report back to us, you hypocritical, double-speaking bigot.

For the record, Hitler depended on right-wing authoritarian brown-shirted intellectual sheep, who were cajoled, and threatened and bribed into hateful, violent actions against Jews, gays, ethnic minorities, and anyone who disagreed with the Nazi party line. Fling the double-speak all you want, Dain. Yours is the party of rich, white men and homophobes and right-wing authoritarian religious fundamentalist intolerance.

Be sure to show your gay friends the party’s record on legislation for hate crimes, and gay marriage, and gay rights.

Don’t talk to me about hate, Dain. I hate what some people do. I hate institutionalized intolerance and racism, and aggression and poverty and needless war, and eploitation of the weak. You hate people because of their color and their insistence on speaking a truth that threatens your complacency and self-congratulation.

Finally, I see that you are back to telling me what is in my own head. I hope that the readers are growing as tired of that as I am. Please, please!!!!Attend to your own excuse for a convoluted worldview before you pretend to understand how other people think.

Oh, and I nearly missed this one: "...you come over to a perfectly nice center-right website..." Too precious. If NLT is "center-right," what would be some examples of right-wing blogs (not extreme right fringe stuff, just standard right-wing fare)?? Seriously, I’d like to know. NLT is "center-right." Wow.

Honestly, Fung and J Montgomery, you guys need to give it up. How’s this for racism. If the Republican party (like the Democrats) have to "reach out" to a group of people based on such petty, unchangeable conditions like race and religious denomination, then they are participating in racism.


The sad thing is this is so accepted. I have, and will continue to talk to individuals, whether they be black, homosexual, female, Muslim, etc. about how a democratic republic is based on the idea that all men are created equal with (via reason) the ability to govern themselves.


Therefore, the categories you perpetuate by insisting that individuals cannot govern and improve themselves are the antithesis of democracy.


You have the audacity to say:


Then, point to Colin Powell, and Condie Rice, and tell them, "Hey, if they can do it, then so can you!" Then wait around for the response.


And you point the finger at us? We’re the racists? As you blatantly make clear you think it impossible for minorities (blacks in this case) to improve their conditions on their own, maybe you ought to take note of the fingers pointing back at you in the process.

Jmont/Fung (same person, perhaps?), I could show you some hard right websites, but why? That would require some thought, and so far you haven’t show us that particular ability.

Fung, you are one crappy social scientist. You know that income inequality is a very tricky phenomenon. Most of it has to do with 1) immigration, 2) the entry of women into the labor force and the rapid formation of dual-earner married couples, and 3) family dissolution among blacks (in particular). Of course white married couples are doing much better than black female-headed families! Duh....if black people want a "bigger slice of the pie," the best advice is 1) finish your education, 2) get a job and KEEP it long enough to gain some experience, and 3) get married and STAY married. If you would like to debate me on this, bring it on! If black people want to find out what’s holding them back, they should do two things: 1) examine their pathological relationship to the nanny state, and 2) look into a mirror.

As for black crime, tell me something, Fung. What’s the ratio of black-on-white vs. white-on-black crime? Do you know it? Do you dare answer me?

I will say it again, because it is the truth. When minorities approach the GOP wanting a hand up (not a hand out), they are welcome. We have thousands of black Christians who are doing just that, and they will be helped. They will escape the Liberal Plantation, and they will join the mainstream.

But hey, at least we can force by compulsion individuals through the government to improve their condition for them. Now that’s justice, that’s equality, that’s faith in the ability of man. ( How’s that for sarcasm ?)

Fred- You have reversed my statement, which of course renders it incorrect. What I have been saying is that people of color KNOW that the Republican Party is not their friend. They know the record on Affirmative Action, official English, immigration, regressive taxation, hate crime, and so on. Therefore, the Republican Party HAS to reach out to people of color. You reversed that statement.

Second, I am happy about you talking to individuals. I bet you talk to alot of them. But, you haven’t reported on their response when you give them the crap about us all being equal. As an ideal, that is terrific. As a reality, it is not.

Slavery was not equally distributed, Jim Crow was not equally dnforced, poverty is not equally experienced, and exploitation is not, either. This is why there is not an equal distribution of nonwhites in the two parties. Democrats don’t pretend that whites and nonwhites are playing on a level field. And that is my response to your charges that I am a racist. Which party is the racist one: the one that keeps the odds in its own favor, but lies about it, or the one that openly strives for fair competition? I never suggested that any group cannot govern itself, or take care of itself, if the conditions are fair. But, you point to Powell, or Rice, or Gonzales, and suggest that failure to attain their stature must be a personal failure! Or, in Dain’s case, the suggestion is that the entire "Race" (a term that has lost its meaning and validity) is inferior.

You people kill me! Now that the WMD argument is gone, you defend sending (predominantly nonwhite) soldiers off to Iraq to defend the freedom of people you couldn’t give a rat’s patooty about. And at home, you fight Affirmative Action, and Welfare, and progressive taxation, and hate crime legislation, true education reform , because, according to YOU, everyone has equal rights and equal access to education, jobs, and the American Dream.

Faith in the ability of man? Buddy, if it wasn’t for the Blue States, the South would still be the Confederate States of America, with its sodomy laws, and corporal punishment in schools, and Bible-toting intolerance. That’s how much faith I have in leaving it up to "the people" to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Don’t remember uttering a peep about race here, Fred. But if you think you saw it, then it must be so.

Have you begun writing your "Why I switched to the Republican Party" essay for National Review yet? And ya better start planning your ’08 speaking tour as well. Fun stuff.

Sorry J, I guess it was due to the whole "If NLT is ’center-right,’ what would be some examples of right-wing blogs (not extreme right fringe stuff, just standard right-wing fare)?? Seriously, I’d like to know. NLT is ’center-right.’ Wow.


Of course the NLT is for right nut-jobs. You said nothing about race.

About the whole National Review essay, I don’t know yet. First, in the name of being a "white fat-cat capitalist" (as the dear Fung would claim), I would have to check the financial incentives for doing so. Of course, you guys keep supplying me with such reasons why I should have crossed over long ago, and I might not be able to pass it up. ’08 I think is a bit early for a talking campaign though.

Oh, for God’s sake Dain, why don’t you just drop the insult-fest and throw out a short list of the right and far-right websites? Really, it’s an interesting question, and I for one vow to simply look over your list without comment.

OK, Fung, I guess I’ll have to do it again...beat you down with logic and evidence. Man, you don’t learn!

First, let me point out that you haven’t addressed what I said about income distribution or black-on-white crime. Of course, I understand why you remain silent...you’re shooting blanks.


"They know the record on Affirmative Action, official English, immigration, regressive taxation, hate crime, and so on." So, are you saying that state-sanctioned racism is a good thing? That we don’t have a right to expect people to speak English here? And hate crimes...do you suppose they would be applied fairly? If so, mostly black people would go to jail under those provisions.

"Democrats don’t pretend that whites and nonwhites are playing on a level field. And that is my response to your charges that I am a racist. Which party is the racist one: the one that keeps the odds in its own favor, but lies about it, or the one that openly strives for fair competition? I never suggested that any group cannot govern itself, or take care of itself, if the conditions are fair." So, are you saying the white folks just LOVE Jews and Asians? Both groups have been extremely successful in this country...are they just evil exploiters too, or did they
earn there place in the sun? Your racial theory of statification is utter BS...

"Now that the WMD argument is gone, you defend sending (predominantly nonwhite) soldiers off to Iraq to defend the freedom of people you couldn’t give a rat’s patooty about." You know, Fung, I’m willing to forget ignorance, but outright LIES anger me. The military is dominated by white soldiers, just as it was in Vietnam. Indeed, the casualty counts aptly demonstrate that white men have and will continue to be our "typical" soldier in the field. Check it out for yourself. 73% of casualties in Iraq have been WHITE (Non-Hispanic).

Fung, I didn’t reverse your statement at all, I copied and pasted it from your prior post. You should be more careful about the way you say things if you don’t want someone to misinterpret what you mean.


I’m not in Dain’s camp in this argument. I’m not even willing to sit and point to the problems of a "race" because I think it is an excuse to destroy the idea of an individual.


