GRANDSON OF JEWISH IMMIGRANTS
rrcrumb
XENOPHOBE IN THREE EASY LESSONS
A speech by Don Feder
October 15, 1999
Let me read something really silly that was published in a political column
on Aug. 30, 1990: "What is said about the new immigrant (Hispanics, Asians,
Caribbean blacks) today, was said yesterday of the Irish, Jews, Slavs, and
Italians. It was false then; it's equally false now...Immigrants do not come
here looking for handouts...Immigrants have a positive impact; on
employment: taking jobs Americans don't want..." I could go on at length but
you get the drift.
The article is, cliched, utopian, disconnected from reality. What kind of a
numbskull, lame-brained, nut-wit could write such drivel?
Now, here's something from a column by the same writer three years later (on
June 14, 1993): "In the past, I confess, my thoughts on immigration were
clouded by emotion and tinged with nostalgia." The author goes on to observe
that today's immigrants are, by and large, "impoverished, unskilled, poorly
educated and far less capable of assimilation than were their predecessors."
The columnist asks rhetorically: "Is it racist or xenophobic not to want to
see one's country become the Balkans of the Western Hemisphere? A nation is
more than a geographic entity or a conglomeration of disparate, disputatious
groups that happen to share two rooms and a bath."
I am the author of both columns.
I'm sure you've heard the old joke: "When I was 18, I thought my father was
an idiot. By the time I was 28, he seemed pretty smart. It's amazing how
much the old man learned in 10 years." By the same token, it is astounding
how much America learned about immigration between 1990 and 1993.
But, seriously, the facts were always there. All it took to achieve
enlightenment was a willingness to allow reality to overcome sentimentality.
Among other things, I discovered that:
While America has 4.5 percent of the world's population, we take in more
than half of its permanent immigrants.
In the 1990s, our foreign-born population grew 4 times as fast as our
native-born population. Today, 10 percent of our people were born outside
the United States, compared to 7.9 percent in 1990. In the past 30 years,
America's Hispanic population doubled. Latinos will soon be our largest
minority.
The poverty rate for immigrants is roughly twice that of white Americans. In
Texas, immigrants comprise 8 percent of households, but receive 22 percent
of public assistance. Twenty years after the great influx of legal
immigrants form South East Asia, 30 percent of their households were still
on welfare.
In 1993, California spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate illegal aliens and
educate their children. That year, illegals accounted for two-thirds of the
births in LA public hospitals and half of the kids in its juvenile justice
system. Almost half of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School System
are classified "English-limited."
There are an estimated 300,000 non-citizens in prison, on probation or on
parole in this country. Of the first 6,000 rioters arrested in Los Angeles
in 1992, when South Central exploded after the first Rodney King verdict,
roughly one-third were illegals.
We all know the proverbial immigrant success stories, the Vietnamese girl
who comes here as a young child and winds up the high-school valedictorian,
the computer programmer born in India, the Chinese physicist, the Korean
grocer, the Cuban-American congresswoman. They are inspiring - and they are
very much the exception.
Unfortunately, too many Americans generalize on the basis of personal
experience. To wit: "I know immigrants who are hard-working, well-educated,
willing to assimilate, therefore
all immigrants are Frank Capra, Albert Einstein or the Vietnamese
valedictorian."
What concerns me far more than the economic aspects of immigration is its
effect on cultural cohesion and national identity. In South Florida,
Southern California, Texas, the Southwest, and sections of almost every
major American city, there are people who want to live here, but don't care
to know where "here" is, in a historical, philosophical sense.
They are changing America in alarming ways. Islam is now our fastest growing
religion. You can't say the word "Christmas' in most public schools today.
But in New York City, they're accommodating Ramadan.
In March, 1998, a little-publicized federal law went into effect
criminalizing the practice of genital mutilation of women under 18, a
delightful custom prevalent in 28 African nations. According to the Centers
for Disease Control, there are 150,000 women and girls of African descent in
this country who have been or are in danger of being so maimed.
More than 50,000 members of the Caribbean Santeria cult have settled in
South Florida, where they are enhancing the state's diversity by sacrificing
chickens, goats and other small animals in voodoo rituals.
In Lincoln, Neb., in 1997, two Iraqis were arrested for marrying sisters,
ages 13 and 14. Such unions are common is Arab lands. Since America must now
adapt to immigrants (rather than the reverse) perhaps we should abolish our
culturally insensitive laws against statutory rape.
Equating today's immigrants, overwhelmingly from the Third World, with the
Irish, Italians, Slavs and Jews of 100 years ago is a soothing but strained
comparison. The old immigrants actually had things in common with the
American majority of their day.
All of the aforementioned groups were European. Three were Christian and the
fourth practice the religion from which Christianity sprang. All came from
societies that respected law and had common concepts of justice, liberty and
personal responsibility.
The afore-cited facts helped me to overcome an emotional handicap - the
tendency to see all immigrants as my maternal grandfather.
I loved my grandfather and I admired him. He came to this country penniless.
He was grateful to be an American and so proud of his adopted land. He loved
America fiercely, worked hard and raised his children to be good citizens of
this great republic.
All he asked of America was the rights he was denied in the Old Country - to
earn a living without anyone's leave, to raise a family unmolested, to
practice his ancient faith free of fear.
It's easy for the children and grandchildren of such immigrants to get
caught up in a huddled-masses thing, to see immigration of the 1990s as
their family's experience writ large.
And yet, there really are significant differences between the immigration of
1880-1920 and today's immigrants. For one thing, the times are radically
different. When my grandfather, Israel Whitman, came here, there was no
welfare, no SSI, no food stamps, no subsidized housing, no Medicaid.
Equally important, there was no bilingual education, no bilingual ballots,
no dumbed-down citizenship tests, no quotas, no multiculturalism, no
militant racial interest groups, no chip-on-the-shoulder minorities
clamoring for what they perceive to be due.
When my grandfather arrived on these shores, immigrants were required to fit
in. The country was not expected to change to accommodate them.
Today, we ask next to nothing of newcomers. You don't want to learn English?
Fine don't learn English. You don't want to work? Here's a welfare check.
You don't want to assimilate? That's OK too. You have no interest in
learning of our history and heritage? You don't identify with our past? Why
should you? After all, America is now a multicultural boarding house. Why
should the boarders be expected to identify with the tables and chairs in
their furnished rooms?
The Jews gave the world the Bible. Irish monks preserved Western
civilization during the Dark Ages. Italy was the embodiment of the
Renaissance. Over 90 percent of our new immigrants are non-white. Many come
from caudillo cultures where corruption is rampant and a mañana work ethic
prevails.
I hasten to add that this doesn't make it impossible for them to
assimilate - after all, Americanism has always been about belief, not
blood - it just makes it harder. In an ideal world, race and ethnicity would
be largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, liberals have given us a country where
they are increasingly relevant, where more and more we are at each other's
throats over quotas, preferences, whether or not victim-group history will
be taught in our schools and who did what to whom 150 years ago.
Our own racial problems we must deal with. But why augment an increasingly
ugly situation? Why, oh why, must we import division, conflict and
hostility?
As I said earlier, cases constructed entirely of anecdotes are suspect.
Still, let me relate three stories to give you some idea of the fraying of
national identity under unrestrained immigration.
In his monograph "Huddled Cliches," Lawrence Auster tells the story of a
"very bright Bengali-American student who told her college English class
that the word 'American' is 'Orwellian' because it imposes an identity on
her that she doesn't feel. "I am not an American. I'm Bengali." Well, good
golly, Miss Bengali.
At a 1995 symposium on American identity, sponsored by the National
Endowment for the Humanities, a young man who called himself a "Latino
activist" testified: " I am not an American. There is nothing about me that
is American. I do not want to be American, and I have just as much right to
be here as you." To which The Wall Street Journal's open-border boys would
respond, "Ole!"
Where formerly we had Memorial Day essay contests, today, many California
schools have compositions for Mexican Independence Day (Cinco de Mayo). Here
are some excerpts from an award-winning essay of a few years back. The
student declares himself a "Mexican and an American," not a
Mexican-American -which would be bad enough- and note the order of
precedence.
Of this Mexican national holiday, the teen writes: "My impulses and desires
are linked to this day. (Not to the 4th of July or Thanksgiving, which
probably have no emotional significance for the him). The young man insists
"Cinco de Mayo represents my birth, who I am and will become," the young man
insists. This isn't nostalgia for the old country, but ethnic separatism
that constitutes social dynamite, which would blow this country apart.
A New York Times story of June 29, 1993, titled "A Fervent 'No' to
Assimilation in New America," reported on a survey of 5,000 8th and 9th
graders with a foreign-born parent. Of the Mexican-American kids, 56 percent
said they preferred their parents' native tongue to English, as did 49
percent of Vietnamese. Only 35 percent of Haitians consider America the best
country to live in.
Therein lies a tragedy in the making. The old immigrants were grateful to be
here and touching in their eagerness to adapt to their adopted land. As a
whole, the new immigrants are decidedly ambivalent. They want the
economic/political advantages of living here while maintaining their old
loyalties. They demand that their children be educated in Spanish, Chinese,
Russian or Lao and instructed in the swellness of the countries they
couldn't wait to leave.
All of this is a major problemo. A nation without common ground cannot long
endure.
America has a language that has bound generations of our people. (It happens
to be the language of when-in-the-course-of-human-events, we-the-people and
one-nation-indivisible.) Americans have a history dating from the Jamestown
settlement and spanning almost four centuries. And we have a national ethos,
shaped by our historical experience and political institutions - our
triumphs and our tragedies.
All are under assault by unrestrained immigration, by immigration based not
on national interest but guided by libertarian, free-market dogma and
informed by a mushy altruism. America has quite enough unemployment,
welfare, illiteracy, crime, disease, racial/ethnic animosity and social
decay. There is no logical reason to import these maladies.
Nothing will have a greater impact on our nation's future than the decisions
we make on immigration today. What kind of America will our children and
grandchildren inherit - the multiculturalists' fantasy of Diversity
Disneyland, where a rainbow of smiling faces celebrates their differences or
Rwanda with high-tech machetes, Kosovo without the kindness, Bosnia from sea
to shining sea?
My grandfather may have come here from the Pale of Settlement, and yours
from the sunny shores of Napoli, or a village in the Auld Sod, or Old
Mexico, but we are Americans now. Our first thought must be to the
preservation of our national patrimony. I think my grandfather would have
understood.
Federation for American Immigration Reform
PPPhil
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qxxR3.3778$hP2....@news4.mia...
> HOW THE GRANDSON OF JEWISH IMMIGRANTS BECAME AN ANGLO-SAXON, NATIVIST,
> XENOPHOBE IN THREE EASY LESSONS
>
> A speech by Don Feder
>
> October 15, 1999
>
Excellent article. Sentimentality and political correctness may feel good,
but they will not serve the long term interests of this country or its
citizens.
Harry Garcia
Central L.A. today. Different ethnic groups but the same rat infested kinda
place. Most of those Italian, Jewish, and Irish immigrants didn't
assimilate. Jesus, I think NYC has been the most unamerican like place in
the country. The Lower East Side has produced the greatest (jewish and
italian) criminal minds this history has ever seen. People who had no
interest in the welfare of this nation. Let's take some inventory. Who
fixed the 1919 World series, Arnold Rothstein a jew. Which goverment body
has been the most corrupt? Tammany Hall, NYC. Who handed the Russians top
secret information? The Rosenbergs ( A couple of kykes). Who put JFK in the
White House? A guap named Sam Giancana and he was no political advisor.
If anybody has divided the nation, raped the first ammendment, laughed at
freedom of speech, force jewish culture into the american way and have no
regard for the truth are the jews. Hitler wrote in Mein Kempf that America
was in decadence because it had become to Judified.
The only reason none of those early part of the century immigrants didn't
get into welfare was because social welfare was enacted because of the Great
Depression.
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
Johnny Yen
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<qxxR3.3778$hP2....@news4.mia>...
> HOW THE GRANDSON OF JEWISH IMMIGRANTS BECAME AN ANGLO-SAXON, NATIVIST,
> XENOPHOBE IN THREE EASY LESSONS
Like that is something to be proud of ?
However, there have always been Jews who wanted to be more Anglo Saxon than
the Anglo Saxons ( and I am not talking about the many Jews who have
distinguished
themselves in the culture and society of Great Britain, from Peter Sellers
to Isaiah Berlin
to Ashley Montagu ). My father was one...
From one extreme to the other. Like the Nazis who became ardent supporters
of East German communism. People forget about moderation...
> The columnist asks rhetorically: "Is it racist or xenophobic not to want
to
> see one's country become the Balkans of the Western Hemisphere? A nation
is
> more than a geographic entity or a conglomeration of disparate,
disputatious
> groups that happen to share two rooms and a bath."
>
> I am the author of both columns.
>
> I'm sure you've heard the old joke: "When I was 18, I thought my father
was
> an idiot. By the time I was 28, he seemed pretty smart. It's amazing how
> much the old man learned in 10 years." By the same token, it is
astounding
> how much America learned about immigration between 1990 and 1993.
>
> But, seriously, the facts were always there. All it took to achieve
> enlightenment was a willingness to allow reality to overcome
sentimentality.
