Senator Bigot

I really haven't followed this story too closely, but I was under the impression that Lott seemed to be apologizing for legitamit conservative positions. Obviously, the Republicans who are hammering him understand that this is a great opportunity for them, which combined with education choice could make inroads in the Black vote. I heard the head of the National Black Farmers Association condemn him this morning on the radio. There is little doubt that farm subsidies, which IMHO shouldn't exist, have been destributed as if Nathan Bedford Forrest were running the Department of Agriculture. I believe Lott has always been a supporter of nationalized agriculture, so the question is, could he have impacted distribution in his state? If so, he is a rascist rather than an opportunist.

Originally posted by Griff
... so the question is, could he have impacted distribution in his state? If so, he is a rascist rather than an opportunist.

Lott clearly was a racist, but he also was an oppurtunist - as demonstrated by who he associated with even in high school. A major part of Replublican southern leadership are old Democratic racists. Lott was right in there and raised among them. He was also late to 'convert'.

Lott will lose his leadership seat only because he did not admit, up front, as his black advisors told him, that he was a racist. By the time he got to his third apology, it was obvious he was only digging a deeper hole for himself. Right wing conservative Republician suddenly endorsing affirmative action was clearly the politician lying to get out of trouble. It only made he look like a liar leaving the probability that, deep down, he remained an oppurtunist racist - somebody who would do anything to get elected - as he demonstrated in high school.

He was a racist. That will always be so. If he really was a truly 'converted from' racist, then admitting his past would have been no problem. For some reason, he refused to acknowledge his early mistakes. It will cost him. It therefore resulted in discovery of more tapes where he made more segregationist Strom Thurmond jokes. He has done this more than once after he supposidely converted from racism. Had he just admitted his history up front, then this all would have gone away. Now everyone is reviewing old Lott quotes and finding more of the same comments. This will burn him especially in a White House that is desperately trying to recruit Blacks and Hispanics to the party.

What does it take to undermine leadership? Ask Newt Gingrich.

Real life, once again, proves to be soooo much more amusing than fiction.

I was wondering what sort of amusing observations the Lott Eruption would evoke here. I can't wait to enjoy as the debate unfolds. Bigot or not, Lott blew it big time, and didn't even get the apology right! Someone's got to pay, and my bet is on Lott himself, rather than the current Republican agenda. They have waited too long for this power ascension, and they're not going to let a gaffe like this derail their program. I predict Lott's a goner.

You can't pay for entertainment like this.

Originally posted by Griff
I was under the impression that Lott seemed to be apologizing for legitamit conservative positions.

Then you havce an odd notion of what conservative positions are these days. The GOP does not endorse segregaion as a part of its platform. And Lott's been kissing so much ass in apology that he's endorsed affirmative action, opposition to which *is* a legitimate conservative postition, so he's pissed off friends and foes alike.

Trent, you are the Weakest Link....

Should have started a Lott thread earlier. It's been a fun romp watching it play out. At this point the Ds have a win-win situation going for them. If the guy stays in power the Rs look bad and he has to vote yay on anything vaguely race-related from here on out. If the guy is voted out he's discredited and they have to give lip service to keep him in the Senate after his threat to depart.

The moron doesn't have the good sense to just do the right thing and resign his leadership post. Christ, even Nixon had the sense to get out of Dodge. YOU blew it, it's YOUR responsibility to correct.

From what I've read there aren't many better choices for the job. Ah the Senate... home of the most serious career politicians in the world, for whom nothing is not political. What a lovely bunch.

I think Democrats want to keep him in, because that gives them an obvious scapegoat. Not only that, it's something they can use in every Senate race across the country - Don't vote for that Republican, he voted for the racist for majority leader.

Of course, the #2 guy in the Senate, Don Nickles of Oklahoma, has a similar voting record. I think the best thing for Republicans would be to force Lott out and put in someone kind of moderate to give themselves some credibility.

I've just been kind of sitting back and watching the whole show ...

Frankly, I'm not entirely certain about why everbody's panties are in a bunch over Lott's statements.

He said some nice, off the cuff, things about an extremely elderly man whose party he was attending.

He didn't say "Wow, I think the country would have been a much better place if Strom's white man first ideals had come to power in 1948 and put them uppity son's of bitches in their place" ... he paid the old guy a compliment, most likely irrespective of the platform of the party he was running on behalf of at the time. Heck, if the Devil in the Blue Dress (Ann Coulter) is right, then segregation was a strong democratic platform plank at the time.

No amount of apology is going to help him, though. Being called a racist is very much like being called a child molester. No one checks the facts. The accusation is sufficient proof of guilt for many people.

If anything is true about this whole situation, it's that Trent is not the sharpest pencil in the box, and that he should never be exposed to a microphone without a script.

To me it wasn't what he said, it was the drawl.

That changed it from "Ha ha ha, maybe you were right all along, ha ha ha" to "Just between you 'n' me, buddy, you were right all along about the negro problem."

Second on the list of evidence was reversing himself on affirmative action.

There certainly is a rational argument, and even an integrationist argument for affirmative action. One could vote against it believing that affirmative action will actually hurt racial equality. Or one can vote against it because one is racist. Or one can vote against it because one finds it in one's best interests to be in good favor with racists.

Only the last reason would explain why one would CHANGE one's vote on the basis of a gaffe.

Originally posted by wolf
Frankly, I'm not entirely certain about why everbody's panties are in a bunch over Lott's statements.

He said some nice, off the cuff, things about an extremely elderly man whose party he was attending.

I agree. I think he was just ass-kissing at the time, but his comments backfired on him. He probably just didnt realize what he was saying and how deep things ran. Hell, I say stupid things all the time and nobody demands my resignation on their desk.

But it's fun watching a politician screw himself into a corner like this.....:D

Originally posted by wolf
Frankly, I'm not entirely certain about why everbody's panties are in a bunch over Lott's statements.

He said some nice, off the cuff, things about an extremely elderly man whose party he was attending.

An extremely elderly <i>Member of Congress</i>, in front of the assembled press in as conciously and deliberately political an occasion as Wellstone's funeral. The only difference here was that Thurmond wasn't dead yet (and presumably "didn't want to go on the cart".)