Your treatment of race in the last post still falls to my criticisms of before. If you suggest that government institutions need to focus on racial groups to create social benefit programs, then you do suggest that certain individuals are incapable of self-government and improving themselves.
Slavery, Jim Crow, and Segregation all were wrong. Official English I think is a legitimate need for a democratic republic of "one people." I’m not so naive as to think that racism doesn’t exist, but I also question whether the programs we have implemented solve the problem. Affirmative Action, if it were straight, would be ok. Unfortunately it is not, and the reality of life brings in too many aspects of qualification to clearly define. I dont believe the result, which has been to grant jobs to people who may indeed be less qualified for a job based on race, is right.


Beyond the specifics, the ideas this country is based on (equality and natural rights) is something that has never been fully realized. It is government’s job to do that to be sure, but I think concentrating legislation on particular ethnic groups is the wrong way to go about doing that. Just because the reality does not yet meet the idea is not reason enough to throw it to the wind for the sake of progressivism (which throws out the possibility of a democratic republic).


The capper:
Faith in the ability of man? Buddy, if it wasn’t for the Blue States, the South would still be the Confederate States of America, with its sodomy laws, and corporal punishment in schools, and Bible-toting intolerance. That’s how much faith I have in leaving it up to "the people" to treat each other with dignity and respect.


Lincoln was a Republican, friends with Frederick Douglass (who is not nearly revered enough and is a great example of how well the system works. Of course, he had great ability, and that might disqualify him in your eyes), and the greatest of American presidents. It was he who showed that the idea of America can prevail, even in the most difficult conditions. While it may be argued he is not a Republican by today’s standards, many of the one’s I know still hold him as their example of a great statesman.


If you have so little faith in the people, I’m sorry. If you believe government can make that happen (treat people with dignity and respect) through regulation, then it is your political philosophy which will have to implement morality laws (laws of the same type that you so vehemently disregard as intolerant in your last post.)

Also, in regard to your deranged accusation (presumably via good ol’ Micahel Moore) that minorities are forced overseas, last I checked the U.S. military was voluntary. Regardless of the statisitics then, your allegation is utterly absurd.


Here comes the "they have no other choice argument." Too bad that doesn’t answer for the millions of successful black men and women in our country. (hat tip to Dain for reminding me to address that point.)

Fred- (1) You DID reverse what I said! Here is what I said:

"The reason that the Republican Party HAS TO reach out to African Americans and other ethnic minorities is that everyone knows that the Republican Party is the rich, white man’s party. Few people are fooled by tokenism, these days."

Now, here is how you quoted me:

"How’s this for racism. If the Republican party (like the Democrats) have to "reach out" to a group of people based on such petty, unchangeable conditions like race and religious denomination, then they are participating in racism."

So, you DID reverse what I said, and it changes the meaning substantially.

Second, if you "question" Affirmative Action, as you say, then I understand. If you have already decided that it is the same as reverse discrimination," then I disagree with you.

I know that Lincoln was a Republican! As Steven Heyward and I agreed in another post (though not for long, after I asked him some questions) the Democratic and Republican parties have changed quite a bit over the centuries. Remember, for instance, when Republicans were the fiscal conservatives, and wanted to get government off of peoples’ backs? Now, Bush wants the government everywhere, in Terry Shiavo’s family, and in the schools, the libraries,and in Iraq.....

So, regarding your last point: I don’t think that government can "legislate morality," but I do think that part of its job is to protect the Mathew Shephards and the Robert Byrds of the world. The elderly, the developmentally delayed, the homeless, and very possibly the historically exploited.

Dain, I’ll get to you in a bit. I din’t ignore your points, but we overlapped in our writing. My family calls, but I’ll prove you wrong in a while! Later, friend.

OK Dain, I’m sorry I ever accused you of posting under the name Sandra. I used to think you were using several names to make it look like you had fans, but now that I read Sandra’s latest babbling, I have to admit that she’s clearly even dumber than you. Really, Sandra, answer Fung’s question. Is our Attorney General actually from Spain? "Hispanic" and "Spanish" do not mean the same thing. And this charge that "liberals hate freedom??" What does that even mean? That we would actually prefer to be in prison? This site just never ceases to amaze me. Dain and Sandra- thanks for the laughs!

I’m going to start this post with a lengthy quote from one of Dain’s posts:

"Duh....if black people want a "bigger slice of the pie," the best advice is 1) finish your education, 2) get a job and KEEP it long enough to gain some experience, and 3) get married and STAY married. If you would like to debate me on this, bring it on! If black people want to find out what’s holding them back, they should do two things: 1) examine their pathological relationship to the nanny state, and 2) look into a mirror.

As for black crime, tell me something, Fung. What’s the ratio of black-on-white vs. white-on-black crime? Do you know it? Do you dare answer me?"

Dain, I suspect you don’t have much contact with ACTUAL, REAL-LIFE lower-class black people (or lower-class people of any race). I am a black man, and I DO dare answer your nonsense. I was born and raised in an extremely poor neighborhood, what some would call a ghetto. I was lucky enough to have two parents who actually cared about me enough to push me so that I went to college. But this is NOT the norm. You can blame whatever you like, but the fact is, a young black person growing up in the ghetto doesn’t usually say to himself, "wow, I can’t wait to go to college and be like all those white people I see on television!" When your adult role-models are drug dealers, pimps and thugs, you don’t approach life the same way. You’ll probably respond with the typical cold-blooded "boot straps" and "free will" nonsense. Easy to say when you grew up in a neighborhood free of drive-bys, prostitution, and drug dealing on every other corner. I know the Civil War has been over for a very long time now, but it’s not like white people across the country started suddenly being friendly and accommodating to blacks in 1865. No, we haven’t been on equal footing for much longer than a generation, and a strong case could be made that we’re still not.

Don’t throw the word "excuse" at me, either. You can use that dirty word all you want, but the fact is that our cities and neighborhoods are crime-ridden, and our young men go to prison in overwhelming numbers. And trust me, they’re not welcomed back into society with open arms when they get paroled. Why do black people commit crimes? Because we’re just a lil’ bit inferior and can’t help ourselves? Face the truth, Dain. Black people got a VERY raw deal and are still recovering from it. Yes, we need to accept responsibility for our own lives, but we do NOT start out on equal footing, and more needs to be done to level the playing field. I have read enough of your posts to know that words like this will scare you because it sounds like socialism, but eliminating the mass poverty of African Americans will benefit the ENTIRE country, even wealthy white people.

I won’t go so far as to call you a racist, but I will say that your comments are getting dangerously close to racism. Do not post with such indignation on a subject you clearly know so little about.

Jascence -- it’s true I’m white, but don’t assume I was born rich (or am rich today). I lived in a female-headed family for most of my youth. Prior to that, my father’s family was so poor (mostly due to some bad habits) that they worked as iternerate farm help. So spare me the sob story.

As for inner-city life, I know quite a lot about it...I also know that there are lots of educational opportunities for minority students if they will take advantage of them. Again, lots of bad habits get in the way, but don’t tell me that "society" determines your fate. BS. If that were the case we’d all still be serfs on the Lord’s fief. People can help themselves, but if they buy into "victimhood" it is just a bunch of excuses to fail and take the easy road.

Go ahead and call me a racist. That’s the only argument Liberals every have...the nuclear option. But it’s wearing very thin. My advice is to stop whining, stop expecting someone to "fix" your life, and get on with it.

And Fung don’t have sh.. He knows I can toast him on social statistics to prove my point. He’s wrong, and you’re wrong.

Whoa, now, everybody s l o w d o w n. Whatever happened to the nice comment section on this blog? (And whatever happened to Starbuck anyway? He was fun. Guess he took the election kindof hard.)

Anyway, all I was trying to point out in my original post was another Times double standard borne of reflexive liberalism. The same would be true if they were employing a double-standard to include Mormon polyagamist marriages (coming eventually no doubt, only without the Mormonism), or Irish weddings in 1915, etc. Conversely, I doubt the Times would go out of its way to list one of those Louisiana commitment marriages. Now, I almost didn’t post the comment because I feared the gay angle would arouse some annoyance, but I didn’t expect a free-fire zone.

Then duck, Steve! BLAMBLAMBLAM.

