Friday, October 03, 2008

Observation

That an elitist, inexperienced, Marxist, Opie look-alike with America-hating family members and associates is this close to winning the presidency of the greatest country on Earth is testament to what a mistake both public education and the 19th amendment have been.

21 Comments:

Blogger Russell said...

I agree about the state of public education, but I think the problem lies more with the 17th than that 19th amendment.

And I'm not sure he's a neo-Marxist, he seems more and more old school Marxist mixed with Black Liberation Theology and a hatred for the founding principles of America.

10/03/2008 12:19 PM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

You make a good point about the "neo." I'm going to edit that.

And I'm inclined to think that the problems with public education are tied in with the demographic issue, i.e. that women are over-feminizing politics. A stronger masculine presence in public education would help solve that problem.

10/03/2008 2:48 PM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

Unusual to see a woman denouncing the 19th amendment. Oddly enough, the Biden/Palin debate decided my vote. I had intended to vote for the Libertarians, but Biden's remark about allowing bankruptcy courts to alter the terms of a mortgage showed me that it's absolutely necessary to defeat the Obama/Biden ticket.

Of course, I agree that limiting the franchise to exclude at least able-bodied welfare recipients, illiterates, and anyone who watches Oprah would probably clear up most of our national problems. Unfortunately, there's no democratic way to accomplish that.

10/06/2008 12:51 PM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

There's no denying that politics took a decided shift to the left once women started voting. On average, women tend to be less informed about current issues and less knowledgable about civics, history, and economics than men. But you can't try to put the genie back in the bottle.

A more democratic way to exclude the least desirable people from voting is to institute a voter competency test. Topics would include a basic understanding of the english language, basic civics, history, economics, and at least a cursory understanding of the current issues. Such a test would effectively eliminate half of all males and two-thirds of all females.

It makes pretty good sense, which means the Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

10/07/2008 12:02 PM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

Literacy tests were prohibited by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. God forbid that we deny the franchise to people just because they happen to be illiterate, and probably dumber than a bag of hammers.

Before December of 1964, a number of states also required voters to pay poll taxes. The 24th Amendment forbade states to deny the franchise for failure to pay any poll tax. God forbid that we deny the franchise to people just because they happen to be beggars and scum who pay no taxes.

Until our present socialist government inevitably collapses, any reversal of the "Civil Rights Revolution" of the 1960s seems unlikely. I wouldn't be surprised if our new Democratic administration denied the franchise to taxpayers with degrees in sciences and engineering. Obviously, the franchise ought to be limited to the enlightened graduates of social science programs and able-bodied welfare recipients. :)

10/10/2008 10:52 AM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

The irony of it all is that the same people who are such staunch advocates of Darwinism think that going out of our way to extend the vote to the least competent in society is a good idea.

And t's already well known that trial lawyers tend to dismiss scientific types as potential jurors, so it wouldn't surprise me if someday we would be considered unfit to vote.

10/10/2008 11:12 AM  
Blogger Alexander DeClama said...

gringo_malo, most of those voter eligibility tests were put in place with the sole purpose of keeping blacks from voting, not the poor and illiterate. It was just a coincidense that in the Jim Crow South, the vast majority of black voters were poor and poorly educated and those tests were set up in their voting districts.

That same country that has candidates waving Country First signs is the same country that had colored only signs. Same country whose founding fathers screamed about being treated like slaves by their British cousins and at the same time ground blacks under the heel of legalized, institutionalized slavery. The same country that claimed all men were created equal. The same country that claimed we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think it's a worse indictment of our country that the rights of significant sections of the population have to be protected by constitutional amendment because the minority that wields the most power cannot see fit to treat them as human beings.

I'm all for voter competency so long as it is employed universally.

10/10/2008 11:23 AM  
Blogger Plastic Yank said...

That same country that has candidates waving Country First signs is the same country that had colored only signs. Same country whose founding fathers screamed about being treated like slaves by their British cousins and at the same time ground blacks under the heel of legalized, institutionalized slavery. The same country that claimed all men were created equal. The same country that claimed we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes, and...?

10/11/2008 8:08 AM  
Blogger Alexander DeClama said...