Look, a US Senator can't simply retroactively endorse somebody's presidential campaign without thinking, no how matter what a "nice old man" they may be now. You need to be mindful of what their platform was then and how it meshes with your own.

After all, Henry Kissinger is a "nice old man" too...right? Who's saying "nice" things about him? ;-)

If anything is true about this whole situation, it's that Trent is not the sharpest pencil in the box, and that he should never be exposed to a microphone without a script.

Which I'd have to say is a deep disqualification to be Senate Majority Leader.

Originally posted by verbatim


Hell, I say stupid things all the time and nobody demands my resignation on their desk.

The point here being that you are not a candidate for senate majority leader. I'm sure you're a lovely person, but let's face it, folks don't expect as much of you as they do of their distinguished leaders. As a private citizen, you are free to say all the stupid shit you want.

But it's fun watching a politician screw himself into a corner like this.....:D

I agree wholeheartedly!

Originally posted by MaggieL

Then you havce an odd notion of what conservative positions are these days.

I was thinking of the MLK holiday and affirmative action in particular. I don't think the average Republican on the street is a segregationist.

The Germans have a word for taking pleasure in the pain of others, heard it in an old Carlin skit... maybe Dave remembers it . Thats where I am on political witch hunts, especially when they're really begging for it.

Schadenfreude.

Originally posted by dave
Schadenfreude.

Sehr richtig!

Originally posted by dave
Schadenfreude.

Es hat mir sehr gefallen.

Well, he's resigning as Majority Leader, so it's all over anyway.

And as for affirmative action - I've been generally on the fence on the whole thing for the past few years, but when I read this study , I felt I had no choice but to move myself in favor of it. The authors of the study sent out resumes with "black sounding" names and "white sounding" names and found that the black names got significantly lower callbacks than the white ones. In addition, when the credentials on the resume were increased, this made little difference for the black candidates, but a significant impact on white ones.

Of course, it doesn't prove that the owners of the business were racist, but it does show that there is still an economic disparity.

I know this isn't necessarily on topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Thread hijacking, here we come!

hermit, thanks for the update. Now that we won't have Trent to kick around anymore, it might be interesting to look at the many and varied ways folks reacted to this story.

I'm particularly amused by James Carville's forgiveness of Senator Lott. Now, I know Carville is an important talking head and all (and, my goodness, just look at the size of that melon, wouldja?) but, who, exactly, is entitled to 'forgive' a public figure who sticks his foot in his mouth?

Should I be sending my words of consolation to the Senator? Or how about the melanin-enhanced residents of the great state of South Carolina, who have endured the representation of Sen. Thurmond for 48 years? Do they get to 'forgive' Trent Lott?

Carville's move was calculated, despite what he said. I think it was a signal to his side to say this is a win-win situation and don't you dare get caught up in the lose-lose tornado. Step back and let it play out.

Carville's move was calculated

Agree!
What about John Lewis? I believe he's sincere, yet savvy, managing to show the Dems the best play.

Oh yeah, he was also a winner in it, coming off gracious.

Now, dare one say "This nation's in for a good Fristing" or is that going too far?

<blockquote><i>
The momentum that ended in Trent Lott's resignation yesterday as the Senate majority leader did not, primarily, come from the traditional behemoths of the US media - the New York Times, the Washington Post and the main TV news networks.

Instead, the controversy has proved a defining moment for the vibrant online culture of weblogs - nimble, constantly updated, opinion-driven internet journals, freed from many of the constraints of the established media...
</blockquote></i>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,864036,00.html

I watched Lott on BET the other night...

I want to believe that he really is sorry for what he said. That he has no ill will towards minorities. That he actually believes in affirmative action and feels bad about voting against the King holiday. Not to mention, to be fair, he never specifically said anything regarding race...I didn't hear anything like, "If Strom had been elected president, we wouldn't have to cater to these fucking niggers!"

In the end, I think he's an "accidental racist." As in, "Oh, I have no problem with black people, just those fucking niggers." His past speaks for itself to me. And I think he's sorry only b/c he blew off the whole deal initially. Any chance of the Republicans pulling more than 9% of the African-American vote are gone for probably a decade.

Fuck the Majority Leader b.s...he should have resigned his Senate seat...what a crackhead.

I think two other important issues came out of all this...

1--The black vote is not to be fucked with. Notice how quickly some Republicans denounced the remarks. The GOP wants the minority vote, and the black vote is probably the most organized of the minorities in this country, except for maybe the Jews (if you classify them as a minority).

2--Though we have made great strides since the days of Jim Crow, we still have a great distance to travel to achieve equality among all peoples.

Originally posted by Undertoad
Ah the Senate... home of the most serious career politicians in the world, for whom nothing is not political. What a lovely bunch.

We must have been on a similar wavelength the other day, UT...

Last week, I learned that Jim Talent (who defeated Jean Carnahan in Missouri's special Senate election) has already been sworn in...the last week of November, IIRC.

That guy must be jonesing to have a political position. He served as a Congressman in St. Louis County for several years before running for governor 2 years ago...he lost, obviously. Now he's a Senator. With examples like Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, and Thurmond, he'll never want to leave.

Originally posted by sycamore
Any chance of the Republicans pulling more than 9% of the African-American vote are gone for probably a decade.

Heh. Like there was any chance of that even before the recent unpleasantness with Mr. Lott?

The black vote is not to be fucked with.

The black vote can be fucked with with impunity, Syc.

To the extent that there is a monolithic "black vote", that vote is firmly in the hip pockets of the Democrats. The Democrats know that, and so do the Republicans. And you know what? The Republicans don't care.

Let's face it: blacks are only, what... 11% to 12% of the total US population? And if current trends in immigration and in the birth rate among Hispanics remain constant, that percentage will decline.

Moreover, voter turnout among blacks is even lower than the already abysmal average for Americans who can't be bothered to drag their sorry asses to a polling place once every two years. For reasons I'm not sure anybody understands (and for our purpose here they really don't matter), blacks just don't vote in large numbers.

Do you know what the Republicans learned from the last two elections? They learned that they don't need the black vote to win.

The DNC-NAACP Axis of Evil came out swinging with everything they had back in 2000, and they still couldn't get the Gore Robot elected. Hell, he couldn't even carry his home state.