> Among other things, I discovered that:
>
>
>
> While America has 4.5 percent of the world's population, we take in more
> than half of its permanent immigrants.
Yes, America takes in too many people. That is a fact. It is also a fact
that there is only so much room, and that the most qualified people should
be given the highest priority. Yet it is also just as much of a fact that
race
or ethnicity should not intrude in the qualifications of whom is desirable
and whom is not. While certain countries people are more desirable as
a whole than others, no one country can be totally dismissed out of hand.
To do so is racism pure and simple.
> In the 1990s, our foreign-born population grew 4 times as fast as our
> native-born population. Today, 10 percent of our people were born outside
> the United States, compared to 7.9 percent in 1990.
Still lower than in the early 20th century. In turn, the percentage of
immigrants in early 20th century America was lower than that in
Canada and Argentina.
In the past 30 years,
> America's Hispanic population doubled. Latinos will soon be our largest
> minority.
They already are and have been for a long time, given that many Latinos
list themselves as " white ".
> The poverty rate for immigrants is roughly twice that of white Americans.
In
> Texas, immigrants comprise 8 percent of households, but receive 22
percent
> of public assistance. Twenty years after the great influx of legal
> immigrants form South East Asia, 30 percent of their households were
still
> on welfare.
> In 1993, California spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate illegal aliens and
> educate their children. That year, illegals accounted for two-thirds of
the
> births in LA public hospitals and half of the kids in its juvenile
justice
> system. Almost half of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School
System
> are classified "English-limited."
> There are an estimated 300,000 non-citizens in prison, on probation or on
> parole in this country. Of the first 6,000 rioters arrested in Los
Angeles
> in 1992, when South Central exploded after the first Rodney King verdict,
> roughly one-third were illegals.
And two thirds were not. The riot was not started by illegals, nor was the
worst damage done by them. However, it is true that of the Latinos
involved,
the majority were illegals from Central America. But most of the total
involved were not illegals.
> We all know the proverbial immigrant success stories, the Vietnamese girl
> who comes here as a young child and winds up the high-school
valedictorian,
> the computer programmer born in India, the Chinese physicist, the Korean
> grocer, the Cuban-American congresswoman. They are inspiring - and they
are
> very much the exception.
>
> Unfortunately, too many Americans generalize on the basis of personal
> experience. To wit: "I know immigrants who are hard-working,
well-educated,
> willing to assimilate, therefore
>
> all immigrants are Frank Capra, Albert Einstein or the Vietnamese
> valedictorian."
Someone who obviously never saw any of Capra's films after 1950...
>
> What concerns me far more than the economic aspects of immigration is its
> effect on cultural cohesion and national identity. In South Florida,
> Southern California, Texas, the Southwest, and sections of almost every
> major American city, there are people who want to live here, but don't
care
> to know where "here" is, in a historical, philosophical sense.
>
> They are changing America in alarming ways. Islam is now our fastest
growing
> religion.
Not entirely due to immigrants...
You can't say the word "Christmas' in most public schools today.
> But in New York City, they're accommodating Ramadan.
As long as it is legitimate Islam and not the pseudo islamic hatemongering
cult of the NOI
> In March, 1998, a little-publicized federal law went into effect
> criminalizing the practice of genital mutilation of women under 18, a
> delightful custom prevalent in 28 African nations. According to the
Centers
> for Disease Control, there are 150,000 women and girls of African descent
in
> this country who have been or are in danger of being so maimed.
>
> More than 50,000 members of the Caribbean Santeria cult have settled in
> South Florida, where they are enhancing the state's diversity by
sacrificing
> chickens, goats and other small animals in voodoo rituals.
Like voodooo is not engaged in by Americans ? I thought Louisiana was
a part of the USA, but I guess I was wrong.
> In Lincoln, Neb., in 1997, two Iraqis were arrested for marrying sisters,
> ages 13 and 14. Such unions are common is Arab lands. Since America must
now
> adapt to immigrants (rather than the reverse) perhaps we should abolish
our
> culturally insensitive laws against statutory rape.
A good idea. However those ages in California fall under child molesting
laws and not statutory rape laws. Child molesting laws should remain
as is or be tougher. Child molesting laws in California cover under age
15.
> Equating today's immigrants, overwhelmingly from the Third World, with
the
> Irish, Italians, Slavs and Jews of 100 years ago is a soothing but
strained
> comparison. The old immigrants actually had things in common with the
> American majority of their day.
>
> All of the aforementioned groups were European. Three were Christian and
the
> fourth practice the religion from which Christianity sprang. All came
from
> societies that respected law and had common concepts of justice, liberty
and
> personal responsibility.
Except for Russia and its domains. WHEN in the history of Russia has
there ever been respect for law and concepts of justice and liberty etc.
that were followed by the society at large ? NEVER. This is not to
say that Russians are not desirable though. Many are, many are not.
There is good and bad everywhere.
>
> The afore-cited facts helped me to overcome an emotional handicap - the
> tendency to see all immigrants as my maternal grandfather.
I certainly do not. I judge people as good and bad regardless of their
national origin or citizenship. Feeble minded Feder went from idealising
immigrants to daemonising them, from one extreme to the other. The
truth lies in the middle.
> I loved my grandfather and I admired him. He came to this country
penniless.
> He was grateful to be an American and so proud of his adopted land. He
loved
> America fiercely, worked hard and raised his children to be good citizens
of
> this great republic.
A successful immigrant. Not all are successful nor were successful, even in
the old days.
> All he asked of America was the rights he was denied in the Old Country -
to
> earn a living without anyone's leave, to raise a family unmolested, to
> practice his ancient faith free of fear.
>
> It's easy for the children and grandchildren of such immigrants to get
> caught up in a huddled-masses thing, to see immigration of the 1990s as
> their family's experience writ large.
Simplifying things considerably, no ?
> And yet, there really are significant differences between the immigration
of
> 1880-1920 and today's immigrants. For one thing, the times are radically
> different. When my grandfather, Israel Whitman, came here, there was no
> welfare, no SSI, no food stamps, no subsidized housing, no Medicaid.
>
> Equally important, there was no bilingual education,
Until the mid teens there was, albeit in German not in Spanish.
no bilingual ballots
In some cities there were until the midteens. St.Louis had a seperate
public school system in the German language.
,
> no dumbed-down citizenship tests, no quotas
There were PLENTY of quotas in the first third of the twentieth century.
Of course no one had the illusion of them ENCOURAGING diversity.
, no multiculturalism, no
> militant racial interest groups
There was ethnic conflict though.
, no chip-on-the-shoulder minorities
> clamoring for what they perceive to be due.
I admit he is right about this last part. This is a development of the
1970s.
> When my grandfather arrived on these shores, immigrants were required to
fit
> in. The country was not expected to change to accommodate them.
But the country did.
> Today, we ask next to nothing of newcomers. You don't want to learn
English?
> Fine don't learn English.
This is wrong.
You don't want to work? Here's a welfare check.
Something new immigrants should not be eligible for.
> You don't want to assimilate? That's OK too. You have no interest in
> learning of our history and heritage? You don't identify with our past?
Why
> should you? After all, America is now a multicultural boarding house. Why
> should the boarders be expected to identify with the tables and chairs in
> their furnished rooms?
>
> The Jews gave the world the Bible. Irish monks preserved Western
> civilization during the Dark Ages. Italy was the embodiment of the
> Renaissance. Over 90 percent of our new immigrants are non-white. Many
come
> from caudillo cultures where corruption is rampant
And this was not the case with Eastern Europe circa 1900, nor the former
Soviet Union today ? And the word " caudillo " - I might want to ask Feder
where that word comes from ? In case he did not know, fascism was
something that existed in Italy, Germany, and many other places...
and a mañana work ethic
> prevails.
Feder has obviously never been to Sicily.
> I hasten to add that this doesn't make it impossible for them to
> assimilate - after all, Americanism has always been about belief, not
> blood - it just makes it harder. In an ideal world, race and ethnicity
would
> be largely irrelevant. Unfortunately, liberals have given us a country
where
> they are increasingly relevant, where more and more we are at each
other's
> throats over quotas, preferences, whether or not victim-group history
will
> be taught in our schools and who did what to whom 150 years ago.
This is not the fault of immigrants, but the fault of Americans.
> Our own racial problems we must deal with. But why augment an
increasingly
> ugly situation? Why, oh why, must we import division, conflict and
> hostility?
>
> As I said earlier, cases constructed entirely of anecdotes are suspect.
> Still, let me relate three stories to give you some idea of the fraying
of
> national identity under unrestrained immigration.
>
> In his monograph "Huddled Cliches," Lawrence Auster tells the story of a
> "very bright Bengali-American student who told her college English class
> that the word 'American' is 'Orwellian' because it imposes an identity on
> her that she doesn't feel. "I am not an American. I'm Bengali." Well,
good
> golly, Miss Bengali.
A screwed up broad.
> At a 1995 symposium on American identity, sponsored by the National
> Endowment for the Humanities, a young man who called himself a "Latino
> activist" testified: " I am not an American. There is nothing about me
that
> is American. I do not want to be American, and I have just as much right
to
> be here as you." To which The Wall Street Journal's open-border boys
would
> respond, "Ole!"
There have always been people who claimed this. See " The Expatriates " by
Mack Reynolds ( 1962 )
> Where formerly we had Memorial Day essay contests, today, many California
> schools have compositions for Mexican Independence Day (Cinco de Mayo).
Cinco de Mayo is not Mexican Independence Day. Cinco de Mayo in Mexico
is not a very big deal. It is more of a local holiday than a national
holiday. It
is only celebrated in Puebla where the battle took place. Mexicans who come
to the USA have long been puzzled about the attention given Cinco de Mayo
in
the USA - far more than in Mexico !
Here
> are some excerpts from an award-winning essay of a few years back. The
> student declares himself a "Mexican and an American," not a
> Mexican-American -which would be bad enough- and note the order of
> precedence.
whatever. A screwed up kid.
> Of this Mexican national holiday, the teen writes: "My impulses and
desires
> are linked to this day. (Not to the 4th of July or Thanksgiving, which
> probably have no emotional significance for the him). The young man
insists
> "Cinco de Mayo represents my birth, who I am and will become,"
Cinco de Mayo is not that important in Mexico. The kid had better be from
Puebla, or else Mexicans would probably openly laugh at him. 16 Sept.
is Mexican Independence Day, not 5 May
the young man
> insists. This isn't nostalgia for the old country, but ethnic separatism
> that constitutes social dynamite, which would blow this country apart.
And which is not even based on a factual knowledge of the old country
> A New York Times story of June 29, 1993, titled "A Fervent 'No' to
> Assimilation in New America," reported on a survey of 5,000 8th and 9th
> graders with a foreign-born parent. Of the Mexican-American kids, 56
percent
> said they preferred their parents' native tongue to English, as did 49
> percent of Vietnamese. Only 35 percent of Haitians consider America the
best
> country to live in.
France and Canada, where some have also settled, both have higher welfare
benefits.
> Therein lies a tragedy in the making. The old immigrants were grateful to
be
> here and touching in their eagerness to adapt to their adopted land.
Not all. The story about immigrants throwing away all the remnants of their
old lives into the Atlantic and wanting to completely start over as
Americans
is just that - a story. Many did have sincere, complete desires to
Americanise
( as with my maternal family ). Others did not. Almost as many went back
as stayed.
As a
> whole, the new immigrants are decidedly ambivalent. They want the
> economic/political advantages of living here while maintaining their old
> loyalties.
True in the old days to an extent as well.
They demand that their children be educated in Spanish, Chinese,
> Russian or Lao
In the old days, only Germans had this privilege of being instructed
in their native language.
and instructed in the swellness of the countries they
> couldn't wait to leave.
>
> All of this is a major problemo. A nation without common ground cannot
long
> endure.
>
> America has a language that has bound generations of our people. (It
happens
> to be the language of when-in-the-course-of-human-events, we-the-people
and
> one-nation-indivisible.) Americans have a history dating from the
Jamestown
> settlement and spanning almost four centuries. And we have a national
ethos,
> shaped by our historical experience and political institutions - our
> triumphs and our tragedies.
>
> All are under assault by unrestrained immigration,
Yes, there needs to be limits on immigration. But at the same time, no
immigration at all would be just as harmful.
by immigration based not
> on national interest but guided by libertarian, free-market dogma and
> informed by a mushy altruism. America has quite enough unemployment,
> welfare, illiteracy, crime, disease, racial/ethnic animosity and social
> decay. There is no logical reason to import these maladies.
Which means all the more reason to import the RIGHT immigrants and
limit the wrong ones. This is not being done at present.
> Nothing will have a greater impact on our nation's future than the
decisions
> we make on immigration today. What kind of America will our children and
> grandchildren inherit - the multiculturalists' fantasy of Diversity
> Disneyland, where a rainbow of smiling faces celebrates their differences
or
> Rwanda with high-tech machetes, Kosovo without the kindness, Bosnia from
sea
> to shining sea?
This is something not entirely due to immigration. It is due to the
politically
correct, grievance industry, culture of victimhood that began to infest
America
in the late 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, this cancer is very American.