Country First means something completely different to different people. And the fact that it does does not make those people disloyal or un-American.

10/12/2008 11:49 AM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

Sorry, Alexander, but most blacks were poor and illiterate. Even now, after decades of reverse racism (officially called affirmative action) they're still disproportionately poor and functionally illiterate. Are you sure that you are "all for voter competency so long as it is employed universally?" To me, it sounds as if you'd oppose any standard that has a disparate impact on a protected class. Of course, that is the official line, so President Obama will likely toss me into a re-education camp while you retain your liberty, such as it is.

10/13/2008 7:43 AM  
Blogger Alexander DeClama said...

Gringo, I'm not disputing that most blacks back then were poor and illiterate, or that blacks today lag behind in education. The question is why? Are black peopl by nature, studpid and lazy? Or is something else going on?

You scream and whine about reverse racism and you mistakenly lump all affirmative action together. Quotas - bad. Merit scholarships for poor but not stupid under-represented minorities are good. Mandating that companies LOOK, not hire at minority candiates is also good.

What do you propse for equalizing race relations in this country? Removing all government protections and relying on the better natures of Americans to prevail? That's what got us here in the first place.

I am all for voter competency. Using the tests as an excuse to disenfranchise a group is unconscionable. But America has no history of that. Why didn't illiterate, poor Southern whites go to the Justice Dept about the poll tax?

While the protections against disparate impact are new to me, I can imagine they came about because of changes in nature of racial discrimination. You can't go about overtly, like in the good ol' days, so you have to be sneaky.

I personally do not think that the franchise should be univeral. There should be a standard and it should be skewed towards people that actually work for the good of the country: retired military, doctors, emergency personnel, teachers, etc.

10/13/2008 8:37 AM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

I neither screamed nor whined. I merely noted that decades of reverse racism have not improved the lot of most American blacks. I offered no explanation.

I'm not sure what "equalizing race relations" means, but I doubt that the government has any constitutional authority to do it. Given the option, I'd prefer that the power of the government be limited by a constitution, as it once was. I'd also prefer that the government not tell me what to think or with whom to associate.

Given the option, I'd reserve the franchise to people who pay taxes. That's the way a republic is supposed to work. Allowing people who don't pay taxes to vote is what's ruined our government and our economy. Of course, all of this is moot. After our present socialist government collapses, the surviving population will probably itself living in a feudal society.

10/14/2008 6:52 AM  
Blogger Alexander DeClama said...

The whining was calling affirmative action reverse racism. And I disagree. Affirmative action has improved the position of black people. What standard would you use to measure progress?

I'm sure you are perfectly capable of figuring out what equalizing race relations means. And I'm sure you realize that the federal gov't has a mandate to protect the rights of all citizens. If you don't want illiterate, poor black friends, that is your choice. Join the Republican Party where you don't have to hide your disdain for minorities. If you don't want to hire them, thats a problem. And if you're trying to limit the power of the gov't you'd need to roll the clock all the way back to before Washington and Hamilton (both framers of the constitution mind you) argued for the 'implied powers' of Congress. Harken back to days that never were. When we had the Article of Confederation, where that Federal gov't served no purpose, had no power and the country almost fell apart.

10/14/2008 8:54 AM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

Alexander,

The whining was calling affirmative action reverse racism.

See, I disagree with Gringo. I think it's just flat-out racism. What else do you call it when one person is chosen over another purely on the basis of race?

And I disagree. Affirmative action has improved the position of black people.

By what measure? What is the evidence you have that affirmative action is directly responsible for the improved position of black people?

Moreover, I find your assertion very insulting. My step-mother and her family are black, and what you're implying is that they are so incompetent that they could not possibly succeed without the helping hand of whitey.

Join the Republican Party where you don't have to hide your disdain for minorities.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Democrats voting in favor: 69%
Republicans voting in favor: 82%

If you don't want to hire them, thats a problem.

The first amendment says it's not a problem. The Constitution guarantees the right to be a bigot. That's the problem with freedom, though, you've got to accept the good along with the bad.

10/14/2008 12:32 PM  
Blogger Alexander DeClama said...