Last month, the local "black establishment" down here worked itself into a frenzy trying to get Bobby Kennedy's daughter elected governor of one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. And they couldn't crack the nut. Maryland has a shiny new Republican governor for the first time in over 30 years.

Those are just two examples, but I think you see where I'm going with this.

The black vote doesn't matter, Syc. I'm not sure it ever did. It's the Hispanic vote that causes pollsters and political strategists to wake up screaming and drenched in cold sweat.

Jesus! If those people ever figure out where the polling place is, we'll all be in trouble! ;)

But they have to keep trying, because if they do it'll cause the biggest sea change since that southern shift. But what's strange about it all is how it probably won't shift off 50-50 even if it happens.

Both parties have to relentlessly poll and take positions based on what the electorate is thinking at any given moment so that they stay 50-50.

And y'know what: partly as a result, we have the same politics regarding race relations that we have had for decades. The problems shift faster than the politics.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

The DNC-NAACP Axis of Evil came out swinging with everything they had back in 2000, and they still couldn't get the Gore Robot elected. Hell, he couldn't even carry his home state.

Gore's gun prohibitionist policies did not help him at all in that election. And the Dem's "firmly in hip pocket" attitude about gay and lesbians was clearly illustrated when "don't ask don't tell" Clinton showed his true colors once in office.

From what I saw, it looked like Townsend ran a crappy campaign to begin with. Add a budget deficit and Glendening's screw-arounds during his last years in office, and I'm not surprised a Republican will be chilling in Annapolis in January.

Blacks currently make up 12.3%, while those of Hispanic origin make up 12.5%. (Source)

I agree with you on the Hispanic factor to a point. Because of the various nationalities, I don't think they will ever be cohesive as a whole. I do see various groups pulling together regionally (e.g. Cubans in South Florida, Dominicans in NYC, etc.).

I disagree with you on the power of the black vote though. Let's use a short sketch...in this sketch, you are white and I am black:

HB: Syc, we need a 5th player for our basketball team.

Syc: Well, I'm not sure...I have some grievances from the last time we did this...

HB: There are no grievances to discuss...come on! Join the team!

Syc: Fuck you then...I ain't playing.

HB: But if you don't play, we can't form the team and join the league.

Syc: Too bad.

The black vote, IMO, is a swing factor for the Dems. And if the Census estimates are near target, the white population is shrinking, while the black population is staying steady, and the Hispanic population is growing quickly. And White males are the bread and butter of the GOP, it seems. Given that Dubya and the GOP want to be "conservatives that care," I would imagine that they would like nothing more than to roll up some more folks like J.C. Watts, Ward Connelly, and Alan Keyes.

22 years ago, then Rep. Trent Lott made a very similar comment about Thurmond when the two attended a rally for Reagan. Admittedly, I was only a 5-year old then, but can anyone here remember this comment being said back then? Was there as big of a furor over it as there was for the current controversy? I doubt it, which IMO reflects two things about the current shenanigans:

--The increased "power" of blacks in this country
--A stronger desire for the GOP to be an "all-inclusive" party

And even though blacks seem squarely behind the Dems right now, I'm not so sure that will be the case in the future. Based only on what I've seen in the past few years, there are more black conservatives out there than I would have expected. And that the GOP actually got 9% of the black vote is surprising to me (I don't know what the historical numbers are). I don't see them all running down to the Board of Election Commissioners to change their party affiliation, but I sense that the younger generation wishes to forge a new path...they won't go with the Republicans, but they're not happy with the Dems, either.

I didn’t have time to reply to Hubris Boy before taking off for the weekend, but I was sure I’d see some refutation of some his more specious statements upon my return. I know that HB has a sterling reputation for having some solid data behind his points, but I’m afraid cognitive dissonance may have obscured some of the information which informed his most recent post re. black voter turnout and voting trends, insofar as they affect party politics, both nationally and in the state of Maryland.

Heh. Like there was any chance of that [Republicans getting more than 9% of the vote in a national election] even before the recent unpleasantness with Mr. Lott?

Well, as it happens, the Republican party has already received more than 9% of the vote in a presidential election, in fact, in every presidential election from Carter in ’76 through Clinton in ’96, 9% or more of voting blacks have voted for the Republican candidate.

Let's face it: blacks are only, what... 11% to 12% of the total US population? And if current trends in immigration and in the birth rate among Hispanics remain constant, that percentage will decline . . . . It's the Hispanic vote that causes pollsters and political strategists to wake up screaming and drenched in cold sweat.

In 2000, blacks made up 12.3% of population, but 12.9% of the eligible voters. But HB is right; the hispanic population is growing at a much faster rate. While they currently vote at a lesser rate than both blacks and whites, they vote Republican far more frequently than blacks, so Republicans ought to be able to capitalize on this demographic trend, rather than running scared.

For reasons I'm not sure anybody understands (and for our purpose here they really don't matter), blacks just don't vote in large numbers.

While the overall rate of voter participation (in presidential elections) is steadily declining, the rate for whites is declining at a much faster rate than that of blacks.

As to why blacks don’t vote at the same rate as whites, a concise chronology might help to illuminate:
Nearly universal inability to vote during slavery era;
General inability to vote during reconstruction era;
Extreme difficulty voting during Jim Crow era;
Post-segregation impediments such as grandfather clauses, poll taxes and literacy tests.

I would wager that had the majority of whites in this country been subjected to these conditions, they would currently be less politically organized and would vote at lesser rates, as well.

Last month, the local "black establishment" down here worked itself into a frenzy trying to get Bobby Kennedy's daughter elected governor of one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. And they couldn't crack the nut. Maryland has a shiny new Republican governor for the first time in over 30 years.

and

To the extent that there is a monolithic "black vote", that vote is firmly in the hip pockets of the Democrats. The Democrats know that, and so do the Republicans. And you know what? The Republicans don't care.