> My grandfather may have come here from the Pale of Settlement, and yours
> from the sunny shores of Napoli, or a village in the Auld Sod, or Old
> Mexico, but we are Americans now. Our first thought must be to the
> preservation of our national patrimony. I think my grandfather would have
> understood.
I can relate to these sentiments, but it is important to remember that the
Pale of Settlement was a caudillo culture without the rule of law where
corruption was rampant etc. , and still is to this day in the modern
day countries of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
>
> Federation for American Immigration Reform
I admit to having both positive and negative feelings about the USA.
However there is no doubt the US is one of the worlds better countries.
" We Suck Less " is still true. I may not like many regions of the
USA, and there are definately many foreign places I would rather be,
but there is no doubt it is one of the worlds better places especially
compared to where many of the new immigrants are from...
Johnny Yen, the son of a Jewish immigrant who married an American.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Valley guy
>
> HOW THE GRANDSON OF JEWISH IMMIGRANTS BECAME AN ANGLO-SAXON, NATIVIST,
> XENOPHOBE IN THREE EASY LESSONS
>
> A speech by Don Feder
>
> see one's country become the Balkans of the Western Hemisphere? A nation is
> more than a geographic entity or a conglomeration of disparate, disputatious
> groups that happen to share two rooms and a bath."
Don Feder is a Jewish man who has finally realized that Jews are
going to be hit by the mess they've helped make in America.
An America that consists of Mexicans, Asians, and Carib Blacks
will not care about Israel. It will not be able to make planes
and bombs for Israel.
Jews like to live amongst European peoples, but at the same time,
they enjoy their resentment against them.
Starting in the 1960's, with a new generation of Jews, this
resentment bloomed into a gigantic assualt upon Euro-America.
Basically, the Jewish people declared war on America.
Anything that was believed in by Christians, or Euro-Americans,
was trashed, and its opposite was promoted.
Jews practiced destructive anarchism. It was a pathology
that affected an entire people. Now, as they age, some
Jews regret what they have done. But Humpty-Dumpty is
broken, and can't be put back together again.
America is dying. And with it, Israel.
Actions have consequences.
Dreams are played out.
Worlds die.
Gringo
Inquisition.
In article <7v77hj$17po$1...@news.gate.net>, "Harry Garcia" <har...@gate.net>
wrote:
rrcrumb
Harry Garcia <har...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:7v77hj$17po$1...@news.gate.net...
> Do you remember the Lower Eastside of NY? It was the same rathole as South
> Central L.A. today. Different ethnic groups but the same rat infested
kinda
> place. Most of those Italian, Jewish, and Irish immigrants didn't
> assimilate. Jesus, I think NYC has been the most unamerican like place in
> the country. The Lower East Side has produced the greatest (jewish and
> italian) criminal minds this history has ever seen. People who had no
> interest in the welfare of this nation. Let's take some inventory. Who
> fixed the 1919 World series, Arnold Rothstein a jew. Which goverment body
> has been the most corrupt? Tammany Hall, NYC. Who handed the Russians top
> secret information? The Rosenbergs ( A couple of kykes). Who put JFK in
the
> White House? A guap named Sam Giancana and he was no political advisor.
Well what do you know?
Another Hispanic racist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/05/012l-100599-idx.html
Racism Among Hispanics
By Richard Estrada
Tuesday, October 5, 1999; Page A17
DALLAS-Everyone knows homegrown racism has occasionally been directed at
Hispanics in the United States. But here's a question too seldom asked: Is
the United States importing Hispanic racism directed at other Hispanics?
The phenomenon is a fascinating twist on the traditional discussion about
race in America, long known as "the American dilemma." But it has arisen so
often while talking with fellow Hispanics recently that I'm surprised it has
not come up in public more often than it has. That needs to change.
Sadly, the racism exhibited by some Hispanics against other Hispanics is at
times more virulent than that directed at Hispanics by European Americans.
Hispanics imbued with racism are coming to America every day. Unaware that
however imperfect this country may be when it comes to its ideals, they need
to know what those ideals are and recognize how imperative it is to try to
live up to them.
The continuing debate in the Hispanic community about Spanish-language soap
operas starring blonde, blue-eyed actors and actresses -- as if they were
representative of the Hispanic population from Tampa to Tierra del Fuego --
is but the best-known example of this controversy. But Hispanic television's
exaltation of cream-colored skin over shades of chocolate and cinnamon is
hardly the entire issue.
A few years ago I was talking to a friend, a woman who happens to be a
beautiful Cuban emigre with European features. Having just returned from
Havana, I was regaling her with stories about my visit when she interrupted
me with a question that discomfited me deeply.
Wasn't it true that so many of the better class of people had abandoned the
island that Cuba had become very black? She asked the question with obvious
disapproval on her face.
She was right in her belief that Cubans of African descent are now more
visible in the society than in the years preceding Fidel Castro's
revolution. But her unmistakable implication that Cuba's African-origin
population is undesirable left me speechless.
A couple of months ago, a colleague of mine was reminiscing about the time
he was in his office in Washington, D.C., and tried to introduce a
Peruvian-born woman of European origin to a Peruvian-born man of Andean
Indian background. According to my friend, the differences of race (and
class) were so great that she refused to shake the man's hand, and turned
her back on him. "Can't you see he's an Indian?" she asked my friend.
And I hardly have to remind my fellow Mexican Americans about the racism
that exists in our national subgroup, especially when perpetrated by
Mexicans of Spanish or other European origin against Spanish-Indian mixed
bloods -- or by both those groups against indigenous peoples with no
European background. "Little Indians," they are called.
The issue of sensitivity in discussions about intragroup Hispanic racism
should not be all that surprising. One has only to consider the tension that
attends African American dialogues about two-way racism between
light-skinned and dark-skinned blacks.
But there is a major difference between the American black phenomenon of
intragroup racism and the Hispanic variation. Hispanics can be of any race
or national origins group: Just think of President Alberto Fujimori of Peru;
the Veracruz, Mexico, native Salma Hayek; the Puerto Rican boxer Felix
Trinidad; the Chilean revolutionary leader Bernardo O'Higgins; or the
Argentine president Carlos Menem. And within each Latin American nation,
social history plays a major role in tolerance or intolerance of different
races and nationalities.
Not for its extreme sensitivity should this complicated issue be ignored.
First of all, Hispanics and all other groups in this country will best
defend their own interests by exalting their U.S. citizenship above their
ethnic origin. Clinging to national origins and old blood ties is a sure way
of inviting others in the United States to play a game of racism that
Hispanics are likely to lose.
That leads to the second point. To the degree that Hispanics are already
victimized by prejudice and discrimination from other groups, they will
maximize their credibility in challenging that situation by contesting the
racism that arises within their own community.
Yes, there is a long history of prejudice and discrimination perpetrated on
Hispanics by what is loosely termed the "Anglo" community. But non-Hispanic
Europeans are certainly not at the root of all prejudice and discrimination
against Hispanics. It may not be politically correct to say so, but
Hispanics should remind themselves that racial justice, like charity, begins
at home.
rrcrumb
Johnny Yen <beat...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:01bf2097$cc8545e0$4d3fd3cf@default...
Yes, America takes in too many people. That is a fact. It is also a fact
that there is only so much room, and that the most qualified people should
be given the highest priority. Yet it is also just as much of a fact that
race
or ethnicity should not intrude in the qualifications of whom is desirable
and whom is not. While certain countries people are more desirable as
a whole than others, no one country can be totally dismissed out of hand.
To do so is racism pure and simple.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a numbskull!
BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH
BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAH
hahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahhah
Our immigration policy is very racist as it is. It allows in way too
many non-white people. It discriminates
against white Europeans.
Are you blind??
>
>
>
Harry Garcia
Gringo wrote in message ...
Miguel O'Pastel
curtain ones, at least.
M
Harry Garcia wrote in message <7v77hj$17po$1...@news.gate.net>...
rrcrumb
of rocks* stupid. And the most racist.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-10/05/012l-100599-idx.html
Racism Among Hispanics
By Richard Estrada
Tuesday, October 5, 1999; Page A17
DALLAS-Everyone knows homegrown racism has occasionally been directed at
Hispanics in the United States. But here's a question too seldom asked: Is
the United States importing Hispanic racism directed at other Hispanics?
Sadly, the racism exhibited by some Hispanics against other Hispanics is at
times more virulent than that directed at Hispanics by European Americans.
Hispanics imbued with racism are coming to America every day. Unaware that
however imperfect this country may be when it comes to its ideals, they need
to know what those ideals are and recognize how imperative it is to try to
live up to them.
The continuing debate in the Hispanic community about Spanish-language soap
operas starring blonde, blue-eyed actors and actresses -- as if they were
representative of the Hispanic population from Tampa to Tierra del Fuego --
is but the best-known example of this controversy. But Hispanic television's
exaltation of cream-colored skin over shades of chocolate and cinnamon is
hardly the entire issue.
And I hardly have to remind my fellow Mexican Americans about the racism
that exists in our national subgroup, especially when perpetrated by
Mexicans of Spanish or other European origin against Spanish-Indian mixed
bloods -- or by both those groups against indigenous peoples with no
European background. "Little Indians," they are called.
Yes, there is a long history of prejudice and discrimination perpetrated on
Hispanics by what is loosely termed the "Anglo" community. But non-Hispanic
Europeans are certainly not at the root of all prejudice and discrimination
against Hispanics. It may not be politically correct to say so, but
Hispanics should remind themselves that racial justice, like charity, begins
at home.
Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid> wrote in message
news:uUnxqlKJ$GA.147@cpmsnbbsa03...
Stan Rothwell
Glad to see the two of you have found each other!!! You two must be a match
in h----- (oh, heck, what IS the name of that place?).
When WILL you make the Big Announcement? We're just DYING to be there, so we
hope y'all send us invitations to the reception (at least).
Hugs and Kisses,,, :Ox
Stan
rrcrumb <zen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OMpT3.762$f16....@news2.mia...
Miguel O'Pastel
M
rrcrumb wrote in message ...
Stan Rothwell
Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid> wrote in message
> Racism must be eradicated wherever it appears. Like fascism
Does that mean we should killfile your posts, as
you exhibit racism (anti-white comments) AND
fascism (advocacy of violence against those
who do not share your views)??? :O(
Stan
Miguel O'Pastel
Mexican peon slaves doing in your maquiladora? How many did you injure or
poison this week?
M
Stan Rothwell wrote in message <7vpoq0$ok8$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
hc23hc
>
> Better reread my post, Stain. i deal in class, not race. How are your
> Mexican peon slaves doing in your maquiladora? How many did you injure or
> poison this week?
> M
Please don't forget Stan's racist post about how his submissive
Mexican 'dates' in the back room at the Cantina Maqui are superior
to all American harpies (i.e. women who have rejected him), or words
to that effect. Not everyone has a lot of love for asthmatic overweight
neanderthal rectophile automobile-dwellers like Stan, but on his trips
to the maquiladora he gets to feel like a million pesos, if only for
fifteen minutes at a time.
> Stan Rothwell wrote
> |
> |Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid> wrote
Stan Rothwell
Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid>
(whose entire knowledge of Mexican history, politics,
and culture comes from an eclectic mixture of fuzzy
recollections of his Chicano Studies lectures back in
JC as well as the liner notes from the second Cheech
and Chong album), added his contribution to the great
body of literary work known as alt.california, with the
following:
> Better reread my post, Stain. i deal in class, not race.
Funny, but you don't show a lot of it...
> How are your Mexican peon slaves
Funny, but I don't own slaves, nor do I refer
to Mexicans as "peons"... :O(
BTW, I must be in good standing with them, since
one of them called me this afternoon and invited me
to a party (hope she brings her cute co-worker)... :O)
> doing in your maquiladora?
I don't own a maquiladora.
> How many did you injure or
> poison this week?
None. Zero. Zip-point-shit.
While we're on the subject, have you stopped
beating your wife yet??? :Oo
Stan
> M
> Stan Rothwell wrote in message <7vpoq0$ok8$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> |
> |Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid> wrote in message
> |news:um4ThecJ$GA.290@cpmsnbbsa05...
rrcrumb
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7vtmeh$uiu$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
> ----- Original Message -----
> Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid>
> (whose entire knowledge of Mexican history, politics,
> and culture comes from an eclectic mixture of fuzzy
> recollections of his Chicano Studies lectures back in
> JC as well as the liner notes from the second Cheech
> and Chong album),
Don't forget that he used to hang with Huey
and Bobby.
bwhahahhah
hahhahha
The Pervert
>
> Better reread my post, Stain. i deal in class, not race.
"I only dislike the white middle class."
Those are YOUR words, Miguel. Reread your own damned post! YOU said
those words and you have to either repudiate them and declare yourself
to be a fraud, or stand by them and declare yourself to be racist. By
specifying only WHITE middle class people as being those you dislike,
you are, in clear point of demonstrable fact, dealing in race, contrary
to your false (read: lying) claim made above.
Once again, you have been caught lying through your miserable, racist
teeth.
william...@my-deja.com
somewhat stronger prose on some of the points. But this cries out for
serious consideration.
In article <qxxR3.3778$hP2....@news4.mia>,
--
William Flax, Esq.