Hey, Phil, you’re an idiot! We had a "Spanish Town" in my home town...full of Hispanics. True, it’s an older usage, but it isn’t Sandra’s fault that you’re too dumb to have a broad understanding of proper nouns in our language.

Steve: With smarmy postings like the following:

It’s Baaaack!
Ebonics.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | 7/18/2005 12:12 PM or....

Buy Exxon Gas
In other news, the usual lefties have announced a boycott of Exxon-Mobil because the company doesn’t tow the line on environmental correctness. So go ahead and top of your tank at the nearest Exxon station.
Posted by Steven Hayward | Link to this Entry | 7/12/2005 9:26 AM .....

I have a hard time buying your "Gosh, what have I started?" bit. You, more than any of the other bloggers on this site, love to slip incendiary, smirky posts, like the Ebonics one, above, and then watch as the righties all nod and agree, or the lefties join in for a good argument, while you observe from a safe distance.

Racism and homophobia are ugly, and it is impossible to be polite about them without being disingenuous.

Okay Dain, here goes.

First, your early post #14:

"Jmont/Fung, same person pehaps?" Nope. I’m sure you’d like to think that there aren’t more of us, but there are plenty of us who think your party line is screwy! Since I started using this pseudonym, I have never written as anyone else.

"I will say it again, because it is the truth. When minorities approach the GOP wanting a hand up (not a hand out), they are welcome. We have thousands of black Christians who are doing just that, and they will be helped. They will escape the Liberal Plantation, and they will join the mainstream."

What is that? You refer to the "Liberal Plantation," whatever that is supposed to be, and then you spew this paternalistic contingency crap. "They will be helped." What are you: Ethnic triage? You: We help. You: Back to the unemployment line. You: You may join the mainstream.

With an approach like this, I wonder why Blacks and Hispanics aren’t just climbing all over each other to get to join your cool club! (There for a second, I forgot your "thousands" of Black Christians. I hope you have room for them all in your tent!

Here is another good one:

"As for black crime, tell me something, Fung. What’s the ratio of black-on-white vs. white-on-black crime? Do you know it? Do you dare answer me?"

Here are my answers: (1) Do I dare answer you? No, because I am too frightened of you! You are very scary. (2) Do I keep stats on black-on-white crime, etc? No. Do you? Go ahead. How is white collar crime categorized, for instance? When one fat cat at Enron screws thousands of employees, do you keep count of how many of them were White, or Black? Do you know how many White murderers of Blacks have been executed in Texas? Do you know how many have gone free? Do you have stats on the average length of sentence for Blacks vs Whites for the same crime? Not only that, but when I was talking about hate crime, I was thinking about gays. Homophobia, after all, is what started this thread. Are you suggesting that there is more "gay-on-straight" violence than the reverse?

Now, here is your contribution from #18:

"So, are you saying that state-sanctioned racism is a good thing? That we don’t have a right to expect people to speak English here? And hate crimes...do you suppose they would be applied fairly? If so, mostly black people would go to jail under those provisions. "

You are equating Affirmative Action with state-sanctioned racism. As an eminent social scientist, you know that there is a difference: Apartheid and institutionalized discrimination seek to increase or maintain a gap between groups. Affirmative Action seeks to decrease those gaps. You continue to be blind to the possibility that Whites might actually support legislation for the purpose of benefitting a group other than themselves, or to recognize that ACTUAL equality benefits everyone (except, of course, the corporate elite 1% who want to retain 25% of the money.)

Further, expecting English to be spoken is very different from legislating that English is the official language! Good grief! Get government off our backs!

My favorite is your suggestion that fair enforcement of hate crimes would send most Black people to jail. Please support that one with more of your "social science." Most Black people?

Finally, it looks as though you are correct: The military is dominated by Whites. I should have just said "The underclass," since many Whites find themselves in poverty, too. This is strange, since they all enjoy two-parent families, the best education, any job they want, for as long as they want it. They must simply like poverty, just like their non-White brethren!

My question in all of this is - Which one wears the wedding dress, and which one wears the suit? Mr. Hayward, you’ve provided me with just another reason to avoid the New York Times like the plage. As I’ve been reading here and other places, there are lots of great academic reasons for not allowing gay "marriage," but still I think one of the best is that it wasn’t Adam and Steve, it was Adam and Eve. Imagine how crazy their wedding pages will get after they start letting some of them marry little boys! A hearty welcome to ELC and Sandra!! It’s good to hear new folks tell the straight story - no offesne to gays out there - haha. And Sandra, Dain is right, there’s nothing wrong with calling them the Spanish. I think Mr. Gonzales has done a fine job in this administration. Keeping a tight ship at Guantanimo for example. No kid gloves for those killers! I’d give Gonzales the shirt off my back any day!! A fine Spanish gentleman!

Fung, when I wrote:


How’s this for racism. If the Republican party (like the Democrats) have to "reach out" to a group of people based on such petty, unchangeable conditions like race and religious denomination, then they are participating in racism.


that was me speaking. I was trying to make it clear that social programs targeting people based on race is a form of racism. If anything, it should at least be based on demographics.


I quoted you as saying:


Then, point to Colin Powell, and Condie Rice, and tell them, "Hey, if they can do it, then so can you!" Then wait around for the response,


which seems clearly to be a racist comment. This is clear in my previous post by my use of italics, and that before the quote I said, "then you have the audacity to say:". Of course, it is always easier to realize error and claim to be misquoted rather than admit being wrong.


I find your statements, however, somewhat thoughtful and informative. It seems, however, that you are committed to the institutional beaurucratic game while telling government to get off your back. Perhaps this is because both parties are progressive and can’t be used as a basis of comparison to show the difference.


Jascence and Fung, have either of you guys ever read Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man or Juneteenth? Good books not exactly dealing with these issues, but about the condition of black men in America. Worth checking out.

OK, Fung, let’s tally up points. Dain 1, Fung 0 -- the military is indeed composed mostly of white males. I’m glad you are slowly coming to your senses.

Second point, on black-on-white crime. It’s about 9 times more prevalent than white-on-black crime. Here’s an article on both that ratio and hate crimes in general Black Hate Crime. You might not like David Horowitz, but he’s on target here...I guess I could look up the "official" sources if you insist.

As for the Liberal Plantation, it’s composed of our welfare policies that chronically impoverish blacks and other poor people. It traps them in central cities, in saps their work ethic, it destroys their family structures, and it undermines the value they place on education. The best work I’ve seen on this is Charles Murray’s Losing Ground, but there are many more contemporary accounts of this "phenomenon." In short, welfare gives enough to survive on and it promotes a false economy in the central cities (and elsewhere), but in the process it destroys the fabric of these communities. Happy to argue the point.

As for Affirmative Action, don’t get me started. Like any other handout, it breeds dependency. Moreover, it sets the bar low, leading to underachievement because the recipients of AA know they are employable regardless. Indeed, the major problem in hiring is the lack of qualified minorities to hire...oh please, let’s argue about this! Finally, AA leads to a racial spoils system where color trumps all other considerations...seen it, lived it.

Good God, Fred. I’m really finding it hard to believe that you worked for the Kerry campaign. If so, then you deserve extra credit for his loss. Why did you do that? You read like a Bushie! Now you’re teaming up with Dain and giving him hat tips?? I was sort of kidding about that National Review essay, but now it seems appropriate (although your writing is erratic and not always clear). Dain - he’s all yours!

I know, I know J, it’s crazy. I mean, instead of just throwing legitimate arguments to the wind I thought about them, did some research of my own, and came to certain conclusions which (gasp!) were contrary to the opinions I began with. Wild stuff (or maybe I was just indoctrinated.) I suppose it’s an education when someone becomes a Dem after being a Republican, but indoctrination, influence, and greed when the opposite occurs?


I haven’t "teamed" up with Dain. In this post as in others he and I have disagreed. I gave him a hat tip because I frogot to address Fung’s point concerning the army (which was likely ripped from that oh so great man Michael Moore) which he discussed in a later point.


I’m sorry my writing is not satisfactory for you, I’ll promise to work harder so as to please. I thought your post about National Review was funny, and my response was in (what I thought to be) good humor. Sorry to hear you’re so willing to "hand me over" (thank you for the permission) though.

But seriously Fred, at this point, do you wish you hadn’t worked for Kerry?