HB, you and I both know that Republican Ehrlich won the election because his opponent, Kennedy-Townsend, was an unparalleled doofus. What you fail to note is that the Republican party had the savvy to run the first ever black candidate for Maryland lieutenant governor on their ticket. As a result, the 3 majority black/Democratic jurisdictions in Maryland voted republican 29% in 2002, as opposed to 22.3% in 2000. In fact, Maryland will soon swear in its shiny new Republican governor precisely because they saw that the “black vote” was not guaranteed to the Democrats, and they did care. A lot. And, if they’re smart, they’ll continue to care; they’ve probably maximized their return on the white vote and get greater marginal utility out of campaign dollars by targeting blacks and hispanics.

Sorry to drone on, but voter demographics happens to be a hobby of mine.

Thanks for listening.

Well, well... a new playmate here in the sandbox! Welcome, welcome!

originally posted by 99 44/100% pure
I didn’t have time to reply to Hubris Boy before taking off for the weekend, but I was sure I’d see some refutation of some his more specious statements upon my return.

Hubris Boy doesn't make specious statements, as we shall soon see.

Well, as it happens, the Republican party has already received more than 9% of the vote in a presidential election, in fact, in every presidential election from Carter in ’76 through Clinton in ’96, 9% or more of voting blacks have voted for the Republican candidate.

I was thinking about the most recent presidential election, when the Republicans received only 8 percent of the black vote. I was also thinking about the future, and I stand by my prediction that fewer than 9% of black voters will vote Republican in 2004.

I didn't consider any elections earlier than the last one. You may be right, that more than 9% of black voters weren't stupid enough to vote for Carter or Mondale or Dukakis. I don't know. If you say it's true, I certainly believe you.

In 2000, blacks made up 12.3% of population, but 12.9% of the eligible voters.

Well, I was more worried about readability than I was about the digits to the right of the decimal point but, hey... if you have to dig that deep in search of something to refute in my post, it's cool with me. I'll let you have that other 3/10s of 1 percent, if it'll make you feel better.

But HB is right; the hispanic population is growing at a much faster rate. While they currently vote at a lesser rate than both blacks and whites, they vote Republican far more frequently than blacks, so Republicans ought to be able to capitalize on this demographic trend, rather than running scared.

I never said otherwise. Actually, I didn't say anything at all about voting trends among Hispanics. But since you mention it, yeah... everything I've read suggests that Republican strategists are beside themselves with delight over all those nice, conservative, Catholic, Hispanic potential voters who now make America their home. Voters whose strength and numbers will serve only to further marginalize the importance of the "black vote".

HB, you and I both know that Republican Ehrlich won the election because his opponent, Kennedy-Townsend, was an unparalleled doofus.

I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. What I do know is that the Democrats, relying heavily on black majorities in Prince George's County and Baltimore City, failed to get their candidate elected in one of the most solidly Democratic states in the nation. That's what I know.

As a result, the 3 majority black/Democratic jurisdictions in Maryland voted republican 29% in 2002, as opposed to 22.3% in 2000.

I was only aware of two majority black jurisdictions in Maryland: Baltimore City and PG County. What's the third? More importantly, what's your point? Even PG County and Baltimore City have some Republicans and some white people living in them.

What you fail to note is that the Republican party had the savvy to run the first ever black candidate for Maryland lieutenant governor on their ticket.

Mr. Steele's race had nothing to do with his selection as Mr. Ehrlich's running mate for lieutenant governor. He was chosen solely on the basis of his qualifications. And if you dare to suggest otherwise, I'll brand you as a racist and demand that you immediately resign from any public office you may hold.

...they’ve probably maximized their return on the white vote and get greater marginal utility out of campaign dollars by targeting blacks and hispanics.

I think you're absolutely right about the Hispanics; I think you're dead wrong about the "black vote". Until the "black vote" gets tired of being the Stand-by Saturday Night Fuck Date for the DNC, they're going to stay right there in that nice, cozy hip pocket.

And so, Hubris Boy's sterling reputation remains untarnished... indeed, becomes shinier and more lustrous with every passing day.

By the way... I really dig your writing style, and the fact that you can spell and compose a coherent sentence. I also really liked the cookies you and the girls left out on the counter for me earlier. Glad you're here. Honey.

p.s.
I've known ever since you posted the lyrics to National Brotherhood Week

Originally posted by hermit22
Well, he's resigning as Majority Leader, so it's all over anyway.

And as for affirmative action - I've been generally on the fence on the whole thing for the past few years, but when I read this study , I felt I had no choice but to move myself in favor of it. The authors of the study sent out resumes with "black sounding" names and "white sounding" names and found that the black names got significantly lower callbacks than the white ones. In addition, when the credentials on the resume were increased, this made little difference for the black candidates, but a significant impact on white ones.

Of course, it doesn't prove that the owners of the business were racist, but it does show that there is still an economic disparity.

I know this isn't necessarily on topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Thread hijacking, here we come!

Also, there is the "profiling by addresses" on the resumes as well.

Heh, I'm sure that at some of the jobs that I've applied for in my lifetime, there were a couple where the interviewer was surprised to see my black face walk into the office (seeing as though my speaking voice on the phone doesn't sound typically "black").

No, I don't have definitive proof, but I just know how I feel about that issue.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

The black vote doesn't matter, Syc. I'm not sure it ever did. It's the Hispanic vote that
causes pollsters and political strategists to wake up screaming and drenched in cold sweat.

Hmm...I have a feeling that once the politicians are "through" with Latinos , they'll have no more use for them. "Sure, we NEED your votes...that's it...vote for us, you won't be sorry!" :p

As far as the black vote is concerned, if it doesn't matter, then why should "we" even bother? That's probably WHY blacks don't come out in huge numbers. As much as the NAACP and others try to get "us" to vote, many blacks have just given up, especially the older ones...after all, many of them had to deal with segregation and laws inacted to keep them from existing as human beings in this country. So, a part of me doesn't blame them for NOT even wanting to give one good goddamn about voting...BUT...at the same time, I wish that they would. IMO, it would make a hell of a difference.

Yes, that's a good post and very interesting. But the real question is, do you ever feel like kicking Syc's ass for being a liberal?

You can PM me with a reply so as not to cause any friction at home. :D

Also, see my blanket apology below.