<a href="http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa>Return Of The Gods Website</a
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Miguel O'Pastel
M
rrcrumb wrote in message <8FtU3.8592$B15....@news3.mia>...
|
|Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
|news:7vtmeh$uiu$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
|> ----- Original Message -----
|> Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid>
|> (whose entire knowledge of Mexican history, politics,
|> and culture comes from an eclectic mixture of fuzzy
|> recollections of his Chicano Studies lectures back in
|> JC as well as the liner notes from the second Cheech
|> and Chong album),
|
|Don't forget that he used to hang with Huey
|and Bobby.
|
|bwhahahhah
|hahhahha
|
|
|
|
|added his contribution to the great
|> body of literary work known as alt.california, with the
|> following:
|>
|> > Better reread my post, Stain. i deal in class, not race.
|>
Stan Rothwell
From: Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid>
Newsgroups: alt.california,alt.politics.immigration
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 1999 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: MoP's Mobius Strip of logic...
> You no doubt will hang with your pals.
> M
Still fighting the Great Proletariatian Revolution of
1917, I see.... I guess nobody had the heart to
tell you that your side LOST... :O(
Stan
rrcrumb
each year.
Stan Rothwell <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:80a166$meb$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
Stan Rothwell
hc23hc <hc2...@artlink.ne> wrote in message
news:3821B13D...@artlink.ne...
> Miguel O'Pastel wrote:
> >
> > Better reread my post, Stain. i deal in class, not race. How are your
> > Mexican peon slaves doing in your maquiladora? How many did you injure
or
> > poison this week?
> > M
>
>
> Please don't forget Stan's racist post about how his submissive
Yes, let's throw in a "racist" accusation when you are unable
to offer a substantive argument...
> Mexican 'dates' in the back room at the Cantina Maqui are superior
> to all American harpies (i.e. women who have rejected him), or words
> to that effect.
Not everyone has a lot of love for asthmatic overweight
> neanderthal rectophile automobile-dwellers like Stan,
Hey, I'll challenge you to a 10-mile hike with a 40 pound
day pack (and a couple of Class V pitches) any time, and
we'll see how far you get, Fat Hips...
Stab
hc23hc
>
> <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >hc23hc <hc2...@artlink.ne> wrote
> >> Please don't forget Stan's racist post about how his submissive
> >
> >Yes, let's throw in a "racist" accusation when you are unable
> >to offer a substantive argument...
>
> issues with hc. You can take that to the bank.
Look Uncle Ben, you daft old crotchet, it's quite irrelevant for you to
harp about how *you* might be called a racist, when our subject under
review was deemed "racist" by Stan who himself has a documented bitter
ethnic bias regarding women of greater or lesser submissiveness to his
romantic 'charms'.
You, having none to speak of, have failed to grasp that obvious point.
Furthermore, I seem to recall your swearing a solemn oath here never to
stoop to acting out your personal animosity in this usenet venue.
How much is your word worth these days ?
.
.
.
Miguel O'Pastel
Evil has not triumphed. Once your feeding frenzy is done, you will see.
M
Stan Rothwell wrote in message <80a166$meb$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
Jafo
Uh huh. So when have you scheduled that hike with Stan?
>How much is your word worth these days ?
Careful, Slick; how much one's word is worth is a subject that you'd
be well advised to steer clear of, lest someone bring up a collection
of your Usenet posts.
--
___________________________________________________________
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo
hc23hc
>
> So when have you scheduled that hike with Stan?
Where Old Stain The Backpacker asked where I'd be at
the end of a 40-mile hike, you didn't understand that
by then I'd be 40 miles away from wherever it started?
You give that irascible, directionless fool Stan far
too much credit, when he just deserves to be redlined.
.
.
.
Jafo
LOL! Slick, you'd be careful to be at least 40 miles away
before it even began. :)
Why don't you try the Khyber Pass today, and see how you'd
get along with the Taliban?
Stan Rothwell
Miguel O'Pastel <hereslooking@youkid> wrote in message
> My side is labor. Labor has not lost.
> Evil has not triumphed. Once your feeding frenzy is done, you will see.
>
Living your fantasies as usual, I see...
No wonder nobody in this NG (except hc)
takes you seriously... :O|
Stan
Stan Rothwell
> Wild Rice wrote:
> >
> > <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >hc23hc <hc2...@artlink.ne> wrote
> >
> > >> Please don't forget Stan's racist post about how his submissive
> > >
> > >Yes, let's throw in a "racist" accusation when you are unable
> > >to offer a substantive argument...
> >
> > Everyone's a racist, Stan, who doesn't see eye-to-eye on immigration
> > issues with hc. You can take that to the bank.
>
>
> Look Uncle Ben, you daft old crotchet, it's quite irrelevant for you to
> harp about how *you* might be called a racist, when our subject under
> review was deemed "racist" by Stan who himself has a documented bitter
> ethnic bias regarding women of greater or lesser submissiveness to his
> romantic 'charms'
Nah, more like that I am appreciative of the fact
that in some cultures being a shrill misanthropic
bitch is not considered to be a desirable trait... :O)
(And you can take THAT to the bank as well, hc23hc...)
Stan
hc23hc
>
> Careful, Slick; how much one's word is worth is a subject that you'd
> be well advised to steer clear of, lest someone bring up a collection
> of your Usenet posts.
If you have so much time on your hands, Jafo, things must be slow with
you *and* Stafo. Do whatever it is you usually do with your idle hands,
but if you go blind in the process, don't say I didn't warn you.
On the other hand, so to speak, one more handicap won't make a whole
lot of difference to either of you zombies.
.
.
.
wayne
He's already there... <G> ...
--
Wayne AKA Blackie!
http://home.surfree.com/Huntington/blackiesplace/blackie.htm
Visit my web page for info about free web pages and more
hc23hc <hc2...@artlink.ne> wrote in message
news:382B3239...@artlink.ne...
ClockWFT
Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your get all kinds of perks
afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor victim, etc.).
Nopalito
cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
Stan Rothwell
news:80hja7$17o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <19991112015134...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
> cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
>
> > Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
> > rigeuer to Cry
> > Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your get all kinds of
> > perks
> > afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor victim, etc.).
>
> Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
Unfortunately, I have to agree with some of what Clock says.
I suppose that makes me a racist in your eyes, too??? :O0
Stan
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
>> rigeuer to Cry
>> Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your get all kinds of
>> perks
>> afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor victim, etc.).
>Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
Replied to like an oblivious self-righteous PC True Believer.
You can buy Dean the daily newspaper, but you can't make him
read it or understand it, evidently.
Nopalito
"Stan Rothwell" <roth...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Nopalito <nopa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:80hja7$17o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <19991112015134...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
> >
> > > Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
> > > rigeuer to Cry
> > > Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your get all kinds of
> > > perks
> > > afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor victim, etc.).
> >
> > Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
>
> I suppose that makes me a racist in your eyes, too??? :O0
No, Stan, I've never thought that about you, nor have I ever suggested
so. Neither was I saying that Clock is a racist. I believe that I
understand where Clock is coming from, since she was nice enough to
elaborate, after once misjudging a post of my own.
My invocation of that word was based upon her broad-brushed suggestion
that it's de rigeur for "minorities" to cry racism at the drop of a hat
for the "benefits" that follow. Take one example of misbehavior, apply
it to an entire group (or in this case, minorities in general,) and
you've got an example of racism, even if mild.
I didn't say that ClockWFT was a racist. I said that her quote, above,
was "said like a true racist." Hope this clarifies.
Nopalito
"Douglas Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Replied to like an oblivious self-righteous PC True Believer.
> You can buy Dean the daily newspaper, but you can't make him
> read it or understand it, evidently.
Well, looky here. Fresh from publicly fantasizing about grabbing "The
Pervert's" penis, faggoty wraith Doug Long is back at attempting to
smear and mischaracterize good Nopalito, with whom he is obsessed, and
whom he has always failed to succeed in smearing.
There are lots of good reasons why you'll never be considered anything
more than a failed internet kook, Klong. Your harebrained,
resentment-based social theories, your recurring dishonesty, these
predatory stupidities of yours, your foul personal nature and inability
to communicate like a normal adult not the least amongst them. Poor old
Doug, the failure's failure.
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> Replied to like an oblivious self-righteous PC True Believer.
>> You can buy Dean the daily newspaper, but you can't make him
>> read it or understand it, evidently.
>Well, looky here. Fresh from publicly fantasizing about grabbing "The
>Pervert's" penis,
How unsurprising that you would read something that way.
>faggoty wraith Doug Long is back at attempting to
>smear and mischaracterize good Nopalito, with whom he is obsessed, and
>whom he has always failed to succeed in smearing.
Hilarious. By the way, for smearing Dean, read his posts.
He smears himself exceedingly well.
>There are lots of good reasons why you'll never be considered anything
>more than a failed internet kook, Klong.
As opposed to a *successful* internet kook?
> Your harebrained,
>resentment-based social theories,
That sounds so ... well, it sounds *informed*, which is
probably a lucky accident, given your usual way with
words. It lacks, however, substance. It's a vague
reference. Maybe you could elaborate on one or
more of those *social theories* so that your meaning
is clear. Then delivering what you seem so much to
crave - humiliation - will be easier.
> your recurring dishonesty,
New vocabulary? Have you abandoned your tired
litany of *liar liar pants on fire*?
> these
>predatory stupidities of yours,
Stupidities? You mean minorities aren't every day in
every context screaming *racism* somewhere in the
country? That's the issue, though you've strayed to
accusations, as usual.
> your foul personal nature
You bastard. Now you've gone way too far. I'm a big
lovable sweetheart, and everybody knows it. I'm
absolutely crushed by your unfounded accusation.
Apologize at once.
> and inability
>to communicate like a normal adult not the least amongst them.
A number of observations here: first, that was rather a long
string of words, yet it remained a fragment sentence as it
lacked a verb. Also, you might consider dropping the *st* from
the word *among*, as most English speakers did a couple of
hundred years ago and as its use today is considered a pseudo-
poetic affectation. Since affectation is right down your alley, you
might want to retain it; it also carries the benefit of alerting
others to the grandiosity and pomposity that are such dominant
elements of your personality.
> Poor old
>Doug, the failure's failure.
Dumb old Dean, the blowhard's blowhard.
Jafo
> cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
>> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
>> rigeuer to Cry Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your
>> get all kinds of perks afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor
>> victim, etc.).
>Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
Perhaps he is, but the words you quoted above bear a great deal of
truth. In fact, the ethnic grievance industry is built around them.
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"Publicly inconsolable about the fact that racism continues, these
activists seem privately terrified that it has abated."
-Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial
Society (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 554.
ClockWFT
>> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are
>>a minority it is de rigeuer to Cry Racism to
>>the max....After all, it's free & your get all
>>kinds of perks afterwards (you know...
>>gee wiz, you poor victim, etc.).
>
>Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
>
As usual....tossing out accusations and slurs, making no effort to support
them.
If you think my comment above is racist, either make the effort to explain why
or take your yo-yo and go home.
ClockWFT
>> > > Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
>> > > rigeuer to Cry
>> > > Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your get all kinds of
>> > > perks
>> >
>> >Nopalito wrote:
>> > Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have to agree with some of what Clock says.
>> I suppose that makes me a racist in your eyes, too??? :O0
>
>No, Stan, I've never thought that about you, nor have I ever suggested
>so. Neither was I saying that Clock is a racist.
clockwft wrote:
Save the politico word games for an audience ready to buy. By crystal clear
innuendo, you very clearly portray me as a racist and my comment as such.
>I believe that I understand where Clock is coming from, since she was nice
enough to
>elaborate, after once misjudging a post of my own.
>
Then why the unexamined unjust statement? Or do you think it's your turn to
"misjudge"?
>My invocation of that word was based upon her broad-brushed suggestion
>that it's de rigeur for "minorities" to cry racism at the drop of a hat
>for the "benefits" that follow.
If your comment refers to the phrase "de rigeuer", please then make that plain.
You DID NOT. Neither did you make any effort to explain why you take issue with
this phrase.
>Take one example of misbehavior, apply it to
>an entire group (or in this case, minorities in
>general,) and you've got an example of racism,
>even if mild.
>
If you are trying to say that such an approach ("cry racism") is only evident
in "one example", I strongly disagree. If you are trying to imply that such an
approach by minorities is a rarity, I just as strongly disagree.
>I didn't say that ClockWFT was a racist. I said
>that her quote, above, was "said like a true
>racist." Hope this clarifies.
>
Sure does.
The conscious clear implication of your wording and phrasing, which you are
responsible, is that I am a racist and that my comments deserve to be brushed
aside....
Nopalito
cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
> Save the politico word games for an audience ready to buy. By crystal
> clear innuendo, you very clearly portray me as a racist and my comment
> as such.
Wrong. Your comment could be seen that way. I don't mean to portray you
as a racist. I don't believe that's your tone or theme.
> Then why the unexamined unjust statement?
Right. Please tell us why you did that.
> Or do you think it's your turn to "misjudge"?
No, that would be petty. It was my opinion that your post was so
unspecific and general as to libel an entire ethnic group.
> If your comment refers to the phrase "de rigeuer", please then make
> that plain.