And I disagree with both of you. The spirit of Aff-act was to get blacks in the door, not get them the job. If there is a problem in the implementation, fix it. My favorite example is the Rooney Rule in football. You don't have to hire the black candidate, you just have to give one a look. Quoatas and their ilk have had the opposite effect that aff-act was supposed to have. People focus more on quotas and 'reverse racism' than the good some of the programs (mandating equal protection under the law) do.

I'll give you a personal example. Univerity of Oklahoma had a merit based scholarship program for minority engineering students. However, the people running the program made the money available to ANYONE that needed help. Tutoring, mentoring, scholarships, etc. We have blacks, latinos, Amerindians and even some whites. All that came to an end when a white student sued the school saying race based scholarships discriminated against white students. He won his lawsuit and the MEP programs was dismantled. My freshman year, there were over 150 black engeering freshman that came in with me. When I left OU, the were less than 50 black freshmen total for all majors, a direct result of the lawsuit. 50 black freshmen in a school of almost 30,000. Where's the justice in that?

You can be insulted all you want. Nowhere did I say Aff-act was the only thing responsible for the social climb of blacks. I said it helps a situation where blacks started out on the bottom of the ladder and the rungs are greased.

Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Democrats voting in favor: 69%
Republicans voting in favor: 82%

How many of those Democrats were DIXIEcrats? You know, the southern white democrats that migrated to the Republican Party's under their Southern Strategy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

I'm curious where does the 1st amendment say that?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Constitution guarantees the right to be a bigot.

Ideas like that are what made Aff-act necessary. The 1st amendment allows you to speak like a bigot, join clan rallies but not to apply bigotry to law or your dealings with others. It specifically says you have the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. On the Supreme Court building it says "Equal Protection Under the Law." Since the "helping hand of whitey" is so helpful, we now have the Equal Protection Clause from the 14th Amendment. Because Thomas Jefferson's (another Founding Father) words in the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" weren't specific enough. Especially considering the fact that most of the Founding Fathers of Our Great Nation were slaveholders themselves, and when drawing up the framework for "our" great nation, didn't give a whit for the plight of slaves, except as it affected their pocketbooks and the economy: see the 3/5 Compromise).

We don't have to accept the bad. we have a moral imperative to stamp it out.

10/14/2008 2:05 PM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

The spirit of Aff-act was to get blacks in the door, not get them the job.

This doesn't make any sense. If blacks can get hired, what's preventing them from getting in the door?

Nowhere did I say Aff-act was the only thing responsible for the social climb of blacks. I said it helps a situation where blacks started out on the bottom of the ladder and the rungs are greased.

No, that's not what you said. You said, "Affirmative action has improved the position of black people." I asked you for evidence that affirmative action is directly (not solely, but directly) responsible for this. In other words, on what basis do you make this claim?

By the way, the Dixiecrat thing is a fiction invented by Democrats to assuage their guilt and/or deceive people who don't know any better. This is a good summary:

Contrary to the myth perpetuated by Democrats and some liberal historians, the Dixiecrats did not migrate to the Republican Party.

The Dixiecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who, in the 1948 national election, ran a third party ticket that supported the Jim Crow laws passed by the democrats and racial segregation. Even so, they continued to be Democrats for all local and state elections, as well as for all future national elections.

Since the republican Party was founded as the anti-slavery party, Southern Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” that vote for a Republican.

Today, some of those former Dixiecrats continue their political careers as Democrats. Most notable examples are Democrat Robert Byrd of West Virginia who is well known for having been a “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan, and Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. The Ku Klux Klan that was started by the Democrats was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

In 1964, it took the leadership of Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen to break the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill led by Senator Robert Byrd. Recently, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been “a great leader for any moment,” including the Civil War. Where was the outrage from black Democrats?

Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond have remained silent about Senator Dodd’s racist remarks. Senator Thurmond was never a member of the Klan, and he defended blacks against the poll tax and lynching. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.


If I were a Democrat counting on the votes of blacks and other racial minorities, I'd want to obscure these facts, as well.

I'm curious where does the 1st amendment say that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


This is also referred to as freedom of association, and it's directly implied by the wording of the 1st amendment. It recognizes your freedom to choose with whom you associate, which means you have the right to be a bigot and not associate with someone because of race, or religion, or politics, or anything else. (Racism isn't the only kind of bigotry -- I know people who won't associate with Republicans or Christians on that basis alone.)