I'm going to address my reply to everyone, since all of you need to get out of the 1950's and realize it's 2002! We have a growing phenomenon taking place, it's called the mixed race. My children are mixed, as are many of the most beautiful children of the world are! Soon there will be no more White, Black, Red, Yellow, or Green because everyone will simply be Brown, a nice blend of all races together. Just watch the younger generation(my son's age:7) and learn...they are already "color-blind" and know what the future holds, instead of holding on to the past.

Also, if you are pro-affirmative action, you better be pro-racial profiling as well. By definition affirmative action and racial profiling are based on race. You are either for them both or against them both, take the good with the bad...you can't pick and choose to suit your own needs. What's fair is fair.

Senator Lott has already explained his "we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today" meant the Middle East...before his words were hijacked(and that is his fault for leaving it open to interpretation) if anyone of us were asked what mess are we in today? Anybody who doesn't live under a rock would say, the Middle East! Senator Lott is right when he said that he "fell into a trap." The trap of being blackmailable...any Jesse Jackson out there would threaten to ruin him if he held to issues he was elected to hold.
It will be fun to watch activist groups and DemocRATS squirm and squeal when they realize they should have been careful what they asked for! LOL....

Originally posted by Cairo
We have a growing phenomenon taking place, it's called the mixed race.

Because it's you, I have to ask...what is "mixed race" (not necessarily what your children are, just your definition of the concept as a whole)?

Originally posted by slang
Yes, that's a good post and very interesting. But the real question is, do you ever feel like kicking Syc's ass for being a liberal?

Rho and I are pretty much on the same liberal wavelength, but I now have no choice but to kick your sorry ass for trying to be a shit-disturber. ;)

Originally posted by sycamore


Rho and I are pretty much on the same liberal wavelength

I thought maybe you guys had that "opposites attract" thing going. Or that Lsyc might be the one AA female in the country.

Originally posted by Cairo
We have a growing phenomenon taking place, it's called the mixed race. ..

. . . and there are actually people alive today, among our esteemed our peers on this site, in fact, who believe that there is some formula for determining who is black. For example, if at least one of your grandparents is black (no matter the ethnicity of all other descendants), you are black. (!)

The idea of a monolithic "black vote" ought to terrify these 'racial purists,' as the group that identifies itslef as "more than one race, including Black" is growing at a much faster rate than the general population and all other self-identified groups.

Perhaps Senator Lott and others would benefit from some briefings on the current thinking in both the scientific and anthropological communities about the obsolescence of the artificial construct of race. While many scholarly and scientific sources abound, a very concise overview of the history of the notion of 'race' and the myriad facts and reasons to do away with this man-made concept, can be found -- of all places -- at the National Cancer Institute.

Originally posted by Cairo
more White, Black, Red, Yellow, or Green because everyone will simply be Brown, a nice blend of all races together. Just watch the younger generation(my son's age:7) and learn...they are already "color-blind" and know what the future holds, instead of holding on to the past.

I was pretty colorblind when I was 7 too. And then I grew older, and the real world intruded on my innocence. I think we have a few more generations to go before the general population is truly colorblind.

Also, if you are pro-affirmative action, you better be pro-racial profiling as well. By definition affirmative action and racial profiling are based on race. You are either for them both or against them both, take the good with the bad...you can't pick and choose to suit your own needs. What's fair is fair.

Actually, yeah, you can. Affirmative action and racial profiling are both based on race, yes, but so are affirmative action and segregation. You can't equate one policy that's intended to equalize the playing field with one that ends up making people feel oppressed.

That being said, I think many of the cases of racial profiling are just police seeing suspicious activity and acting on it. This isn't to say it's a real phenomena, but I don't think (or, at least, I hope not) it's as bad as Rev. Sharpton, et al. would have us believe.

Senator Lott has already explained his "we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today" meant the Middle East...before his words were hijacked(and that is his fault for leaving it open to interpretation) if anyone of us were asked what mess are we in today? Anybody who doesn't live under a rock would say, the Middle East! Senator Lott is right when he said that he "fell into a trap." The trap of being blackmailable...any Jesse Jackson out there would threaten to ruin him if he held to issues he was elected to hold.
It will be fun to watch activist groups and DemocRATS squirm and squeal when they realize they should have been careful what they asked for! LOL....

Ok, since most of that didn't make sense, I'll answer what I found in it.

When did Lott say he was talking about the Middle East? Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat platform revolved almost exclusively around segregation. If you show me proof of Lott's intentions, I'll believe you. But I haven't seen anything but half-hearted apologies. And a trap? The only trap he fell into was the one he set himself.

And the issues he was elected to hold? By associating Jesse Jackson with this, you imply that he was elected to hold up racist issues. Which thoroughly invalidates the first half of your paragraph, and says that every racist remark he's ever made was, if not heartfelt, then intentional.

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure

While many scholarly and scientific sources abound, a very concise overview of the history of the notion of 'race' and the myriad facts and reasons to do away with this man-made concept, can be found -- of all places -- at the National Cancer Institute.

That's a pretty good summary. I saw somewhere that the differences between the races was something like less than 1/1000th of a percent of our DNA. There's bound to be more differences in a race than there are between the races as a whole.

Originally posted by slang
Please accept my most sincere heartfelt apology for anything that may possibly offend anyone at any time for any reason in any thread and/or any topic. I regret the perception of any insensitivity or bias that may bring one distress or make them cry or incite one to violence.

If Trent Lott had the foresight to quote Slang - then shut up - he would have been elected Majority Leader. That was all he had to say. Not only did he not keep his mouth shut during his apology era, but we also now know he kept repeating that same bad Strom Thurmond joke. Slang for senatorial political adviser. It has credibility. Lott also needs a new joke writer. Any ideas?

I'll second the nomination.

Sycamore -
Ahhhhh, because it's YOU...I figured as much. Hehehe...
"Mixed race" as in more than one. Can't really say bi-racial anymore because today bi-racial men and women are having children with partners that blend a third race in as well.

99 44/100% pure -
I agree that race will soon be a non-factor...sooner than most think.
Those who think that they are Black no matter what are oppressing and enslaving(by denial of existence) the Hispanic,White,Asian, or Other DNA/Culture in them...in effect, being racist to themselves. Sad. I wonder who teaches them this nonsense?
The "more than one" race generation is growing fast in general...and guess what? Most are well educated and conservative!
Senator Lott wasn't the one who pulled out the "race card" here, so don't blame him for keeping the racial divide alive...you can thank the Democrat minority leaders for that! Those who would "benefit from briefings on current thinking" are the people who would be out of a job if race were no longer an issue.