> You DID NOT.
I did. later.
> Neither did you make any effort to explain why you take issue with
> this phrase.
Yes, I did, in fact, you included that "effort" in your response.
> The conscious clear implication of your wording and phrasing, which
> you are
> responsible, is that I am a racist and that my comments deserve to be
> brushed
> aside....
You certainly do exaggerate! But if it comforts you to interpret things
in such extremes, so be it. I find that it inhibits understanding rather
than the opposite. Kind of like across-the-board generalizations of
entire ethnic groups, Clock. Calm yourself, and I will refrain from such
agressive responses with you, should I feel the need to respond. I'd
like to believe that you represent what you say you do, which you must
admit is more than most folks are willing to give you.
- Dean
Nopalito
"Douglas Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> New vocabulary? Have you abandoned your tired
> litany of *liar liar pants on fire*?
Do you never tire of pretending that you aren't a liar, Doug? Tell us
another one about how "Mexican gangs" have ruined San Mateo, California,
Doug. That was honest and un-bigoted of you, wasn't it, Doug? Or perhaps
you can accuse another of being a "totalitarian censor" who tried to
have your UT Arlington account taken from you, preferably someone like
myself who doesn't give enough of a damn to bother trying. You've lied a
lot, Doug, but you complain bitterly of being called a liar. I'm not
sure what your problem is, Doug, but I'm sure it's hard to pronounce!
> > your foul personal nature
>
> You bastard. Now you've gone way too far.
"Bastard?" You're off my Christmas list, Doug.
> I'm a big
> lovable sweetheart, and everybody knows it.
Somehow there are some unkind ogres in Arlington and in various USENET
goups who disagree in earnest. I'm sure that's due to their own foul
natures. Nobody understands you, Doug. Yer such a smart feller, ya
akademic, yoo.
> I'm
> absolutely crushed by your unfounded accusation.
> Apologize at once.
I thought you were proud of your foul nature!? Doug, if I wanted to
"crush" you, I'd be taking you far too seriously. I want you to be
yourself, Doug. You're really great just the way you are. Don't change,
Doug.
> Also, you might consider dropping the *st* from
> the word *among*, as most English speakers did a couple of
> hundred years ago and as its use today is considered a pseudo-
> poetic affectation.
Doug, you don't really want folks to point out your frequent typos,
mispellings, and abuses of the grammer of The King's Tongue, do you?
Clean your own house before you point to the dust in another, sir.
> Since affectation is right down your alley, you
> might want to retain it; it also carries the benefit of alerting
> others to the grandiosity and pomposity that are such dominant
> elements of your personality.
It's fun to be pretentious, Doug. We learn in part by pretending. But
I'm sure that we can all learn from your humble, self-effacing,
ever-honest example.
> > Poor old
> >Doug, the failure's failure.
>
> Dumb old Dean, the blowhard's blowhard.
Smart young Dean, they happy guy with the rich life who knows the
difference between a real "academic," and a bundle of resentments who
desperately wants to believe that he is an "academic." Say something
real smart for us, old man, something like, well, "Screw Mexico. And
Screw you." Excellent grammer, sir! Mature rebuttal! They teach those
things in Argumentative Writing, you know. At certain undistinguished
institutions, anyway.
Doug, read some history. Here's a book by an interesting writer named
Long which I think you'd appreciate: "Duel of Eagles - The Mexican and
U.S. Fight for the Alamo" by Jeff Long, William Morrow & Co; ISBN:
0688109675.
Although I cannot recommend this next book with great praise, you might
also want to check "Everything You Need to Know About Latino History" by
Himlice Novas [Plume; ISBN: 0452279917] for the reference on Walt
Disney's possible Hispanic origin that you couldn't find, surfing the
'net.
Post freely, Doug.
Your totalitarian censor (LOL!,)
Nopalito
cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
> >>clockwft wrote:
> >> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are
> >>a minority it is de rigeuer to Cry Racism to
> >>the max....After all, it's free & your get all
> >>kinds of perks afterwards (you know...
> >>gee wiz, you poor victim, etc.).
> >
> Nopalito wrote:
> >Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
> >
> clockwft wrote:
>
> As usual....tossing out accusations and slurs, making no effort to
> support
> them.
LOL! Clock, dear, read your slurry accusation, above, and get back to me
when you've had enough of your hypocrisy.
> If you think my comment above is racist, either make the effort to
> explain why
> or take your yo-yo and go home.
I already explained, Clock. You are in denial. Stop hallucinating yo-yos
and look in the mirror. Thank you.
- Dean
Nopalito
Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
>
> >> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
> >> rigeuer to Cry Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your
> >> victim, etc.).
>
> >Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
>
> truth. In fact, the ethnic grievance industry is built around them.
I frequently agree, Jafo. Knee-jerk accusations of racism are no better
than knee-jerk racism itself. Who doesn't agree that "PC" goes too far,
too frequently?
Apparently I expressed my meaning very poorly. By now I've posted
repeatedly that I don't actually consider Clock a racist. I merely
thought that Clock was being dangerously general and unspecific. It
could be said that "ethnic grievance industry" is also an unqualified
generalization, but I don't want to belabor that, since people
sometimes distort your own opinions.
I will say that I think Clock is (sometimes) at least as hot-headed
and quick-to-assume as she accuses others of being, but if I understand
Clock's *real* intent, hers is a message which needs to be part of
debates about race relations at present.
> "Publicly inconsolable about the fact that racism continues, these
> activists seem privately terrified that it has abated."
> -Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial
> Society (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 554.
I'd like to read this book. As you may be aware, it's considered by many
to be the most "racist" bestseller since "The Bell Curve," although this
reader would prefer to make up his own mind about that. When judging
overheated activists, remember that there is nothing more passionately
idealistic than a college student in their 20s. How might one engage
such persons in a constructive dialogue, or invite them to reconsider
their unexamined "good intentions?" I don't have perfect answers, but
wish more folks would look for them, rather than slamming entire groups
based on the counterproductive behavior of the few.
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> New vocabulary? Have you abandoned your tired
>> litany of *liar liar pants on fire*?
>Do you never tire of pretending that you aren't a liar, Doug? Tell us
>another one about how "Mexican gangs" have ruined San Mateo, California,
>Doug.
Tell us another one about there being no Mexican gangs
in San Mateo.
> That was honest and un-bigoted of you, wasn't it, Doug?
Finally you're learning *something*.
>Or perhaps
>you can accuse another of being a "totalitarian censor" who tried to
>have your UT Arlington account taken from you, preferably someone like
>myself who doesn't give enough of a damn to bother trying.
Sure you cared enough, Dean. Care to enlighten on your
exchange of e-mail with the one who actually did make an
ass of himself complaining to UT Arlington?
>You've lied a
>lot, Doug, but you complain bitterly of being called a liar. I'm not
>sure what your problem is, Doug, but I'm sure it's hard to pronounce!
Your problem is all too clear and easy to pronounce: you're
a mindless, pompous, pious ass-licker. Repeat that to yourself
a few times and you'll get the hang of it.
>> > your foul personal nature
>> You bastard. Now you've gone way too far.
>"Bastard?" You're off my Christmas list, Doug.
Since you seem to do your shopping at *Hard-On Leather*,
I'm glad to be off your list.
>> I'm a big
>> lovable sweetheart, and everybody knows it.
>Somehow there are some unkind ogres in Arlington and in various USENET
>goups who disagree in earnest. I'm sure that's due to their own foul
>natures. Nobody understands you, Doug. Yer such a smart feller, ya
>akademic, yoo.
Your companions in political correctness are of monumental
disinterest to me.
>> I'm
>> absolutely crushed by your unfounded accusation.
>> Apologize at once.
>I thought you were proud of your foul nature!? Doug, if I wanted to
>"crush" you, I'd be taking you far too seriously. I want you to be
>yourself, Doug. You're really great just the way you are. Don't change,
>Doug.
How many times do I need to inform you that I'm not that
way, not that there's anything wrong with it ... Yet you continue
to make these unsavory passes at me, Dean. Why?
>> Also, you might consider dropping the *st* from
>> the word *among*, as most English speakers did a couple of
>> hundred years ago and as its use today is considered a pseudo-
>> poetic affectation.
>Doug, you don't really want folks to point out your frequent typos,
>mispellings, and abuses of the grammer of The King's Tongue, do you?
>Clean your own house before you point to the dust in another, sir.
How pretentious and presumptuous and hilarious.
>> Since affectation is right down your alley, you
>> might want to retain it; it also carries the benefit of alerting
>> others to the grandiosity and pomposity that are such dominant
>> elements of your personality.
>It's fun to be pretentious, Doug. We learn in part by pretending.
I defer to your obvious expertise.
> But
>I'm sure that we can all learn from your humble, self-effacing,
>ever-honest example.
Yo could learn something from practically everybody.
>> > Poor old
>> >Doug, the failure's failure.
>> Dumb old Dean, the blowhard's blowhard.
>Smart young Dean, they happy guy with the rich life who knows the
>difference between a real "academic," and a bundle of resentments who
>desperately wants to believe that he is an "academic." Say something
>real smart for us, old man, something like, well, "Screw Mexico. And
>Screw you." Excellent grammer, sir! Mature rebuttal! They teach those
>things in Argumentative Writing, you know. At certain undistinguished
>institutions, anyway.
You're blowing might hard today, aren't you, Dean.
>Doug, read some history. Here's a book by an interesting writer named
>Long which I think you'd appreciate: "Duel of Eagles - The Mexican and
>U.S. Fight for the Alamo" by Jeff Long, William Morrow & Co; ISBN:
>0688109675.
I read it a couple of years ago.
>Although I cannot recommend this next book with great praise, you might
>also want to check "Everything You Need to Know About Latino History" by
>Himlice Novas [Plume; ISBN: 0452279917] for the reference on Walt
>Disney's possible Hispanic origin that you couldn't find, surfing the
>'net.
I don't read much fiction.
Nopalito
"Douglas Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Tell us another one about there being no Mexican gangs
> in San Mateo.
Well, Doug, that's not a very good ruse, is it? You had said that San
Mateo "used to be nice before Mexican gangs moved in and ruined it."
That was one of your lamer lies. San Mateo is much nicer now than it was
when you lived there. This is in large part due to the obvious...the
influx of money associated with the tech boom in the region. It is a
fact that the Latino population of San Mateo is larger now than it was
back in the 70s/80s, but so far as I can tell, the newer Latino
residents of the area are very nice, productive, hardworking people.
Just for you, o bullshitty one, I drove around the "worst" neighborhoods
of San Mateo recently. They're nicer than they used to be. There's
nothing about them that reveals what ethnicities inhabit them. As I've
noted before, it's largely Latinos and Asians who have improved the
older sections of downtown, most obviously "B" Street. There are no
Mexican gangs in San Mateo, Doug. Upon what evidence do you base your
racist falsehood? You made the original assertion. Back it up, doug. You
can't. It was a lie.
> Sure you cared enough, Dean. Care to enlighten on your
> exchange of e-mail with the one who actually did make an
> ass of himself complaining to UT Arlington?
I already have, Doug, far too many times, but I'll revisit just a
little. I didn't exchange e-mail, I received it. As previously
explained, that person did not complain, he inquired as to UT
Arlington's policies regarding postings to USENET. He mentioned
that he thought it was odd that you were posting bigoted things to
s.c.m.a., and wondered if UTA had any policies regarding content
transmitted from their facilities at taxpayer expense. Although whatever
happened to you thereafter undoubtedly resulted from that former
netizen's inquiry, he did not suggest that you be censored, nor did he
call you a "racist." I assume that he chose to share some of the
correspondences with me because he'd seen you make an ass of yourself,
flaming me for asking perfectly reasonable questions, and because, like
other people who have e-mailed me regarding your various follies, he
assumed I'd be interested in knowing about the case. I was, a little,
but I had nothing to do with it, as I'm sure your "very nice person"
would have confirmed, had you the brains to have investigated prior to
making your idiotic accusations. You'll recall that when someone else
whom you'd falsely accused of being involved in this asked if you had
evidence of your claims, you said "I sure do," but that ever since that
time, you've completely failed to produce any such "evidence." You
evade the issue. You fail to respond. You have no such evidence, Doug.
It doesn't exist. The person who wrote to UTA is no longer posting to
the 'net, so far as I can tell. It's been a long time since he has.
Naturally, I won't reveal his handle, so kindly don't ask me to. I will
say at least that even he was very surprised that Ms. Beck (or whatever
her name was, I'm not sure memory serves on the name) decided to have a
word with you. It would appear that your real "totalitarian censor" was
nothing more than the enforcement of UTA's e-services policy, as
interpreted by your employer of that time. You assumed that you knew
what had happened, but you were wrong.
I never solicited the intelligence shared with me, and I regret that I
was fool enough to describe some of what I knew with "Des," who was all
too eager to kiss your rear once you returned.
You are welcome for this final elaboration. You have shown a great lack
of integrity in failing to retract your false accusations.
> Your problem is all too clear and easy to pronounce: you're
> a mindless, pompous, pious ass-licker. Repeat that to yourself
> a few times and you'll get the hang of it.