The 1st amendment allows you to speak like a bigot, join clan rallies but not to apply bigotry to ... your dealings with others.

It certainly allowed current Democrat Senator Robert Byrd to join klan rallies, yes. And actually it does allow you to be a bigot in dealing with others. If an individual does not want to be friends with, hire, work for, give private funding to, any person for any reason whatsoever, including race, this is protected by the 1st amendment. I'm not defending bigotry as a good thing, but it's the reality of freedom. You get good things and you get bad things. Perfection is simply not possible, but people like you can't understand this, and it's why true freedom is such a rare and precious thing -- it ultimately becomes corrupted out of some sense of "social justice," which in practice is usually precisely the opposite of just.

10/14/2008 3:13 PM  
Blogger Plastic Yank said...

Country First means something completely different to different people. And the fact that it does does not make those people disloyal or un-American.

I think you missed my point.

What is the significance, for example, of slave-holding being legal in a Colonial America incensed at its treatment by the British government? Your statement implies you believe there to be some logical disconnection there, but anyone with even a passing familiarity with history would be aware that some fairly broad distinctions are generally made between the treatment of citizens and that accorded to slaves.

10/14/2008 3:14 PM  
Blogger Alexander DeClama said...

Stickwick, we're splitting hairs. Aff-act got me a merit scholarship to a college that I would not have been able to afford to attend normally. By getting them in the door, I should have probably said 'open a door that was previously shut and locked from the otherside because bigotry has closed the mind of most of the people that can open the door,' but open the door was shorter.

What I read about dixiecrats and what you read are the complete opposite. The truth is probably somewhere in between. While few of those politicians changed party affiliation, though Strom and Jesse Helms are prominent examples of those who did, what happened to the white Southern voters who voted for them when they were the States Rights Democratic Party? Did they continue to vote for the soft, liberal, non Christains, non family values Democratic Party? While up until recently, Congressmen from the South have been Democratic, the South generally goes and has gone republican for the big election.

And I suppose for RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman to apologize to the NAACP for the Southern Stragety in 2005 was him just pandering to the black vote with his fingers crossed behind his back.

If an individual does not want to be friends with, hire, work for, give private funding to, any person for any reason whatsoever, including race, this is protected by the 1st amendment.

For better or for worse, the 14th amendment and specifically the equal protection and commerce clauses have given us the Civil Rights Act, which expressly prohibit you from discriminating for whatever reason when hiring. It's simple. If you can't stand the idea of the gov't telling you not to discriminate, file a suit and have the Supreme Court strike the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional.

What is more important to you? Following the rule of law as you interpret it, or using the law to do what is right? All these laws that are killing America were proposed, voted on and ratified by Americans.

Plastic - The significane was that Colonial slaveowners complaigned to Britian that they were being treated like slaves. The great and obvious irony is that when they had freed themselves from the chains of bondage to England, they forgot about the real chains of bondage that they themselves put upon human beings in their own country. They compared themselves to slaves. While they owned slaves. Not much of a jump.

10/15/2008 6:24 AM  
Blogger Stickwick Stapers said...

Alexander, I still don't get your point. What you're implying is that the same bigots who wouldn't normally open the door to minorities are now forced to open the door, and are then suddenly going to be fair and give jobs or scholarships to minorities when they don't have to? This isn't splitting hairs. I'm really trying to figure out your reasoning. It's one thing to say that Affirmative Action works because it forces people to hire and provide funding to minorities, but that's not what you're saying. You're saying that AA works because it only forces people to consider minorities. It doesn't make sense.

And I'd still like to know on what basis you claim that AA has improved the position of black people. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'd really like to know why you think that's true.

...the South generally goes and has gone republican for the big election.

Yes, in recent times the South has gone more Republican. Your point is... ?

And I suppose for RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman to apologize to the NAACP for the Southern Stragety in 2005 was him just pandering to the black vote with his fingers crossed behind his back.