Hermit22 -
No...as you grew older you were taught to see color, and you were taught to attribute any roadblocks or failures in the "real world" to color
because we are also taught to blame anything but ourselves. Personal responsibility and accountability are often buried in a "feel good" society. Parents of the "more than one race" generation do not teach differences of color. My son has concluded(on his own) that some kids have better suntans than others because they get to play outside more, it all starts in the home!
O.K...either you are pro-affirmative action and pro-segregation, or you are against BOTH! Are you saying that affirmative action quotas don't end up making people feel oppressed?

Lott was 7 years old when Strom ran for President on mostly a Democrat platform, Strom has changed parties and views since then, so I'm sure he's not remembered as such around the watercooler.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2075408/

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGAL1VA8M9D.html

Apologize for what? Wanting America to keep a strong defense? Or for trying to pay tribute to a 100 year old man's life?
The blackmail trap is always there for every politician, Lott fell into the hole that was already there.

No, the issues he was elected to hold are Republican issues...now, it seems, that you are calling me and Lott's constituents in Mississippi racists????? Take a look in the mirror, bud...
I'm not the one insisting that this is a race issue and putting words in mouths that aren't there!!!

Originally posted by Cairo

Those who think that they are Black no matter what are oppressing and enslaving(by denial of existence) the Hispanic,White,Asian, or Other DNA/Culture in them...in effect, being racist to themselves. Sad. I wonder who teaches them this nonsense?

So it's racist to be proud of your heritage? You've mentioned earlier that you're Jewish, and, as far as I know, you have to have Jewish blood in order to be Jewish. So are you racist simply because of your religion?

No...as you grew older you were taught to see color, and you were taught to attribute any roadblocks or failures in the "real world" to color
because we are also taught to blame anything but ourselves. Personal responsibility and accountability are often buried in a "feel good" society.

Uh..wow. Nice assumption that I blame problems on race. Isn't that how the Lott thing came up in the first place? Blaming "roadblocks or failures" (problems) on color? I bristle at your implied suggestion that I'm somehow racist. If you look at my post, I was talking about the discussions on race that permeate our society. Child rearing, no matter how great, isn't going to protect children from national debate.

O.K...either you are pro-affirmative action and pro-segregation, or you are against BOTH! Are you saying that affirmative action quotas don't end up making people feel oppressed?

See how bigoted you sound? The point of affirmative action is to attempt to make things equal (not 'separate but equal'). Segregation served no noble purpose; it existed only to make dirty racists feel cleaner. Of course there are problems with affirmative action, but there are problems with any social institution. That being said, I'm not one of those people who think affirmative action is failproof, or should last forever. But I do think your comments are evidence of the sentiment behind Lott's remarks: not to say you're racist or he is (even though the evidence on him points otherwise, despite the ass-kissing in the links you posted), but that it shows a great insensitivity for the real race problems in this country, and the only way to fix them is to end any discussion, and return to an idyllic fantasy of the past.

Apologize for what? Wanting America to keep a strong defense? Or for trying to pay tribute to a 100 year old man's life?

No, the issues he was elected to hold are Republican issues...now, it seems, that you are calling me and Lott's constituents in Mississippi racists????? Take a look in the mirror, bud...

Hmm...I'd say Truman did a pretty decent job on defense. This was post-WWII, and America only wanted its boys home. He was able to recognise the growing threat of Communism, and started to take action to combat it. Or maybe you don't like Ike's job? He did cut the military back a bit (a lot) in order to streamline it. Any president since then would not have been directly effected by a Thurmond presidency.
No, the real problem is Lott's embodiment of the Southern Strategy, which has been key to the national Republican strategy since Nixon. It means, at the very least, paying lip service to racists, and, at the worst, running anti-black ads like Helms did. There's a lot of such sentiment in the Republican party, and that doesn't mean that every Republican's a racist - it just means that nearly every Republican figure that relies on the Southern vote pursues this strategy - even John McCain. And this is just wrong. Racists shouldn't be coddled, and neither should Trent Lott. What he said boils down to a racist remark, no matter what he claims to have meant by it, because it evokes a campaign that was built almost entirely on racism. His reformation isn't as evident as Thurmond's, so he had little to stand on. No, Lott got what he deserved. There was no trap set against him. No reporter asked him any pointed questions - he was giving a speech about an old man he thinks is great and got carried away with his exuberance, nostalgia, or some similar emotion.

I'm not the one insisting that this is a race issue and putting words in mouths that aren't there!!!

No, you're trying to insist that it isn't a race issue and trying to take words out of mouths that are there. This isn't a conspiracy against your beloved Senator. "Personal responsibility and accountability are often buried in a "feel good" society" - seems you've fallen victim to this in your analysis of Trent Lott.

Hermit22 -
Listen for a moment to what you are saying...
"So it's racist to be proud of your heritage?"
Their heritage is also 50% Hispanic, White, Asian, or other...not too proud of that are they?
A racist is one who considers one race superior to all others. So are you a racist if you think 50% of you is superior to the other 50% of you?

I never implied that you consider one race superior to others, I implied that society today plays the race card instead of striving to be the best qualified. I could rant about the true reality of today...which is that I have a very "Hispanic sounding" name through marriage, however, I am as redheaded and freckled as they come. Seeing my name on an application, employers think-(Cha-ching) TWO quotas for the price of 1 position! I'm not qualified, but their extra position leaves them free to hire a quota-less qualified person. Imagine their HORROR when my lilly white ass waltzes in the door!!!! I could whine and play the race card, but I'd rather end discrimination based on race.

I don't sound bigotted, you're the one saying that employment based solely on race is equal?!?!

I showed proof of his ill-worded intent, you said you would believe it then because, after all, Trent Lott knows what he meant and nobody else could... but you lied...just more of the same from you!

Hmm.

So I've been sitting here for about 30 seconds trying to figure out just what the hell you were trying to say, and decided that you're using some Mississippi dialect I don't know. Somehow it's inexcusable to be proud of your ancestors when some came from Europe and others from Latin America? I guess? I think I'm really putting too much thought into trying to decipher you here.