I don’t want this commentary to become a discussion about my political thought/development.


As for your question (in brief) I don’t know if I regret pushing for Kerry (I worked through the AU Young Democrats, not for him specifically). I’m not torn up that he lost, and considered not voting for him because of the possibility of Supreme Court nominations. However, I was with him on certain social issues, and liked his moderate approach (though the emails "he" sends me reveal he was not a moderate). I don’t think the Republican Party has made their thought on social reform clear, and "compassionate" conservatism has mucked it up more than it ever was before.


I had/have questions about the Bush Administration, and the general idea of a "War on Terror" (not clearly defined, too much centralized power, etc.) So far, however, I think the war has been run appropriately.


So no, I don’t regret pushing for Kerry, but I also don’t regret the results of last November.


I know this. If the Democratic party is the party of Jackson contorted by Wilson, and the Republican party aspires to be the party of Lincoln, I’m with the Republicans.

Dain- You are right, I see Horowitz as more bias than substance. I did, however, visit his info, and took a shower, afterwards. Then, I accessed the Website at the National Criminal Justice Reference Svce, at http://www.ncjrs.org/hate_crimes/facts.html

Lots of info there. I am looking at Table 3, which describes Hate Crimes by Known Offender’s Race for 2003, with some sample statistics:

Total Crimes against Persons: N=5517 of those, White offender n=3144 (57%), , Black Offender n=798(14%).

Crimes against Property N= 3139. White Offender, n = 490 (16%), Black Offender n=137 (4%). Unknown offender n=2138.

Here are some more numbers from Table 4, Offense Type by Bias Motivation:

Race Motivation N = 4574, anti-White n=969 (21%), anti-Black n= 3032 (66%)

Religion-based Hate Crimes N=1426, anti-Jewish n=987 (69%), anti-Catyholic n=78 (5%), anti-Protestant n=50 (Sexual Orientation N=1430, antiHeterosexual n=15 (less than 1%).

So sorry, Señor Dain (and Sandra and Mack)! You see, I forgot that Dain knows EVERYTHING. See, I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that Spanish people were from Spain. I thought that only ignorant people call everyone who speaks Spanish (or who look like they might know how to speak Spanish) "Spanish." Somehow, though, I suspect that even ol’ Dubya wouldn’t say that Alberto Gonzales is Spanish.

Also, Dain, since Fung concedes ONE point to you, you think you’re up 1-0? (Nice to know you’re keeping score, by the way). What about all the other points Fung makes? You know, the ones you ignore?

Oh, and the name-calling is just hurtful, Dain!

Ok, Dain, since you’ve referred Fung and us fortunate bystanders to frontpagemag.com, I want to know, where do you place it - center-right, solid right, or fringe right?? (Please tell me you don’t consider it wholly centrist or something similarly ludicrous!)

Hey, Phil, sarcasm can’t substitute for brains. Here, educate yourself on what we used to call Hispanics.

Oh, Fung, is this the best you got? You really ARE a crappy social scientist!

I assume you are referring to this report on hate crimes. Let’s look at some of the problems with this. First, "hate crime" refers to motivation, and that’s very slippery...since most of us aren’t mind-readers, it’s hard to know if a robbery, rape or murder is purely racially (etc.) inspired, now isn’t it. It’s a form of "thought-crime," which is ONE reason why conservatives are uncomfortable with the whole concept. Second, even taking these statistics at face value, we see that blacks are more likely to engage in hate crimes than whites (remember, whites make up about 75% of the population, but you have them committing only 57% of the hate crimes, while blacks constitute only about 12% of the population but committed 14% of the hate crimes). Third, and most problematic, where is America’s largest minority group, Fung...the Hispanics. In Table 5 of the big report (link above) you find the incongruous result that sometimes whites engage in anti-white hate crimes and sometimes blacks engage in anti-black crimes. You know why, Fung? Because the Justice Department considers "Hispanic" an ethnicity and throws about 90% into the "white" category. What this does is to vastly inflate "white" offenses...and you wonder why conservatives distrust social scientists and "hate crime" laws...don’t you just love the way they let PC pieties influence data collection and reporting?

What to know about the magnitude of this inflation of white crime statistics? I’d read this. You’ll find it quite an eye-opener.

I would like to cast a vote for the most obnoxious and most pathetic commenter on this blog. The title goes to Dain. Congratulations!

Anna...my, my...ob-nox-ious! That’s 3 whole syllables. And all spelled correctly! Still, we need to work on substance, don’t we?

OK Dain, I read the site you linked. Where does it prove your point? Where does it say that it’s appropriate to call Alberto Gonzales Spanish? I see where it says that it’s NOT appropriate: "Previously Hispanics were commonly referred to as ’Spanish-Americans’, ’Spanish-speaking Americans’ and ’Spanish-surnamed Americans’. These terms, however, proved even more misleading or inaccurate,,,"

Pretty dumb to post links that defeat your own argument.

Jeez Phil, I made a MISTAKE, ok? Get over it already. Typical of the PC crowd to make a big deal out of what label a person uses- Latino, Hispanic, person of Latin American descent, WHATEVER. Thank you, Dain, though, for defending me. Gets pretty vicious in here!

I posted my email address, by the way, so you Liberals can’t keep insisting that I am actually Dain.

For Pete’s sake, Phil...READ. The Census Bureau referred to them as "Spanish-origin" as late as the 1970 Census. That’s pretty "official." Your original criticism of Sandra was that she was INCORRECT, not that she was insensitive. Fact is, some people in this country still refer to this population as Spanish (comment #23)...precedent is on Sandra’s side, not yours. I guess that makes you even dumber than we are...who’d a thunk it???

Fung would have a point--if the comments in this thread were mostly related to my original post; instead, aside from Ian’s original first query most of this thread has gotten waaayyy off into the weeds and into personal feuds.

Phil- And please don’t forget the most valid evidence of all. Dain, the great social scientist refers to his old neighborhood:

"Hey, Phil, you’re an idiot! We had a "Spanish Town" in my home town...full of Hispanics. True, it’s an older usage, but it isn’t Sandra’s fault that you’re too dumb to have a broad understanding of proper nouns in our language.


So, you see, Phil, since Dain’s town had a
Spanish Town," its evidence that you are dumb, and Dain, once again, can call me a "crappy social scientist."

Now that I think of it, we had "Bohunk Alley," and Guinea Hollow," but I can’t find those terms on those biased Government sites, anywhere. Maybe I’ll go back to the Horowitz website, or Dain’s neighborhood for some TRUTH.

Fung is correct, Steve? I’m not sure I follow your point there.

I do think you do us a disservice reducing what we’re doing to "personal feud." True, there are insults, but there’s also lots of substance if you’d care to look. Let’s not get procrustean, Steve.

What (sic) to know about the magnitude of this inflation of white crime statistics? I’d read this. You’ll find it quite an eye-opener.

Dain has provided a link to the report "The Color of Crime" from The New Century Foundation. The New Century Foundation’s primary (if not sole) outputs are their American Renaissance journal and website (where NCF has posted the report). I think more eye-opening is needed to go along with that report. Dain, you may or may not wish to give black people a "hand up," but the NCF’s motivations are more likely to give blacks a "push out." American Renaissance’s "For Activists" page starts with "A lot of people want to know what they can do to help the
cause of whites and spread the message of American Renaissance" David Duke has tried to do his part by posting a link on his website to the "Color of Crime" report here (scroll down to see recommendation, link). In August 1992 AR published an interview with University of California Professor Arthur Jensen - referred to by the journal as a "pioneer" and "the world’s best-known scholar in the field of racial differences in intelligence." Jensen attempted to explain why eugenics has fallen out of favor. Here’s an excerpt (the interviewer for AR wasn’t ID’d):

Jensen: I think that World War II was really the main turning point in this... revulsion against the Nazi Holocaust. People pointed to that as an example of what would happen if we recognized our differences. Of course it’s very inapplicable really, because the group that was persecuted there was the group that was doing very well in Germany and
around the world.

AR: It’s my understanding that in fact there’s no record that Hitler even said that Jews were inferior anyway.

Jensen: That’s right, yes. They had other reasons for their views. But this [the Holocaust] was still given as an example of the result of making racial or ethnic distinctions between groups.