I'm sure that's very childish of you, Doug, but it's not very
intelligent. I don't "lick ass," doug, but you can be sure that your
faithful admirers, Tavita and rrcrumb, are all too happy to lick your
own ancient hiney. Why do the racists love you so, doug? Such a mystery.
> Since you seem to do your shopping at *Hard-On Leather*,
> I'm glad to be off your list.
You sure do seem to know a lot about that sort of stuff, douglasklong.
I'm sure there's some reason, but please refrain from sharing. Since
it's *obviously* your business, *obviously* relevant to topics discussed
here, since you care so much, you should know that I'm not gay, Doughie.
You have a problem with that, we know. It's your problem, Dough.
Whatever gets you through the night, doug. Don't break a nail, doug!
> Your companions in political correctness are of monumental
> disinterest to me.
Again, the people who seem to think I want to know about what a pathetic
shrimp you are in "real life" assume too much in believing that I care
to know. What I see of you on USENET suffices to say quite enough. Your
offline details are of monumental disinterest to me. You're a boor and a
bore. I like interesting people. It's amusing that you're always so
eager to invoke the meaningless "politically correct" nonsense while
deploring the "liberal/conservative" scale as meaningless. Strike a
pose, doug. Maybe somebody will fall for it. Probably not.
> How many times do I need to inform you that I'm not that
> way, not that there's anything wrong with it ... Yet you continue
> to make these unsavory passes at me, Dean. Why?
Dream on, faggy doug. Anyone can see that you're the creepy troll who
can't resist the temptation of a Nopalito post. It's a simple formula of
late: I criticize a racist, then you pipe in with your self-defeating
smear attempts. You're lame, doug.
> How pretentious and presumptuous and hilarious.
Noting that you have problems with spelling is all three of those things
to you? Uh, doug...
> Yo could learn something from practically everybody.
Doug, that's "you." Y-o-u. You are welcome.
> You're blowing might hard today, aren't you, Dean.
*yawn*
> I don't read much fiction.
It's not fiction, Doug, but it comes as no surprise to anyone that you
would run to make such a slam on a book about Latinos, does it?
You're a very silly little man, doug. Fortunately, you'll never amount
to much more. Now run along and defend some internet racist out there...
Jafo
>In article <L8ssOL07jP6wMj...@4ax.com>,
> Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote:
>> As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
>> > cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
>> >> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
>> >> rigeuer to Cry Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your
>> >> get all kinds of perks afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor
>> >> victim, etc.).
>> >Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
>> Perhaps he is, but the words you quoted above bear a great deal of
>> truth. In fact, the ethnic grievance industry is built around
>> them.
>I frequently agree, Jafo. Knee-jerk accusations of racism are no
>better than knee-jerk racism itself. Who doesn't agree that "PC"
>goes too far, too frequently?
>
>Apparently I expressed my meaning very poorly. By now I've posted
>repeatedly that I don't actually consider Clock a racist. I merely
>thought that Clock was being dangerously general and unspecific. It
>could be said that "ethnic grievance industry" is also an
>unqualified generalization, but I don't want to belabor that, since
>people sometimes distort your own opinions.
"Sometimes"? :-D
>I will say that I think Clock is (sometimes) at least as hot-headed
>and quick-to-assume as she accuses others of being, but if I
>understand Clock's *real* intent, hers is a message which needs to
>be part of debates about race relations at present.
Absolutely. Look at *The Reverend* Jackson's current campaign, for
example. Desperate for a cause to keep himself in the limelight lest
he be forced to find honest work, he's now lowered himself to being
an advocate for a bunch of common thugs. How fortunate for him that
these particular thugs happened to have a skin color similar to his
own.
>> "Publicly inconsolable about the fact that racism continues, these
>> activists seem privately terrified that it has abated."
>> -Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a
>> Multiracial Society (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 554.
>I'd like to read this book. As you may be aware, it's considered by
>many to be the most "racist" bestseller since "The Bell Curve,"
>although this reader would prefer to make up his own mind about
>that. When judging overheated activists, remember that there is
>nothing more passionately idealistic than a college student in their
>20s.
Well, the book's author can hardly be described as your garden
variety WASP, and his primary fault seems to be that his opinions
violate current standards of political correctness. For an example
of the, er, "thoughts" of just such a young liberal asshole as you
describe, we can turn to "The Brown Daily Herald", Brown University's
independent daily student newspaper. The writer begins by referring
amiably to D'Sousa as a "well-known racist ideologue" and proceeds to
go downhill from there in his downright comical letter to the editor.
This writer identifies himself as one "Pranav Jani" - a name which
sounds as if it's bearer may have a similar ethnic origin to D'Souza,
thereby rendering the "racist" comment rather humorous - declares
himself to be a member of the ISO, or "International Socialist
Organization". Need anything more be said?
http://www.netspace.org/herald/issues/110797/jani.f.html
>How might one engage such persons in a constructive dialogue, or
>invite them to reconsider their unexamined "good intentions?" I
>don't have perfect answers, but wish more folks would look for them,
>rather than slamming entire groups based on the counterproductive
>behavior of the few.
One generally doesn't, because if one does, then one finds oneself
attempting to deal with a mind that routinely substitutes feelings in
place of the thought process. Often, the best that one can do is to
derive considerable amusement by satirizing them. :)
--
~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"The intellectuals and the young, booted and spurred, feel themselves
born to ride us." -Eric Hoffer, "First Things, Last Things", p. 65.
Nopalito
jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
> Absolutely. Look at *The Reverend* Jackson's current campaign, for
> example. Desperate for a cause to keep himself in the limelight lest
> he be forced to find honest work, he's now lowered himself to being
> an advocate for a bunch of common thugs. How fortunate for him that
> these particular thugs happened to have a skin color similar to his
> own.
I've been watching this case develop, trying to make sense of it from
afar. To the annoyance of some of my more bleeding-heart associates, I
find Jackson to be a really annoying, spotlight-hugging spokesperson for
Jackson, although I'm certain that the families of those USA GIs he
brought home from the assault on Serbia would fry me for saying so. At
first, it appeared to me that Jackson was unjustifiably "playing the
race card." A thug is a thug, no matter what color. Playing the race
card inevitably divides us. False cries of victimhood and racism, as
noted in this thread, serve nobody's best interest. I heard some
comments of Jackson's on NPR this morning, however, in which he noted
that his real issue was with "zero tolerance" policies. His context was
that forcing the young men out of school entirely was more damaging to
them and their community than some other, less extreme form of
punishment for their misbehavior. I think a case might be made for this,
especially if the perps hadn't been known for similar behavior in the
past. He was careful to note that non-blacks have been victims of these
policies, which was prudent if that really is his main concern. I'm not
aware that he's attempted to defend the hooligan behavior at all.
It's only natural that a black American, respected by most black
Americans, would be a more credible advocate (or interventionist if you
prefer) than a non-black, so I do think it's important to remember that.
Imagine Al Gore, for example, stepping into the frey and attempting to
mediate. Wouldn't fly. So, while I find the personality annoying, my
annoyance is probably irrelevant, since for good or ill Jackson does
represent an articulate voice to many who feel they have none that will
be heard.
> Well, the book's author can hardly be described as your garden
> variety WASP,
True, but I've never associated racism with WASPs alone. It's wrong to
do so, one of our society's dumbest assumptions...."only whites,
especially WASPy whites, are racist." Very dumb.
> and his primary fault seems to be that his opinions
> violate current standards of political correctness.
I'm sure of that, but can't remember all that I read about the book when
it was first published. I recall that Skeptic magazine tore it to shreds
on a strictly scientific basis, ostensibly without ideological
prepredjudice. It's possible I have that old issue somewhere. I'll look
for it later.
(snipped for brevity, but here's the link Jafo offered)
> http://www.netspace.org/herald/issues/110797/jani.f.html
> >How might one engage such persons in a constructive dialogue, or
> >invite them to reconsider their unexamined "good intentions?" I
> >don't have perfect answers, but wish more folks would look for them,
> >rather than slamming entire groups based on the counterproductive
> >behavior of the few.
>
> One generally doesn't, because if one does, then one finds oneself
> attempting to deal with a mind that routinely substitutes feelings in
> place of the thought process.
But there must be a way to encourage them to temper their emotionality
with more critical, thoughtful analysis, no? I suppose being patient and
"setting a good example" might be a start, but then one risks being
accused of being a "sellout" or some such pinko-think. Most young
radicals grow up to be less intensely reactive adults by virtue of time
and experience, in my observation. The effective ones, anyway.
> Often, the best that one can do is to
> derive considerable amusement by satirizing them. :)
I won't argue with that, but I for one respect the passion of young
folks, even when I feel it's misguided. I'd like to think that their
concern and energy could be channeled into more effective means.
Lapel-grabbing name-calling is hardly a way to Win Friends and Influence
People, although it will sometimes incite a controversy. Sometimes
controversy is healthy...the reasonable aspects get sifted out with
time, and the molotov mentality subsides.
> "The intellectuals and the young, booted and spurred, feel themselves
> born to ride us." -Eric Hoffer, "First Things, Last Things", p. 65.
You're quick with the thread-related quotes of late, Jafo. Are you using
some software that finds quotes based on thematic keywords, or would
that be your brain and library? :)
- Dean
Jafo
>To the annoyance of some of my more bleeding-heart associates, I
>find Jackson to be a really annoying, spotlight-hugging spokesperson
>for Jackson
D'ya *think* so? What was your first clue? :)
>although I'm certain that the families of those USA GIs he brought
>home from the assault on Serbia would fry me for saying so.
Yes, he's done a certain amount of good. But he's still a spotlight-
grabbing asshole who would more often than not be well advised to
mind his own business.
>At first, it appeared to me that Jackson was unjustifiably "playing
>the race card." A thug is a thug, no matter what color. Playing the
>race card inevitably divides us. False cries of victimhood and
>racism, as noted in this thread, serve nobody's best interest. I
>heard some comments of Jackson's on NPR this morning, however, in
>which he noted that his real issue was with "zero tolerance"
>policies. His context was that forcing the young men out of school
>entirely was more damaging to them and their community than some
>other, less extreme form of punishment for their misbehavior. I
>think a case might be made for this, especially if the perps hadn't
>been known for similar behavior in the past. He was careful to note
>that non-blacks have been victims of these policies, which was
>prudent if that really is his main concern. I'm not aware that he's
>attempted to defend the hooligan behavior at all.
You're not, eh? He's defended "the hooligan behavior" in three
separate marches in the past week, and you're not aware of it?
You're blowing in the wind, Dean, as you come down squarely on both
sides of the issue; you completely shift focus between the beginning
of the previous paragraph and the end. Forcing these bums out of
school entirely might just give some decent kids a fair chance. You
pay far too much attention to what a guy like this says, and far too
little to what he actually does.
>It's only natural that a black American, respected by most black
>Americans, would be a more credible advocate (or interventionist if
>you prefer) than a non-black, so I do think it's important to
>remember that.
In your view, should "more credible" actually have anything to do with
the facts of a matter or is it okay that it be merely imagery?
>Imagine Al Gore, for example, stepping into the frey and attempting
>to mediate. Wouldn't fly.
LOL! The very idea is laughable and yet this is the moron that
several million Americans believe should be the next President.
He'd better keep Naomi Wolf by his side for some quick and timely
advise on manhood; all things considered, her fifteen grand a month
price tag is, for him, a steal, for in the words of Woody Allen: "You
can't learn to be real, it's like learning to be a midget."
>So, while I find the personality annoying, my annoyance is probably
>irrelevant, since for good or ill Jackson does represent an
>articulate voice to many who feel they have none that will be heard.
Swell. What you've just said is that it doesn't matter what he says
or how much damage he does, it only matters that he's *there* and
says *something*. Oh, well.
>> >How might one engage such persons in a constructive dialogue, or
>> >invite them to reconsider their unexamined "good intentions?" I
>> >don't have perfect answers, but wish more folks would look for
>> >them, rather than slamming entire groups based on the
>> >counterproductive behavior of the few.
>> One generally doesn't, because if one does, then one finds oneself
>> attempting to deal with a mind that routinely substitutes feelings
>> in place of the thought process.
>But there must be a way to encourage them to temper their
>emotionality with more critical, thoughtful analysis, no?
Is that a question? "No". You're engaging in a form of wishful
thinking that has absolutely no historical backing in fact.
>I suppose being patient and "setting a good example" might be a
>start, but then one risks being accused of being a "sellout" or some
>such pinko-think. Most young radicals grow up to be less intensely
>reactive adults by virtue of time and experience, in my observation.
>The effective ones, anyway.
>> Often, the best that one can do is to derive considerable
>> amusement by satirizing them. :)
>I won't argue with that, but I for one respect the passion of young
>folks, even when I feel it's misguided. I'd like to think that their
>concern and energy could be channeled into more effective means.
>Lapel-grabbing name-calling is hardly a way to Win Friends and
>Influence People, although it will sometimes incite a controversy.
>Sometimes controversy is healthy...the reasonable aspects get sifted
>out with time, and the molotov mentality subsides.
>> "The intellectuals and the young, booted and spurred, feel
>> themselves born to ride us." -Eric Hoffer, "First Things, Last
>> Things", p. 65.