But I will comment on two things:

Originally posted by Cairo

I don't sound bigotted, you're the one saying that employment based solely on race is equal?!?!

And if there are obvious trends that people aren't being hired solely because of they're race, that's not bad?
I wish I knew of a better solution, but I don't think ending affirmative action is currently justifiable without a decent replacement.

I showed proof of his ill-worded intent, you said you would believe it then because, after all, Trent Lott knows what he meant and nobody else could... but you lied...just more of the same from you!

So I'm a liar, now, eh? No wonder I keep going through Levis. Did it ever enter into your mind that he was lying about his intent?

And those ass-kissing links you provided were not proof positive that Lott's a reformist. This is a serious issue, and it is something that stains the GOP nationwide. There are a lot of blacks, feminists and gays that would vote Republican if the party would break away from its own discriminatory panderings. This doesn't mean the party is racist, or homophobic, or mysoginistic, but that it doesn't make efforts to prove that its not, and doesn't condone such activity within its ranks.

Hermit22 -
The reason you are having to decipher what I'm saying is because you have blocked out the statement from 99 44/100... that prompted me to say what I said. He was talking solely about the "more than ones" who consider themselves to be one race and ignore the other(s). See?

There are obvious trends that people are being hired on qualifications only, but quotas are stopping the natural trend and reducing minorities to a "token" status that keeps them perpetually unequal by conveying that minorities can't get hired on their own...and we deserve better than that!

No one forced you to say, "I would believe you."
You shouldn't have said it then.

Excuse me! There already are a lot of Blacks, Feminists, Gays, and Hispanics who vote Republican because they want equality...I should know, my whole family consists of those groups of people!
You forget that discrimination has always been a Democratic platform...Oh, they now talk the talk to fool the ones who don't pay attention. But honestly, what action have they taken other than playing the race card and widening the divide?!?!
Democrats pander to activist groups who don't want equality, they want special treatment not equal!

The main reason Blacks, Hispanics, and Feminists vote Republican is American family values. The Democrats are on a tear to ruin the American family on all issues!
Also, Feminists know that Republicans don't have this "hidden agenda" to abolish abortion, if that were true, Reagan was the one to do it, he didn't.
Republicans wish to stop 7,8,9 month along fetuses
from murder, which most women agree by that time it is, because we have seen sonograms.
And gays are realizing that 8 years of Clinton left them pretty much empty handed, but 1 year of President Bush got them unmarried companion beneficiary compensation status!
If you cared to educate yourself on the actions, not words, of both parties...you would vote Republican too!

Originally posted by Cairo
. . .you have blocked out the statement from 99 44/100...He was talking solely about . . .

Er, I'm somewhat new around here, but even I know when to step out of the way when the shit starts to fly unrestricted, so I've pretty much stopped reading any posts by these two fueding banshees. However, I did feel that I must correct Cairo's assumption that I am male, an assumption, based, no doubt, on the sexist hegemony of the white male-dominated culture we are all forced (forced, I say!) to endure in this country.

Thank you.

99, you forgot to put Protestant in there. :)

Originally posted by sycamore
99, you forgot to put Protestant in there. :)

Yeah. Don't forget them. You know how those protestants are.

Especially the Episcopalians. They're the worst.

Nah, the Baptists are the absolute worst...Episcopalians are somewhere down the line, probably after Methodists.

not by a long shot. the absolute worst denomination is 'nondenominational'. go to a nondenominational church sometime. fucking nuts.

~james

Passive Agressive Presbyterians. Its all predestined folks.

99 44/100% pure -
My sincere apologies...I just did to you what people always do to me...not recognizing a strong woman. I don't know how I missed the signs in your posts of an intelligent strong woman, now I see them. But this has nothing to do with " the white male-dominated culture", it has to do with me not paying attention...and I know better because it also happens to me. I slacked, I apologize.

Originally posted by Cairo
Hermit22 -
The reason you are having to decipher what I'm saying is because you have blocked out the statement from 99 44/100... that prompted me to say what I said. He was talking solely about the "more than ones" who consider themselves to be one race and ignore the other(s). See?

Nope. Guess my 'liberal education' doesn't allow me to. Instead, I see some examples I gave of someone with Hispanic and European heritage that you responded to with something rather unintelligible.

There are obvious trends that people are being hired on qualifications only, but quotas are stopping the natural trend and reducing minorities to a "token" status that keeps them perpetually unequal by conveying that minorities can't get hired on their own...and we deserve better than that!

I've talked about this extensively on my blog, so I'll keep my response short.

If affirmative action wasn't in place, would society keep people perpetually unequal? That's all affirmative action tries to do. I don't disagree that the program should be re-examined (all social programs should be from time to time; it keeps them effective), but I haven't seen any reason to end it, nor a good replacement. And yet studies continue to be released that show minorities make 50-60% to every $1 whites make. They deserve better than that.

No one forced you to say, "I would believe you."
You shouldn't have said it then.

See, here's the problem: you didn't show me any proof. You showed me a few people whining about how a bigot was treated. That's not all that credible.
Show me Lott's actions that were in contradiction to his long-standing voting record, and I'll believe you. But you and I both know that those don't exist.

Excuse me! There already are a lot of Blacks, Feminists, Gays, and Hispanics who vote Republican because they want equality...I should know, my whole family consists of those groups of people!

Of course there are. But if you look at a broad sampling of these groups (except maybe Hispanics), the majority of them don't vote Republican because the rhetoric doesn't match their ideology or lifestyle. I have several friends who are gay or feminist that won't vote Republican precisely because of the actions and words of the party's leaders. So whose primary sources are more relative? Neither, really, when the quantitative data has its own results.

You forget that discrimination has always been a Democratic platform...Oh, they now talk the talk to fool the ones who don't pay attention. But honestly, what action have they taken other than playing the race card and widening the divide?!?!
Democrats pander to activist groups who don't want equality, they want special treatment not equal!

Civil Rights Act and the failed Equal Rights Amendment, which was defeated by Reagan, would be a couple pretty good examples of Democratic action.
Democrats used to be the party of bigots and misogynists. Now their only real refuge is a wing of the Republican party.