If that sounds similar to Holocaust revisionism, don’t be too surprised. The New Century Foundation/American Renaissance is headed by Samuel Jared Taylor (He appears to have dropped the "Samuel" in recent years). Some of his writings have been reprinted in the Journal of Historical Review, published by the California-based Institute for
Historical Review, the leading Holocaust-denial organization in the country. He was a featured speaker, along with Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, at the 1994 convention of the Populist Party.

Taylor has even been described as an advocate of the "new white racism" by Dinesh D’Souza, somewhat of a conservative darling.

Taylor’s other non-racist credentials include contributions to The Occidental Quarterly (published by William H. Regnery II, of the famous conservative bookpublishing family). Here are a few gems of the TOQ’s stated "commitments":

"In 1950 whites represented 30 percent of the world’s population. If current trends persist, this number will plummet to 8 percent by 2050. In the United States, whites are projected to become a minority of the national population in less than fifty years. The result will impoverish not only their descendants but the world in general and will jeopardize the civilization and free governments that whites have created."

"The European identity of the United States and its people should be maintained. Immigration into the United States should be restricted to selected people of European ancestry."

and, oddly enough...

"Imperial expansion, military crusades, and similar adventures to promote “global democracy” and “human rights” should be rejected."

(Funny aside - In 2004, Regnery sent a newsletter to subscribers of TOQ titled "Population is Destiny" which appealed for investors in a match-making service for heterosexual whites of Christian cultural heritage.) Better still, American Renaissance’s Taylor has served on the board of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an offshoot of the old, explicitly racist and segregationist White Citizens’ Councils. The C of CC has even attacked Lincoln (you know, the guy from "The Party of Lincoln") on their website. In the late ’90s a host of primarily Republican politicians were found to be attending and even speaking at C of CC meetings, most notably, Trent Lott. At the height of that scandal, even RNC chair Jim Nicholson had to admit that C of CC "held racist views." Again, Taylor, who heads the group who put out the report you offered, was on C of CC’s board. And if you care to dismiss everything else, focus on this, and dismiss it as stretching guilt-by-association credulity, consider this - in the New Century Foundation’s tax filings for 1999, on line 80 of their IRS Form 990, Taylor’s foundation lists the Council of Conservative Citizens as an organization to which it’s "related ... through common membership, governing bodies, trustees, officers, etc." American Renaissance (of the New Century Foundation) has called the C of CC "no doubt the most effective group working today for the interest of the majority."

There’s a strong case that the organization that produced that report (and apparently they are an organization of 3 people, with Taylor leading them) is racist (albeit of a polite, "scientific" variety), and anyone reading that report should keep in mind that the group is not favorably disposed to non-white people, and their agenda could certainly be reason to question their objectivity and their use and interpretations of data.

And maybe, Fung, you can fight your own battles instead of Phil’s. You have lots of ’splainin’ to do about hate crimes, when last I looked.

Craig, I’m aware of most of that, and I knew when I posted it someone would cry "racist." Your problem is, as far as I can tell this report is ACCURATE. Instead of assuming that everything in the report is a lie, why don’t you go check it out for yourself? Ask the Justice Department where it places Hispanics in its crime statistics. Ask what the true non-Hispanic crime rate actually is. Attacking a source is easy, but refuting the substance isn’t.

So, I’ll ask you: Since you don’t like my source, can YOU tell me what the actual non-Hispanic crime rate is? Can you tell me why the media always reports white on black (or white on homosexual, etc) crimes, but the reverse is almost always underreported (if at all)?

Craig -- You are my hero! Nice work!

Dain- I’m sorry that the "Hispanic" issue has you all cobbled up. The US census is a bit confusing, but you claim to be up to the task. Every once in a while, some smart guy in my class asks me why we never hear about female-on-male spouse abuse. They show me a story from the Enquirer, or Star, with lots of pictures, and then suggest that men are getting a raw deal. My answer to them is the same as my answer to you. You can nit-pick all you want about categories of Hispanics, and so on, but that is a red herring to keep our focus off of the original question: Why are Republicans against Hate Crime Legislation? Why are they afraid of protecting gays and ethnic minorities? If you are right, and non-whites are more responsible for hate crimes than Whites are, then you should be happy with hate crime legislation, but you are not happy, because you know you are wrong.

In my earlier description, I focused only on Blacks and Whites, since I was afraid that the nuance (sorry, I know how we hate that word, but it applies quite literally, here!) might give you a headache.

So, I don’t need to respond to every one of your points, since other readers have obviously caught on to your bluster. Many of them have done this long ago, I would guess.

When WILL you respond to some of my points? Will you back up your assertion that "All Black people" would go to jail if hate crime laws were consistently applied? Will you answer my question about white collar crime, and how many White/Black victims there are of that? Will you answer my question about whites who committed lynchings and were never caught, or arrested, or charged, because they enjoyed the benefits of the good ole boy club? Will you answer the questions about the number of Whites in Texas who have been put to death for murders of Blacks? Or, the average sentence for Whites and Blacks for the same crime?

Probably, you will not. You will, instead, refer to another racist publication, or to your experiences back home near "Spanish Town," and pump out more challenges.

Finally, before I declare a "win" and move on (sorry, again!) to another discussion, I would like to take Steven’s lead, and remember how this all started: with homophobia! I listed the "reaching out" phenomenon as one of many examples of "compassionate conservativism" and right-wing double-speak. This discussion, in my view, has dredged up enough racism, and homophobia to support my original point more than adequately. Dain, I would gladly repeat every word of what I have said to any person on this planet IN person. I would advise you NOT to do the same, but if you do, I would like to observe, and to bring a camera. That might be the ultimate litmus test for racism or tolerance, right there.

Dain - you were aware of most of that, and you still recommended it? Gross.

"Can you tell me why the media always reports white on black (or white on homosexual, etc) crimes, but the reverse is almost always underreported (if at all)?" Always and almost always, those are some pretty sweeping claims you’re tossing out there. Strange, I can recall seeing lots of suspect photos and drawings and hearing lots of police suspect descriptions that were of black people, for crimes that were perpetrated against the good white people.

Still waiting to hear where you’d place frontpagemag.com on the sociopolitical spectrum (question I asked in comment 39).

Fun riddle: If a man whose mother is white and father black commits a crime against another man whose mother is BLACK and father WHITE, how should one chalk up this crime?

What’s next, Dain? A ’report’ from the Aryan Brotherhood on the dangers of miscegenation??

You liberals are laughable. The last few posts by Craig, Fung, Jmont and ChrisL are the real bluster. For those reading...if they COULD deny that Hispanics are thrown into the "White" crime statistics they WOULD, but they CAN’T because it’s TRUE. Instead, they’ve engaged in a familiar Leftist sport...the moral extermination of the messenger. Instead of saying "this source is suspect" and then "here’s where they’re wrong," we get "RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBE!" It’s very transparent, boys.

How often do these scrubs cite anti-American and minority-racist sources without batting an eyelash? The truth is, they live and die by the double standard. Minorities have the right to say any old racist thing they want, but white people gotta toe the line. Not a word in self-defense from you racist bastards! Well, the days when such tactics worked are quickly coming to an end.

So, why don’t you boys chew on this...it’s from Janet Reno’s Justice Department. And, please, remember that all statistics for "WHITE" include Hispanics. Even so, we see that "black-on-white" crime is much more prevalent than the reverse. Blacks more Homicidal

Fung, how does my statement "And hate crimes...do you suppose they would be applied fairly? If so, mostly black people would go to jail under those provisions." from comment #18 turn into "Will you back up your assertion that "All Black people" would go to jail if hate crime laws were consistently applied?" ? That’s the second bald-faced lie I’ve caught you in. Stop twisting my words.

As for your other "questions," some are worth answering but most aren’t. Enron-style white-collar crime isn’t a hate crime, nitwit. Why is it relevant here? As for lynchings, you need to go look up the records. For most of our history that was a white-on-white phenomenon, but it because black-on-white after the Civil War. Moreover, should we tally black-on-white homicides against lynchings? I CAN do that, but you wouldn’t like the results. As for Texas, is that all you know about? We are talking national statistics here...please keep your addled brain on task, Fung.