>You're quick with the thread-related quotes of late, Jafo. Are you
>using some software that finds quotes based on thematic keywords, or
>would that be your brain and library? :)
The latter, Dean. I just keep adding to a text file of various stuff
that I run across and use my memory plus the program's search
function to pick out what's appropriate.
--
Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same
rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you
labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist
today." - Thomas Sowell
ClockWFT
>> Save the politico word games for an au-
>>dience ready to buy. By crystal clear innuen-
>>do, you very clearly portray me as a racist
>>and my comment as such.
>
>Wrong. Your comment could be seen that way. I don't mean to portray you
>as a racist. I don't believe that's your tone or theme.
clockwft wrote:
My comment could *also* have been seen as "nonracist". The fact that you chose
to consciously draw comparison to "like a racist" IMO showed clear intent.
>> If your comment refers to the phrase "de rigeuer", please then make
>> that plain.
>> You DID NOT.
>
>I did. later.
>
"letr"...that helped matters...:o(
>
>> The conscious clear implication of your wording and phrasing, which
>> you are
>> responsible, is that I am a racist and that my comments deserve to be
>> brushed
>> aside....
>
>You certainly do exaggerate! But if it comforts you to interpret things
>in such extremes, so be it.
You apply the term "racist" to another and say they exaggerate when they object
to that. Now there's convoluted reasoning...:o(
>Calm yourself, and I will refrain from such agres-
>sive responses with you, should I feel the need to respond.
"aggressive", how delicately put.
ClockWFT
>At first, it appeared to me that Jackson was
>unjustifiably "playing the race card." A thug
>is a thug, no matter what color. Playing the
>race card inevitably divides us. False cries
>of victimhood and racism, as noted in this thread,
>serve nobody's best interest.
clockwft wrote:
I am tired of hearing this attempt to "prettify" the act of outright lying.
Playing the Race-Card is totally indefensible. It is a conscious fabrication
with absolutely no care shown for the disruption of lives, and oftentimes
ruination of careers. I am no more prepared to sugar-coat people who follop
this modern day McCarthyist mindset than I am those who attempt to justify pure
White Racism as some sort of "white pride" ethnic concept.
And, yes, I stand by my belief that within several minority groups today, the
vast majority (hence "de rigeuer") support either through active support or
"strategic silence" the use of the Race Card by members of their group. I
certainly find that there is little to no open opposition to its use.
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> Tell us another one about there being no Mexican gangs
>> in San Mateo.
>Well, Doug, that's not a very good ruse, is it? You had said that San
>Mateo "used to be nice before Mexican gangs moved in and ruined it."
>That was one of your lamer lies. San Mateo is much nicer now than it was
>when you lived there. This is in large part due to the obvious...the
>influx of money associated with the tech boom in the region. It is a
>fact that the Latino population of San Mateo is larger now than it was
>back in the 70s/80s, but so far as I can tell, the newer Latino
>residents of the area are very nice, productive, hardworking people.
Of course they are, Dean. Mexicans never involve
themselves in gangs. Where did I ever get *that* idea?
>Just for you, o bullshitty one, I drove around the "worst" neighborhoods
>of San Mateo recently. They're nicer than they used to be. There's
>nothing about them that reveals what ethnicities inhabit them. As I've
>noted before, it's largely Latinos and Asians who have improved the
>older sections of downtown, most obviously "B" Street. There are no
>Mexican gangs in San Mateo, Doug.
You'd better alert the "San Mateo County Times". You've
got yourself a scoop there, Dean, boy.
> Upon what evidence do you base your
>racist falsehood?
Back to the old vocabulary? I knew I could count
on you. Nice going.
> You made the original assertion. Back it up, doug. You
>can't. It was a lie.
Get off it, Dean. You know that San Mateo High School
has Mexican gangs. Even Burlingame High School has them.
Who are you trying to kid? Or are you really that oblivous?
>> Sure you cared enough, Dean. Care to enlighten on your
>> exchange of e-mail with the one who actually did make an
>> ass of himself complaining to UT Arlington?
>I already have, Doug, far too many times, but I'll revisit just a
>little. I didn't exchange e-mail, I received it.
So now *exchange* has become *received*? You might
work harder at keeping your story straight. You'll be more
believable, and my side won't ache from laughing.
> As previously
>explained, that person did not complain, he inquired as to UT
>Arlington's policies regarding postings to USENET. He mentioned
>that he thought it was odd that you were posting bigoted things to
>s.c.m.a., and wondered if UTA had any policies regarding content
>transmitted from their facilities at taxpayer expense.
And in your view that isn't an attempt to censor? I see.
By the way, the intellectuals at s.c.m.a. are a sensitive
bunch, just as you are, Dean, boy. They see *bigots* and
*racists* everywhere too, just as you do. Annihilate any
of their arguments - not exactly a challenging endeavor -
and immediately they get edgy and sputter your favorite
words - *racist* and *bigot*.
> Although whatever
>happened to you thereafter undoubtedly resulted from that former
>netizen's inquiry, he did not suggest that you be censored, nor did he
>call you a "racist."
Either you're really, really dumb, or that's your
idea of a joke.
> I assume that he chose to share some of the
>correspondences with me because he'd seen you make an ass of yourself,
>flaming me for asking perfectly reasonable questions, and because, like
>other people who have e-mailed me regarding your various follies, he
>assumed I'd be interested in knowing about the case. I was, a little,
>but I had nothing to do with it, as I'm sure your "very nice person"
>would have confirmed, had you the brains to have investigated prior to
>making your idiotic accusations. You'll recall that when someone else
>whom you'd falsely accused of being
In a previous wife you were a fish wife, right, Dean?
You really just do carry on and on and on ...
>involved in this asked if you had
>evidence of your claims, you said "I sure do," but that ever since that
>time, you've completely failed to produce any such "evidence." You
>evade the issue. You fail to respond. You have no such evidence, Doug.
>It doesn't exist. The person who wrote to UTA is no longer posting to
>the 'net, so far as I can tell. It's been a long time since he has.
>Naturally, I won't reveal his handle, so kindly don't ask me to. I will
>say at least that even he was very surprised that Ms. Beck (or whatever
>her name was, I'm not sure memory serves on the name) decided to have a
>word with you. It would appear
So fascinating ... ever, ever so fascinating. Do
go on, and on, and on. I could use a nap.
> that your real "totalitarian censor" was
>nothing more than the enforcement of UTA's e-services policy, as
>interpreted by your employer of that time. You assumed that you knew
>what had happened, but you were wrong.
Are you done?
>I never solicited the intelligence shared with me, and I regret that I
>was fool enough to describe some of what I knew with "Des," who was all
>too eager to kiss your rear once you returned.
God are you boring and thoroughly clueless. Just take
my word for it. And by the way, you just loved the idea that
someone at UTA might have censored me. I read your
posts on the topic. You were gloating. Does sanctimony
come naturally to you, or did you take lessons?
>You are welcome for this final elaboration. You have shown a great lack
>of integrity in failing to retract your false accusations.
Dean, your moralizing is really just ignorance and
stupidity with a halo. You ever wonder why the girls
who like you are total geeks, and the really hot girls
walk around with 10-foot poles, which they keep handy
just in case you appear. You must be suffering from
quite a number of circular bruises.
>> Your problem is all too clear and easy to pronounce: you're
>> a mindless, pompous, pious ass-licker. Repeat that to yourself
>> a few times and you'll get the hang of it.
>I'm sure that's very childish of you, Doug, but it's not very
>intelligent. I don't "lick ass," doug, but you can be sure that your
>faithful admirers, Tavita and rrcrumb, are all too happy to lick your
>own ancient hiney. Why do the racists love you so, doug? Such a mystery.
More of the famous vocabulary? Again, nice
going. Some day you might generate an original
thought and actually come up with something
resembling an argument. Look forward to it,
Dean. It's quite satisfying.
>> Since you seem to do your shopping at *Hard-On Leather*,
>> I'm glad to be off your list.
>You sure do seem to know a lot about that sort of stuff, douglasklong.
>I'm sure there's some reason, but please refrain from sharing. Since
>it's *obviously* your business, *obviously* relevant to topics discussed
>here, since you care so much, you should know that I'm not gay, Doughie.
>You have a problem with that, we know. It's your problem, Dough.
>Whatever gets you through the night, doug. Don't break a nail, doug!
... and then Dean gave me *such* a look ...
>> Your companions in political correctness are of monumental
>> disinterest to me.
>Again, the people who seem to think I want to know about what a pathetic
>shrimp you are in "real life" assume too much in believing that I care
>to know.
Dean, you did, after all, go to the trouble of finding
a photograph of me. Your doing so really creeped me
out. Are you still fixated, or was it just a passing
infatuation?
> What I see of you on USENET suffices to say quite enough. Your
>offline details are of monumental disinterest to me.
By the way, what *did* you do with that photograph of
me? Wait, don't tell me. I have a feeling I'd rather not know.
> You're a boor and a
>bore. I like interesting people. It's amusing that you're always so
>eager to invoke the meaningless "politically correct" nonsense while
>deploring the "liberal/conservative" scale as meaningless. Strike a
>pose, doug. Maybe somebody will fall for it. Probably not.
How can you be unaware of Political Correctness. Or are
you like a fish in the sea who can't perceive the water?
>> How many times do I need to inform you that I'm not that
>> way, not that there's anything wrong with it ... Yet you continue
>> to make these unsavory passes at me, Dean. Why?
>Dream on, faggy doug. Anyone can see that you're the creepy troll who
>can't resist the temptation of a Nopalito post. It's a simple formula of
>late: I criticize a racist, then you pipe in with your self-defeating
>smear attempts. You're lame, doug.
Funny. You really have no clue, do you.
>> How pretentious and presumptuous and hilarious.
>Noting that you have problems with spelling is all three of those things
>to you? Uh, doug...
No. Your telling anyone anything about the use of
language, given the way you write. I mean, I actually
laugh and groan simultaneously at your clunkers and
bad grammar. I appreciate the entertainment though.
Thanks.
>> Yo could learn something from practically everybody.
>Doug, that's "you." Y-o-u. You are welcome.
Spelling flame? You really are an intellectual
titan, aren't you.
>> You're blowing might hard today, aren't you, Dean.
>*yawn*
I toss you a complement, and that's your response?
Such ingratitude.
>> I don't read much fiction.
>It's not fiction, Doug, but it comes as no surprise to anyone that you
>would run to make such a slam on a book about Latinos, does it?
Any book that claims that Walt Disney was born to a
Spanish cigar vendor really is nothing other than fiction.
Furthermore, most books about *latinos* written by *latinos*
are usually nonsense grandiose accounts of some splendiferous
*latino* accomplishments, or else they're just filled with
victim mongering. But then you go in for all that sort of
stuff, don't you.
>You're a very silly little man, doug. Fortunately, you'll never amount
>to much more. Now run along and defend some internet racist out there...
Well I'm crushed, again. You are such a brute. By the way,
borrow a dictionary and learn some new vocabulary. *Racist*,
*bigot*, and your other mindless PC terms just really aren't much
in the way of arguments. But then you really aren't interested in
argument, are you. You're interested in sucking up and in
feeling right, no matter how silly both of those tendencies are.
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> >> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
>> >> rigeuer to Cry Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your
>> >> get all kinds of perks afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor
>> >> victim, etc.).
>> >Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
>> Perhaps he is, but the words you quoted above bear a great deal of
>> truth. In fact, the ethnic grievance industry is built around them.
>I frequently agree, Jafo. Knee-jerk accusations of racism are no better
>than knee-jerk racism itself. Who doesn't agree that "PC" goes too far,
>too frequently?
While old Dean boy might agree, he hasn't quite found
the limits of it for himself. The following paragraph just oozes
with Dean's PC.
>Apparently I expressed my meaning very poorly. By now I've posted
>repeatedly that I don't actually consider Clock a racist. I merely
>thought that Clock was being dangerously general and unspecific. It
>could be said that "ethnic grievance industry" is also an unqualified
>generalization, but I don't want to belabor that, since people
>sometimes distort your own opinions.
Dean, apparently, can go on like that indefinately. At least
it's funny.
>I will say that I think Clock is (sometimes) at least as hot-headed
>and quick-to-assume as she accuses others of being, but if I understand
>Clock's *real* intent, hers is a message which needs to be part of
>debates about race relations at present.
And the clunky pomposity is priceless.
>> "Publicly inconsolable about the fact that racism continues, these
>> activists seem privately terrified that it has abated."
>> -Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial
>> Society (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 554.
>I'd like to read this book. As you may be aware, it's considered by many
>to be the most "racist" bestseller since "The Bell Curve," although this
>reader would prefer to make up his own mind about that. When judging
>overheated activists, remember that there is nothing more passionately
>idealistic than a college student in their 20s. How might one engage
>such persons in a constructive dialogue, or invite them to reconsider
>their unexamined "good intentions?" I don't have perfect answers, but
>wish more folks would look for them, rather than slamming entire groups
>based on the counterproductive behavior of the few.