Also, Feminists know that Republicans don't have this "hidden agenda" to abolish abortion, if that were true, Reagan was the one to do it, he didn't.
Republicans wish to stop 7,8,9 month along fetuses
from murder, which most women agree by that time it is, because we have seen sonograms.

Nope. That agenda's right out in the open.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/politics/02ABOR.html)

And what a bunch of generalities! My god..."the Democrats" "Feminists" "most women"....how do you know that Feminists (with no qualifier, so as to imply that the majority of Feminists think this way) know this? Or that most women have this idea about murder?
Opinion poll have consistently shown around 2/3 of the population supporting a pro-choice stance. Just to let you know.

And gays are realizing that 8 years of Clinton left them pretty much empty handed, but 1 year of President Bush got them unmarried companion beneficiary compensation status!

I've never heard of this, although I know that there were several bills introduced during Clinton's time that got killed. Could you show me whatever it is you're talking about? I honestly don't pay too close attention to homosexual legislation, but I would think I'd have heard of something like this.

If you cared to educate yourself on the actions, not words, of both parties...you would vote Republican too!

I doubt it. Republicans are still the party of the wealthy, and, despite the shift away from it, Democrats are still the party of the downtrodden. And that's despite the false rhetoric you're spewing here.
There's also the large pro-war, anti-abortion, anti-environment, anti-gay, pro-big business, etc. etc. stances that push me away from the Republican Party.

Originally posted by Cairo
99 44/100% pure -
My sincere apologies...

Apology heartily accepted. I hope you will be as forgiving when you note that I refer to you as an [COLOR=royalblue]"unseemly idiot"[/COLOR] in a nearby thread. While my rebuke was not uncalled for, perhaps kinder words could have been used.

Can't you and Radar just turn down the volume a bit, so we can all hear ourselves think? Or maybe you could just argue one point at a time?

Thanks.

Originally posted by hermit22
Republicans are still the party of the wealthy, and, despite the shift away from it, Democrats are still the party of the downtrodden.

Now, I know I dont get out much, but I just cant see that statement as being true. I was making a good living pre 911 but I've never been considered rich.

I also try to avoid big business but I dont think they are "evil" or corrupt, just a pain in my ass.

I'm not anti- gay, black, or minority.

I do think that unions are just plain fuking useless though :3eye:

Originally posted by perth
not by a long shot. the absolute worst denomination is 'nondenominational'. go to a nondenominational church sometime. fucking nuts.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."--Rush

Originally posted by 99 44/100% pure
Or maybe you could just argue one point at a time?

Well, obviously HB didn't school you well enough on Cellar etiquette! Arguing less than 5 points at one time is a sign of weakness. Please make a note of it.

Originally posted by sycamore


Well, [b]obviously HB didn't school you well enough on Cellar etiquette! Arguing less than 5 points at one time is a sign of weakness. Please make a note of it. [/B]

(slang flips through Radar's book "how to debate ineffectively")

Also, never acknowlege anyone is even partially correct and keep the debate going even if it is reduced to proving the sky is blue.

:D

Originally posted by slang


Now, I know I dont get out much, but I just cant see that statement as being true. I was making a good living pre 911 but I've never been considered rich.

I also try to avoid big business but I dont think they are "evil" or corrupt, just a pain in my ass.

I'm not anti- gay, black, or minority.

I do think that unions are just plain fuking useless though :3eye:

Ok, I should clarify. I don't necessarily mean that the ranks of the Republican party favor the rich, etc. - I just mean that the party's platform and the actions of many of its leaders do so. And the Democrats are quickly losing points in my book on this matter.

Originally posted by slang
Also, never acknowlege anyone is even partially correct and keep the debate going even if it is reduced to proving the sky is blue.

Absolutely correct! Oh, and answer a question in as many paragraphs as possible, while not directly answering it.

The longer the better. Frankly if a message isn't a few paragraphs long, I feel it doesn't have anything to say and I skip it.

Modern communication sends millions of characters over the lines per second. So I prefer it when writers of posts employ words in such a way that they can write sentence after sentence, going on and on and on with needlessly flowery and/or empty language, and still after all of that, fail to really communicate anything whatsoever which is the whole point when you think about it.

But if a message is BOTH long AND well-written, I'm intimidated by it! So I only read long posts by poor writers.

Originally posted by Undertoad
But if a message is BOTH long AND well-written, I'm intimidated by it! So I only read long posts by poor writers.

So I guess you're saying that jaguar is your hero here? Good deal.

Colour me stupid *pauses for the predicable flurry of insults to go past* but are you insulting or complementing me? I"m honestly not sure what you mean.

Originally posted by jaguar
Colour me stupid *pauses for the predicable flurry of insults to go past* but are you insulting or complementing me? I"m honestly not sure what you mean.

We call that a left-handed compliment.

I'm sure this should be in the Word Usage Map thread, but around here we call it a 'back-handed' compliment. Nice diplomatic recovery there, guys.

On a completely unrelated subject (thereby showing that I'm really paying attention) I will try to take all your advice re. Cellar etiquette and improve the quality of my posts to assure maximum readability, readership and entertainment value. I apologize for my earlier attempts to be clear and concise.

I can think of nothing more to say, so allow me to continue. No one mentioned it, but should I also include many personal attacks, laced with colorful profanity (as well as a bunch of made-up insults that sound good to me but make no sense to anyone else)? In addition, I guess I should show my fervor, and therefore, my CORRECTNESS about a particular point I am making, by typing so quickly and furiously as to missplel a efw wodrs, you goddamn pantywaist commie pinko fags. :angry:

And don't think that just because I call those with whom I disagree 'commie pinko fags' that I find myself aligned in any way with neo-fascist capitalist pig-dogs :eek: *Sigh* Whay can't we all just get along? :confused: Oh, yeah, I'm trying to use a lot more smilies, too. :)

So, thanks again, everyone, for the useful advice. I hope I'm doing better now.

PS. Just to pad my message, in order to make it long enough to arouse UT's notice, I'm including this irrelevant, [url=http://uselesslink.com][COLOR=blue]useless link[/COLOR][url].

I think she's got it.