Now you boys have shown yourselves capable of ad hominem, slander, and sidestepping issues. How about coming to grips with the fact that I’m right across the board? What aspect of this supposedly "racist" document can you counter? What’s wrong with it? Can you demonstrate that "white crime" is really attributable to Anglos? If you can’t, you lose.

And by the way, Fung, I think you’re the bigot (to counter your libel on Comment #9). You are the one who perennially brings up race...you are the one who sneers phrases like "rich, white men." You are the one who is obsessed by race.

Remember when people used this blog as a way to calming and conscily debate topics using logic and facts and not blind emotion. (And both sides are at fault) I routinely don’t post as to not get sucked in the emotional arguments and have noticed others appearing to back off as well. Look guys and gals, enough if enough. No one is going to feel comfortable about every post and you can’t "win" every argument. You should bring up good points (cite them if possible) and allow others to review what you have said and look at your compare your sources and knowledge to that of others to see if it adds to your understanding.

Remember when people used this blog as a way to calming and conscily debate topics using logic and facts and not blind emotion.

Typo..

Remember when people used this blog as a way to calming and concisely debate topics using logic and facts and not blind emotion.

Oh, and Jmont, tell me why THIS wasn’t worth of national news. Try to imagine the coverage if it had been two white men who slaughtered 4 (almost 5) black men and women. Double standard? You betcha.

For....., look, I’m willing to post "happy talk," but not when Fung and his comrades say such poisonous things about the Right, white people, capitalism, etc. Timidity on the Right is the primary reason the Left has as much power as it does. I’m not willing to let lies and distortions go by without correction so that a few timid souls can have a "safe harbor." If you have an opinion, state it!

Heavy sigh.... This is copied and pasted from the same "Janet Reno" site, Dainy!

Although slightly less true now than before,
most murders are intraracial
From 1976 to 2002 --

86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

So, why are you against hate crime legislation? Why are you against protecting ANYONE from hate crimes?

Finally, you can call Affirmative Action the same as discrimination, and you can call a concern for equality the same as bigotry, and you can engage in all manner of the child’s game, "I know you are, but what am I?" You and I both know that YOUR brand of race consciousness, or (my favorite among the right) "color blindness" is all a way to preserve the status quo, which is a lot better for rich white men than it is for MOST nonwhites.

And, though my way is not perfect, it is motivated differently than yours is. This motivation may not be recognized by people who don’t, or won’t share it. I will never convince you of its validity, or even of its existence, because you apparently recognize only self-serving, ethnocentric, competitive motivations. And I don’t mean just you,personally, but many people who share your view of the world.

For the other readers: I will try to tone down the heat, a bit!

Good, Fung, I hope you intend to refrain from calling me (or anyone) a "hypocritical, double-speaking bigot." Waay over the top, fella.

Your last post was mostly irrelevant. Intraracial murder is not generally a hate crime, as you well know. We are concentrating on cross-racial killings (which are much more likely to be hate-inspired), and the DoJ website clearly shows that blacks are MUCH more likely to kill white (whether Hispanic or non-Hispanic) than the opposite. That’s been my point all along. Moreover, I added that if we could subtract Hispanics from the "white crime" total we’d see that Anglos are fairly peaceful...indeed, much closer to Asians in criminal proclivities than are blacks or Hispanics. As an aside, the same procedure (separating out true minorities) would demonstrate that gun violence is roughly similar to Anglo Americans and Europeans.

As for opposing "hate crimes," I think it is too slippery to be useful and, importantly, murder is murder...rape is rape. I favor the death penalty for people who murder in a premeditated way...makes no difference to me if they kill for money, dominance, racism, sexism, or any other "ism." We should focus on the actual crime, not its motivations. Leftists are so used to indicting people for what they THINK...it amazes me. And you say you love freedom! Chortle.

As for AA, it mostly helps middle- and upper-class minorities. Indeed, it uses the vast "pool" impoverished inner-city minorities to justify itself but doesn’t really help that group. If you want AA, Fung, why not use social class instead of race? There is a lot more support for that -- indeed, I would support a classed-based AA program in higher education. Does the thought that you might have to help a few lower-class whites offend you so much?

What motivates me is equity, not equality. People are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Society has never dished out equality or complete fairness...some of my ancestors were slaves of the Romans, but you don’t see me asking Italians for reparations! Discrimination based on ascribed characteristics SHOULD be illegal, and that’s why I’m against AA. It encourages the very thing it’s supposedly trying to eliminate.

Wow Dain, you’re REALLY into genealogy if you know who your ancestors were 2000 years ago!

Oh, Dain, an article about the "Wichita Massacre"! You shouldn’t have! Very sweet.

So, what’s the idea with this? That the media coverage was/is skewed towards reporting white-on-black more than black-on-white crimes, because, of course, they’re liberally biased, right??

It was only a couple of weeks before that quadruple homicide that Wichita experienced another one, the first time, all four were black. I didn’t hear about either one, and frankly, that’s fine. Not because I don’t care, but because it’s not relevant to me. The media covers violent crime way too much as it is. There’s nothing I could do to prevent the crimes, and I can hardly remember any of those that I’ve heard or read about, except for famous serial killers (Dahmer) and the like. If I’m a friend or a relative of someone who’s been a victim of violent crime, I will expect to get a phone call, not to hear about it on the nightly news or read it in the paper. I’m also absolutely sick of hearing about missing persons. Sometimes I think CNN is going to finally just make the switch and become the Missing Persons Network. An interesting aside, though, is that there’s some evidence to suggest that missing white persons - especially girls and young women - get disproportionately more news coverage than non-white missing persons (I was tempted to toss in a "Double standard? You betcha!" line, but it’s just too obnoxious, so I’ll abstain). Now that’s a funny way for those black-favoring newsroom liberals to behave, ain’t it?? But just to be clear, I generally don’t need or want to hear about any missing persons, either. Amber alerts, fine, but other than that leave such stuff for fliers at the post office, mall, local paper, etc. or for those who care to watch missing persons tv shows.

Anyway, about the "Wichita Massacre" - well, at least the black-on-white one, which I guess is supposed to be the one that really matters, eh? Per Craig’s example, I’m opting to examine what you sent along, and some bonus materials to boot. Anyway, the article you linked to must be from a liberally-biased paper, because even it reports that "From Dec. 7 to Dec. 15, 2000, police say two men, motivated by robbery, stalked people driving newer cars in east Wichita. Five were killed." So, maybe the cops are liberally-biased, since they didn’t mention racial hatred as a motivation? The notoriously liberal NewsMax site reported that "Sedgwick County, Kan., District Attorney Nola Foulston said she would not charge the suspects with committing "hate crimes" because she believed the murders were motivated by robbery and not racial hatred." Liberally-biased prosecuting attorney, too. Typical, eh?

Probably our best bet for getting to the truth behind this story is to turn to your buds at American Renaissance (aka New Century Foundation). I guess your main beef is the media bias, since you’re opposed to making the hate crime distinction. But American Renaissance is pretty obsessed with it, at least in this case. Strangely, this appears to be their best "evidence" that this was a black-on-white hate crime:

"It is true that Reginald Carr had a white girlfriend, and it may be that the race of the victims was unimportant to him. At the same time, Jonathan Carr wore a FUBU sweatshirt, a brand popular with black rappers that is said to stand for “For Us, By Us.” Some blacks wear FUBU clothing as a statement of black solidarity if not outright rejection of whites."