Yes, I think it was pandering; but, so what? The whole point of the Southern Strategy (wasn't it Bugs Bunny who pronouncd it "stragety"?) was to woo racist Democrats to the Republican Party. Not the most admirable thing for Republicans to do, but consider that the people they were trying to win over were inherently racist Democrats. And the strategy failed, because the racist voters refused to leave, or reverted back to, the Democrat Party.

I can't possibly make the claim that all Republicans are upstanding citizens, but in comparing the overall behavior of Republicans versus Democrats, I think you just have to face up to the fact that the Democrats have exhibited more racist behavior. You made the assertion earlier in this discussion, that Republicans have disdain for minorities, but in reality Democrats have demonstrated more disdain. I still can't believe, for instance, that any Democrat would tolerate someone like Robert Byrd in their ranks. That disgusting old creature was a high-ranking member of the KKK, and has publicly used the N-word in recent times. And yet Republicans get the rap for being racist. It boggles the mind.

For better or for worse, the 14th amendment and specifically the equal protection and commerce clauses have given us the Civil Rights Act...

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I believe the 14th amendment prohibits the government from discriminating, not private individuals. It must be the Commerce Clause that gives rise to anti-discrimination laws. I believe wholeheartedly that the government should not discriminate -- all people have to be equal in the eyes of the law -- however, I believe that individuals should be allowed to discriminate as much as they want (as long as they don't physically hurt, threaten, steal from, etc.). Not only because it's imperative to protect all forms of speech and assembly (not just the ones that make you comfortable), but also because of a universal law which more or less says that people tend to change for the better only when they experience negative things.

Most people like you, Alexander, hear the word "discriminate" and automatically assume that it's a bad thing; but it isn't necessarily bad to discriminate. In fact, it can lead to good things. For example, Blacks and Koreans in south-central Los Angeles historically did not get along well, and this was largely for cultural reasons. Korean shop-keepers have a way of dealing with customers that seems rude to Americans -- they don't make eye-contact, and they put the customer's change on the counter instead of handing it to them. Most Americans, especially blacks, find that abrupt and rude, even though it's perfectly polite in Korea. Discrimination against these Korean shop-keepers forced them to adapt to the more American way of dealing with customers, which is to look them in the face and place money in their hands. It caused them to integrate into American culture faster than if they had not been discriminated against.

Another example is the success of Jewish people. In the early 20th century, Jewish immigrants were regarded as kind of slow. Their average IQ was indeed a bit lower than average, and on this basis there was discrimination against them. Since there was no such thing as affirmative action at the time, the Jewish response was to strive to overcome discrimination by becoming as literate and educated as possible. They studied like crazy, practically lived in libraries, and read everything they could get their hands on. Jewish culture in America came to strongly value education, and as a result the average Jewish IQ is now not only higher than the population average, but American Jews have become disproportionately educated and successful. The affirmative action response would have been to force Gentiles to accept Jews, which would have been a tragedy, because it would have prevented that incredible transition from taking place.

Can you stretch your imagination just a little and think about how discrimination (not by the government, but by individuals) could actually benefit racial minorities in this country?

All these laws that are killing America were proposed, voted on and ratified by Americans.

Which laws are "killing America"? What does that mean?

10/15/2008 12:49 PM  
Blogger Gringo_Malo said...

I was on the brink of suggesting that Alexander's fervor for affirmative action might have something to with his being a beneficiary himself, but didn't want to do so without evidence. Now he's admitted it. Obviously, there's no point in further argument with him on the subject. I understand perfectly. I'd certainly be all in favor of a government that discriminated in my favor, for a change.

10/15/2008 4:11 PM  
Blogger Plastic Yank said...

They compared themselves to slaves. While they owned slaves. Not much of a jump.

Not much of an irony.

The thing about comparing themselves to slaves, as I understand it, was that they felt their rights as British subjects were being violated, rights which did not, obviously, extend to actual slaves.

Really, the only irony in the story is the continued furor over the sometime practice of slavery in the United States, when white slave traders merely took advantage of the existing market for slaves in Africa, among Africans, which continued long after the Americans had fought a long and bloody war to extinguish the practice amongst themselves.

10/15/2008 8:08 PM  

Post a Comment

Testing ...

<< Home