Well, that’s pretty compelling. I think I heard about a Klan Grand Dragon who had a black girlfriend that he kept chained in his basement, so I guess we shouldn’t rule out that they despise the white race and wish to destroy it. It really ticks me off when they take our women, though, ya know? More hard evidence to show the dangers of race-mixing!! And if only white America knew the threat posed by these subversive FUBU clothes that can be purchased anywhere. And here I thought I could trust that freckled red-haired kid in the FUBU shirt who helped me at the bookstore. Probably some race traitor who’d just love to stab me in the back! But wait, it gets better. Here are probably the two best paragraphs. First, we can see the deep and abiding respect that the American Renaissance crew has towards these white victims:

"Why, therefore, did five young whites-men or women-kneel obediently in the snow to be shot one by one? Were their spirits completely broken from hours of humiliation? Were they so stiff from cold they could hardly move? Or had they simply been denatured by the anti-white zeitgeist of guilt that implies whites deserve whatever they get? One does not wish to think ill of the dead, but these three men showed little manliness." (emphasis mine)

Exactly what I thought - these guys were sissies, possibly self-hating white liberals! Hmmm....if they would’ve been in favor of slave reparations, then maybe it’s all for the best that these unmanly men aren’t around to hamstring our team in the coming race war. Okay, and then, immediately after, AmRen brings us a short message from the National Rifle Assoc.:

"It is worth noting that in the home of three young Kansas men there does not appear to have been a single firearm. No doubt these men believed what they have been told: that guns are nasty things, best left in the hands of the police, who will always be there to protect us. H.G., who is clearly a woman of great determination, testified that at one point, when she was on her hands and knees and one of the Carr brothers was unzipping his pants, he laid a silver automatic pistol on the floor two feet away from her. She thought about making a grab for it but realized she had no idea how to operate a gun, and instead submitted to rape and attempted murder. Had she known how to use a weapon, her four friends might be alive today."

So it turns out that the women weren’t very manly, either. No guns in the house???!!!?? These people were practically BEGGING to be raped and killed!

A coupla other goodies: "....It may also be that the Carr brothers are incapable of analyzing and describing their own motives with enough intelligence to make it possible for others to judge them...

...The angry whites do not seem to realize that what happened on the night of Dec. 14 may be only a particularly brutal expression of the savagery that finds daily expression in American crime statistics and African tribal wars. It may very well be that the Carr brothers are so depraved they can commit on a whim brutalities that whites can imagine only as the culmination of the most profound and sustained hatred."

All of this is even slightly too much for David Horowitz, who issued a minor critique to AmRen head honcho Jared Taylor, who then revealed that famous American zombies would be on his side, he’s just "certain" that it’s so!:

"I am certain that if all the prominent Americans I have quoted could rise from their graves, they would endorse the American Renaissance view of race and nation, and would be shocked at the idea of a multi-hued America in which we are to pretend race can be made not to matter. It is American Renaissance that is faithful to the original vision of America. Walt Whitman perhaps put it most succinctly when he wrote, ’[I]s not America for the Whites? And is it not better so?’ Yes, it is."

So, Dain, what to do about these pesky blacks? Also, no guess on my racial crime riddle, or my question from comment 39??

Did a white man kill the four the week before? How about some details...intraracial murders are routine and, unless they are of the serial variety, don’t tend to make the national news.

As for the SacBee link, I don’t register to see stories (at least, I don’t unless I absolutely have to).

Most of your post is sarcastic and manic...sarmanic? Dude...crystal meth and blogging don’t mix!

I re-read your last ravings, Jmont, and I still can’t make heads or tails of it. Your riddle (post #54, I guess?) only makes my point...hate crimes are difficult to define and shouldn’t be on the books.

As for the first quadruple murder in Wichita, I dug a bit and found out the Cornelius Oliver, a black man, murdered four black people in a Wichita home. He was tried and given life imprisonment, although the community thought he deserved to die. I’d say that was a more than fair outcome for a murdering bastard. You didn’t hear about it because it was a run-of-the-mill murder. On the other hand, had Cornelius been white, we’d have had Dan Rather ranting about it for weeks (just like Matthew Shepard and James Bird). On the other hand, we had 5 white kids kidnapped, all raped and/or sexually abused, and all but one murdered...Dan and his press pals couldn’t be bothered to report that.

And again, Jmont, this last post did you no credit. Frankly, you appear to be a lunatic.

JMont- That was a good post! Apparently too full of information and nuance for Landrew (sp)to process.

Dain- "Over the top?" Are you kidding? Shall we count how many times you have called me a hypocrite and a crappy social scientist and -- in this argument right here -- a racist? (I know I used the term first, but it fits!) Are you pretending to be above such name-calling, or are you pretending to feel insulted? Instead of "over the top," I think that I have not yet reached the first base camp. This is precisely what I mean by double-speak. You insult, saturate your comments with sarcasm, and then critique others’ comments because they are insulting or sarcastic! You lament the ground that whites have lost due to Affirmative Action, and Civil Rights, then call ME a racist! It may have worked for you on the playground, back in Hooterville, or wherever "Spanish-town" was, but most of us are a bit more sophisticated than that.

To get back on topic here ultimately you have to look at several things. The NYTimes is a private company. (I know their parent companies have public traded stock but I mean it as opposed to a state owned enterprise) They can print wedding notices however they see fit which is granted to them under certain freedoms this country provides. However, I do think they go over board with their "Cheerleading" tone as put by Okrent.

Having said that, we also have the freedom in this country to NOT Buy the NYTimes. As a consumer I do not like the tone the NYTimes takes on many issues so I speak out by not providing them any of my hard earned money.

As you admit, you set the tone...I just respond in kind. I do think this is a revealing sentence: "You lament the ground that whites have lost due to Affirmative Action, and Civil Rights, then call ME a racist!" So, anyone who rejects state-sponsored racism is automatically a bigot/racist! You would think someone with a Ph.D. would be a bit more open-minded.

Now, the tally. My point about income distribution: Dain 1, Fung 0. My appoint about the racial makeup of the military: Dain 2, Fung 0. My point that hate-crime stats are probably bogus because they lump Hispanics in with Anglos: Dain 3, Fung 0. My point that AA generally helps minorities who are middle- or upper class: ?? You haven’t answered that one -- Dain 4, Fung 0?

I why do I tally this? Is it a personal pissing contest? No, absolutely not. I do this to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the Left-Liberal voting bloc. Even their academics are stupid.

Dain- No- I don’t set the tone. I just failed to rise above your tone. That is all that I admit to, and even that fact makes me feel ashamed.

I conceded ONLY your point about the ethnic make-up of the military, though, if you are correct about Hispanics being counted as White, then I guess that blows your little victory.

Otherwise, I concede nothing.

I also would like to point out a number of my own points that you have failed to address: the primary one being that there is little difference between what is good for the Republican Party and what is good for rich White Males. You may not like that, but it remains true.

As for your question regarding a "class-based" AA-like program: I think the idea has merit. Seriously. Here is a potential problem: Since there are still more Whites than non-whites in the USA (until 2050 or so) then there are likely to be more poor whites (numerically) than there are poor non-whites. But, as far as proportions go, there is a greater proportion of Blacks who are also poor than there are Whites who are also poor. So, if your "hand up" is going to be extended fairly, then ethnicity may still have to be considered.

But, again, I think that your idea is not the worst in the world!

as far as proportions go, there is a greater proportion of Blacks who are also poor than there are Whites who are also poor.

Who says what the right proportion is? You Fung? I know where you are coming from with your logic. The fact that each group is at least several million in size and should follow a normal distribution of who is poor and who is not. This is actually not that bad of a logical framework. However it leaves out very important lurking variables that confound the results you would expect to see.


Almost 70% of African American children are born from an un-wed mother who is under the age of 22. As for whites the number is only about 20%. It seems Bill Cosby might have a point when he states that some of the fault is on the individual parents themselves. Contrary to what Hillary thinks, the best institution to raise a child is a family. Does that mean that single parents can’t raise kids? Of course not. However, the majority of single mothers under 22 would probably find it difficult and therefor have to work several jobs to make ends meet. This does not allow for proper guidance of the child and does not allow for any savings and build up of wealth. The lack of proper guidance itself might be at least partially responsible for such a high rate teenage pregancy which only perpetuates the cycle again.

Dain, you are regularly accusing others at this blog of using ad hominem attacks. I think I’ve avoided that with you in this thread -not that I haven’t been tempted!- but then you resort to calling me a lunatic and implying I abuse narcotics (although I will leave a tiny bit of room for the possibility that you were making a small confession about how you came up with the term "sarmanic," but I doubt that’s what you meant there)? Keep on that higher road, Dain!

I’m still curious how you would characterize frontpagemag.com. It clearly seems to be not quite as extreme as that New Century Foundation/American Renaissance "America is for the Whites" business... I mean, seriously Dain, is that what you believe, that America is for white people?

Fung - who is Landrew??

Fung, how does my point about Hispanics being counted as whites "blow my little victory?" The fact is, your hate-crime statistics are (1) inherently problematic given the nature of the offense, and (2) seriously flawed when it comes to comparing hate-crimes between blacks and whites (given the problem of counting Hispanics as "white."). I’d say that gives me a victory since you can’t say I’m wrong about it.

Also, your tone always starts out poisonous and only later, when you’ve been proven wrong, do you get more reasonable. Your first two posts on this thread dripped with sarcasm and essentially called another poster stupid. No, you set the tone.

I’m glad you see some merit in class-based AA. Your logic in favor of race-based AA is seriously flawed, however. If you help everyone under a certain income threshold, no one gets left out. Poor blacks and poor whites both benefit. In short, race-based AA is unnecessary if you have a class-based system. Only a race-monger would insist otherwise...surely you don’t!

Jmont...I think Fung is referring to "Landrew" of Star Trek fame...a computer that regimented the lives of all people on an alien planet. A little poke at me...no biggie.

It’s true I call you people names...generally after you’ve done it to me. A man can only take so much...if you agree to stop it so will I. Laying off the smarta$$ comments would also help...sticking to thoughtful analysis is all I’ve ever wanted on the blog.

Why are you so obsessed about how I pigeonhole certain websites? The hardest websites (e.g., V-Dare) are so far Right they are Left on certain issues (e.g., Race trumps capitalism in importance, for instance). Frontpage is mostly conservative, with an emphasis on education, race, and anti-Marxism. Horowitz was a red-diaper baby and a buddy of the Black Panthers (until they killed a friend of his). Now he’s strongly Rightwing, having seen how the other half live.

"It’s true I call you people names...generally after you’ve done it to me. A man can only take so much...if you agree to stop it so will I." But can you show me where I called you anything?? If you can, I’ll be open to making this very worthwhile pact with you.

Believe me Dain, I’m not OBSESSED with how you characterize those websites - this weekend I’m going to the movies and going camping with friends, and I won’t give it a moment’s though!- I’m simply interested. There’s a difference. Take it (that I’m interested) as a compliment if you’d like.

And what about American Renaissance/NCF ?? Are they further right than frontpagemag, and do you find them to be a valuable resource? If a person, group, or website goes further right than you’re comfortable associating with (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt with American Renaissance, but I could well be wrong with that), it seems sort of cheap to simply say that they’re "so far Right they are Left". So, the left not only has the left-wing extremists (like the Black Bloc and ecoterrorist groups), but now you’re going to lump right-wing extremists as left-wing too?? Hardly seems fair, or accurate.

Jmont, I believe you did insult me on another thread...nonetheless, and despite being perplexed by that very long post you made, I am willing to forswear insults against you. Glad to do it.

I guess what I mean about so far Right they’re Left is that some groups mix race-consciousness with Leftist economic positions. This is clearly true for some black and Hispanic groups, but it is also true for some white groups. I think it is important to remember that "NAZI" stood for national socialism...fascism does not tend to be capitalistic, and often disrespects other "conservative" institutions (like the family and religion).

Hey Dain and Sandra, as far as your absurd score-keeping goes, I’d definitely have to give points to Phil Thompson and Fung regarding the whole debate over the use of the word Spanish to describe Gonzalez. It’s no more accurate to describe Gonzalez as Spanish (his grandparents came from Mexico, not Spain) than it is to describe you as English. (Don’t tell me, you once heard Sting’s song "An Englishman in New York" and you thought "Hey, he’s singing about my trip to The Big Apple!"). Also, it’s interesting how you cherry-pick which government ethnic and racial designations you agree with. If it’s the FBI or Justice Dept. or whatever, considering Hispanics to be White like you, you take issue with that (it’s hurting the pure reputation of the always-innocent, alway-victimized white innocents!), but if the Census Bureau, as late as 1970 (!! - hello, it’s now 2005!), called Hispanics people of "Spanish-origin," which doesn’t even make sense (it’d be news to someone from Bolivia that they REALLY come from Spain!), and it supports your backwards attitude in defending Sandra’s admitted mistake, then you love yourself some government agency, huh?? Score: Fung 8, Dain 0.

Also Dain said, in his losing battle with Montgomery, "How about some details...intraracial murders are routine and, unless they are of the serial variety, don’t tend to make the national news." - so, my question is, if black-on-white crime is "about 9 times more prevalent than white-on-black crime," (and perhaps it is - such stats only tell us so much) then it sounds pretty "routine" to me. Why should it make the national news?? I’d love to see your ideal news report on the Wichita Massacre. "Coming up, innocent white youths, including young virgins, killed by beasts from Africa! Whites to report to local police station for ammo and planning to deal with local black vermin!"

And what did you mean by "they worked as iternerate farm help" in comment 25?? Did you mean itinerant, by any chance? Maybe you should get help when you try to tackle those bigger words.

I should have added that, if white-on-black crime is relatively so much more rare than the reverse, then it only makes sense that the media gives it more attention, right? Or do you not think that the question "Is it routine or is it rare?" should determine what makes the news? Or should it really be, what do white racist groups want to make the news??

So, no peace agreement with you, Chris? Fine...let me correct YOU. Perhaps I have a misspelled word here and there, but at least I can comprehend argumentation! The point about "Spanish" is that is has been, and probably will continue to be, a colloquialism some people use. If it doesn’t pass your PC-filter, tough tacos! People have used it in reference to "Hispanics" for a very long time, and indeed our government did as well. Sandra was therefore perfectly correct in her usage. I wish you liberals would concentrate on points that really matter.

Although black-on-white crime is far more common than the reverse, both forms are rare in comparison to black-on-black or white-on-white crime. Moreover, since liberals generally jump on white-on-black crime as prima facie evidence of hate-crime, why not the reverse? The sad fact is, liberals are engaging in a double standard.

And Chris, don’t expect me to keep responding to your posts if this is the best you can do. Your points are lame, and they waste my time.

This tread wastes my time.

Bill, what’s a "tread"??

KBJ,


I didn’t even notice that. It should say thread. I am just merely pointing out that this discussion is way off topic and getting out of hand.

Ok, it’s a deal, Dain. I’ll remember this for future reference. I’ve got a busy late summer schedule, so I might not "meet up" with you again for a couple weeks.

With reference to the colloquial use by some whites of the adjective "Spanish" to refer to what the more modish and politically correct call "Latinos" or "Hispanics," I think I can shed some light on this from personal experience.

My younger brother, a highly intelligent and successful but non-college-educated American of non-WASP origins, works in the building trades. He frequently deals with workers from various corners of Latin America for whom Spanish is the common first language and who typically speak relatively little or at least heavily accented English. My brother can’t tell who is Guatemalan, who is Salvadoran, who is Dominican, who Honduran, or whatnot.

So if he has occasion to refer to such people collectively, he calls them "Spanish guys." This is not meant as any kind of insult or disrespect, and does reasonably cite what they obviously have in common, i.e., a tendency to speak Spanish or at least heavily Latin-accented English (with Spanish very much the preferred language when they are talking amongst themselves).

Moreover, it goes the other way, too: Many self-consciously "Hispanic" people will refer to those who speak English as a first language (whatever their actual ethnicity) as "Anglos," whether those people are Americans with ethnic roots in England or not. Similarly, the Amish (whose first languages originally tended to be Germanic) commonly refer to ALL non-Amish whatsoever as "the English."

So saying "Spanish" instead of "Hispanic" or "Latino" is a valid colloquial usage with considerable logic and no ill will behind it.

A final observation: When I began to get to know well-educated people of Latin American origin here in the States, I began to realize what a USA-centric phenomenon the concept of the self-conscious "Hispanic" or "Latino" really is.

Professionals from Costa Rica or Panama or Venezuela don’t think of themselves as "Hispanics" even though Spanish is their first language. They think of themselves as Costa Ricans, Panamanians, or Venezuelans. (The manual laborers my brother deals with are probably the same in their own way, since they CAN tell very quickly who is Mexican, who is Salvadoran, and so on.) The concept of the self-avowed "Hispanic" or "Latino" is largely an artifact of US racial politics since the 1960s. (And besides, "Hispanic" is just another way of saying "Spanish," since both words come from the Latin noun "Hispania," which is the Roman word from which we derive the modern "Spain" or "Espana.")

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/6984