All nod in agreement. "Yes ... yes ... quite, old man. Now
where were we ...?" The raised eyebrows and stifled snickers
retreat to the private rooms and allow Dean to muse
idiotically and alone on the importance of what he just said, on
its likelihood of lingering as wisdom across the ages,
of not simply writing it down, but dictating it directly to an
engraver, just to get a kind of headstart on posterity.
What is the price of brass plating these days, or
will he spring for the 14k gold?
Nopalito
cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
> clockwft wrote:
> My comment could *also* have been seen as "nonracist". The fact that
> you chose
> to consciously draw comparison to "like a racist" IMO showed clear
> intent.
Thanks for the "IMO" qualifier, however, you might consider taking a
person's word for it when they explain themselves. I knew I was being
provocative, and I expected that you would call me on it.
> You apply the term "racist" to another and say they exaggerate when
> they object
> to that. Now there's convoluted reasoning...:o
Whatever, Clock. It appears you'd rather have a bad attitude than an
understanding. Fact is, you visit various "ethnic" newsgroups, tell the
regulars what's wrong with them, and then become very sensitive to the
responses you cultivate. I'm surprised you're not made of tougher stuff,
given the nature of your advocacy. Let's put the attitude aside and get
to the point...mine, anyway: You, of late, have been making sweeping,
usually negatively judgemental generalizations about ethnic groups other
than your own. This seemed different to me than the caution and clarity
I've seen you express yourself with in the past. When you make such
sweeping generalizations, you discredit the multiplicity of opinions
that one might find within any ethnic group. You can do better.
>
> >Calm yourself, and I will refrain from such agres-
> >sive responses with you, should I feel the need to respond.
>
> "aggressive", how delicately put.
You appear to be quite sensitive, and unwilling to accept a toning-down
of rhetoric for the purpose of understanding. This has happened
before...at least initially, you've denied that I really meant what I
said I meant. I did apologize, if you felt I went too far, you know.
Have a better one,
Nopalito
"Douglas Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Of course they are, Dean. Mexicans never involve
> themselves in gangs. Where did I ever get *that* idea?
Gangs are an unfortunate American export to Mexico, but once again, you
evade providing the evidence of your outlandish claims. Unless you can
give us some facts about "Mexican gangs" in San Mateo, Doug, you've
failed yet again to back up your typically xenophobic assertions. Yes,
Doug, *that word* again. It does fit you perfectly, doesn't it?
> > Upon what evidence do you base your
> >racist falsehood?
>
> Back to the old vocabulary? I knew I could count
> on you. Nice going.
It was a racist falsehood, Doug. Have you ever wondered why people
think you're a weak-kneed weasel, Doug?
> > You made the original assertion. Back it up, doug. You
> >can't. It was a lie.
>
> Get off it, Dean. You know that San Mateo High School
> has Mexican gangs.
No, I don't. I know better than that, in fact. There were
ethnically-associated gangs at SMHS back in the early '70's, but not
since then. Give 'em a call, Doug. They'll tell you the same thing.
> Even Burlingame High School has them.
> Who are you trying to kid? Or are you really that oblivous?
Well, Doug, here I am at present, in San Mateo, and there you are,
posting lies about San Mateo to alt.california from Texas. No, Doug, I'm
not oblivious to the fact that you're making preposterous assertions
with absolutely no evidence to back them up.
it.
>
> So now *exchange* has become *received*?
"Exchange" was your word, Doug, not mine. You are SUCH a weasel!
> You might
> work harder at keeping your story straight. You'll be more
> believable, and my side won't ache from laughing.
I have told the truth, and you have lied. This is quite a repetitive
cycle. Where's your evidence that I had anything to do with your
situation at UTA, Doug? You don't have any, Doug. Only lies.
> And in your view that isn't an attempt to censor? I see.
If you think it was, your issue is with those who were involved in the
matter, not the guy who observed a slice of it. I am not going to argue
with you about censorship. Obviously, you were not censored.
> By the way, the intellectuals at s.c.m.a. are a sensitive
> bunch, just as you are, Dean, boy.
Sure, Doug, they're "sensitive" when a bigoted asshole like yourself
pops in and lies about the regulars, accusing USA-born citizens of being
Mexicans who came to the country to take advantage of Affirmative Action
when in fact their careers had nothing to do with AA, when you bray
about militarizing the border to a *Chicano* group, no less, when you
portray all Mexicans as "primitives," when you attack anyone and
anything Latino *just because.* Sure, Doug, they're "sensitive." And you
are a total cracker.
> They see *bigots* and
> *racists* everywhere too, just as you do.
Not even a nice try, Doug. I see bigots where there are bigots. You're
an obvious bigot, Doug. Everyone knows this. Attacking those who
actually say so is just so much hogwash.
> Annihilate any
> of their arguments - not exactly a challenging endeavor -
Most of the discussions there are not "arguments," Doug. Most of those
folks aren't interested in playing your argumentitive anti-Latino games.
They're interested in discussing their histories and cultures, things
you deny even exist, so it's only natural that a hostile buffoon like
yorself would be ignored there.
> and immediately they get edgy and sputter your favorite
> words - *racist* and *bigot*.
Some do, that's so, but you do invite such name-calling by virtue of
your bigot, sometimes openly racist postings. Isn't it a shame that
people tend to call a card a card?
> Either you're really, really dumb, or that's your
> idea of a joke.
It's a fact. He did not call you a racist. Are facts so awful, Doug?
> In a previous wife you were a fish wife, right, Dean?
*yawn*
> You really just do carry on and on and on ...
You asked for an elaboration. I granted you one. Predictably, you attack
the elaboration. Typical Klongism. Clearly, you're worth nobody's time.
> So fascinating ... ever, ever so fascinating. Do
> go on, and on, and on. I could use a nap.
You asked, Dumbass. If you're having problems with narcolepsy, I suggest
not asking for the answers that good folks like me are sometimes willing
to offer. Nighty-night, Doug.
> God are you boring and thoroughly clueless. Just take
> my word for it.
I never take the "word" of habitual liars to be worth anything.
> And by the way, you just loved the idea that
> someone at UTA might have censored me.
So now you're psychic, eh?
> I read your
> posts on the topic. You were gloating. Does sanctimony
> come naturally to you, or did you take lessons?
You should know, as the most sanctimonious, pompous ass that
alt.california has ever suffered. Big deal, I enjoyed your brief
absence. A lot more discussion of appropriate topics occurred in your
absense. People spent less time arguing about racial matters. I don't
mind that BajaRat is no longer with us, Doug. Have a cow, Doug. By the
way, I wasn't gloating, as I had nothing to do with your muzzling. The
guy who wrote to UTA didn't gloat, either. All he said to me about the
responses he received was that he thought they were "interesting." He
never mentioned the incident publicly, as I erred in doing.
> Dean, your moralizing is really just ignorance and
> stupidity with a halo.
Wrong again, Klong. Again: You show a lack of integrity in repeating
false allegations. You show a lack of integrity in retracting false
allegations once you realize you're wrong. Call this moralizing or call
it my opinion, but at least I have morals, Doug. You won't find me lying
about your offline activities or personal life, Doug.
> You ever wonder why the girls
> who like you are total geeks,
The *women* who like me are the best! "Geeks?" Well, in the current
colloquial usage, yeah...they know a lot about tech stuff, some of 'em.
At least they're pretty, full of life, and a hell of a lot of fun to
spend time with.
> and the really hot girls
> walk around with 10-foot poles, which they keep handy
> just in case you appear.
You sure do enjoy fantasizing about the love lives of others! Damn, I'm
a stud! Yes, the ladies do love Nopalito... (Have a field day, Doug.)
> You must be suffering from
> quite a number of circular bruises.
They're called "hickeys," and although I consider them to be a bit
immature and high-schoolish, they do seem to evoke humorous jealousy.
> Dean, you did, after all, go to the trouble of finding
> a photograph of me.
No, I didn't, neither did I say I did. I would have no idea where to
find a picture of you, nor do I stalk anyone. That would be too
pathetic. As repeatedly explained, persons who seem to think I have some
desire to know more about you occaisionally send me this-or-that
"information," or in one strange case, an alleged photo. Fact is, I have
no idea if it's authentic. I don't care. It was deleted after I viewed
it.
> Your doing so really creeped me
> out. Are you still fixated, or was it just a passing
> infatuation?
Uh, Doug, in case you haven't noticed your own behavior, you've been
"cyberstalking" me of late, while I've mostly ignored you. You're
indulging in what humorous smartass Sac_of_Tomatoes calls "pilot fish"
behavior. Are your fantasies of me being "fixated" on your sorry virtual
self some form of self-flattery? Leave me out of it. I've told you many
times that I think you're boring and foolish. Why do you care? It's
really your problem, Doug. Seek help.
> By the way, what *did* you do with that photograph of
> me? Wait, don't tell me. I have a feeling I'd rather not know.
I deleted it. Dream on, weirdo.
> Funny. You really have no clue, do you.
I have a better life than you, of that I'm sure!
> Spelling flame? You really are an intellectual
> titan, aren't you.
Your hypocrisy knows no shame, does it, Doug. OBVIOUSLY, the spelling
flame was in response to your preposterous sanctimony regarding form and
expression. You really are a silly little man.
> Any book that claims that Walt Disney was born to a
> Spanish cigar vendor really is nothing other than fiction.
It makes no such claim. It refers to the rumors as exactly that.
> Furthermore, most books about *latinos* written by *latinos*
> are usually nonsense grandiose accounts of some splendiferous
> *latino* accomplishments, or else they're just filled with
> victim mongering.
LOL! Yeah, right. Even if I did post some criticism of the culture of
victimhood, you'd still ignore it and project the "Dean" upon me that
you have a vested interest in believing in. How you must hate it that we
sometimes agree! Enjoy your false constructs, Doug. And thanks for your
sage wisdom regarding Latinos. Everyone considers you an expert, you
know.
> But then you go in for all that sort of
> stuff, don't you.
Sure, Doug, and Santa Claus is real, Doug.
> Well I'm crushed, again. You are such a brute.
I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, Doug. I'm describing you.
> By the way,
> borrow a dictionary and learn some new vocabulary. *Racist*,
> *bigot*, and your other mindless PC terms just really aren't much
> in the way of arguments.
Racists are always trying to undermine the meaning of words, always
invoking "dictionaries" when, typically, dictionaries support the proper
use of the words in question. I remember posting a dictionary definition
of "xenophobe" when you and BajaRat complained of being called that. The
dictionary definition described the two of you perfectly. BajaRat,
amazingly, agreed. You freaked out and attacked *me* for the dictionary
definition. You, in turn, were laughed at by everyone but your few
fellow Mexi-phobes.
> But then you really aren't interested in
> argument, are you.
Not with you, no. "Argument" is your purpose, Doug, not mine. I prefer
to "argue" with reasonable people, not weasely ne'er-do-wells.
> You're interested in sucking up and in
> feeling right, no matter how silly both of those tendencies are.
Why don't you say what you really mean by "sucking up," Doug? "Feeling
right" is something that pretty much everyone participates in in USENET
discussions. You are quite obviously a prime example of this. To single
one person out for "feeling right," for *having opinions,* is incredibly
stupid, Doug. Sure, I feel right. I like people, including people who
aren't "Anglo." I'm right about this. "Anglos" aren't the only people
with positive attributes and basic dignity. Have a cow, Doug.
Nopalito
jafo wrote:
> As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
>
> >To the annoyance of some of my more bleeding-heart associates, I
> >find Jackson to be a really annoying, spotlight-hugging spokesperson
> >for Jackson
>
> D'ya *think* so? What was your first clue? :)
1984 Democratic Convention keynote speech. Then, seeing him at a public
rally (for WHAT? "The rainbow," apparently) where what *I'd* call
bleeding-heart liberals were all too eager to behave like they'd just
found religion. I'll probably offend some with this, but his
revival-style religiosity is one of the things I like the least about
him. This "self-esteem" rally, or whatever it was, actually had a full
gospel choir backing up Jackson's soundbites. I like gospel music in its
original context...there's a black Baptist church near my neighborhood,
and it's a pleasure to walk past it during choir practice, but Jackson's
use of such a choir at this rally thing really bugged me for some
reason. I think of him as much more of a politician than any sort of
spiritual leader.
> You're not, eh? [Not aware that Jackson defended hooligan behavior.]
> He's defended "the hooligan behavior" in three
> separate marches in the past week, and you're not aware of it?
Jafo, I'm very busy of late, and don't follow every detail of every news
story. You're a lucky man if you have the time...I don't at present. My
comments are based on what I *do* know, what I have read and heard.
> You're blowing in the wind, Dean, as you come down squarely on both
> sides of the issue; you completely shift focus between the beginning
> of the previous paragraph and the end.
Not really. I'm trying to find balance, to put myself in another's
shoes, specifically black folks who feel they have no "voice," while
maintaining that my own perception of Jackson is valid from my own
perspective. I did make clear at the beginning of the paragraph that I
was "trying to understand."
> Forcing these bums out of
> school entirely might just give some decent kids a fair chance.
Finding a way to keep them in school might give *them* a chance to be
more than a common thug. Forcing them out of school ensures that they
will have to socially productive value, and potentially risks their
becoming worse thugs/gangbangers/criminals/addicts.
> You
> pay far too much attention to what a guy like this says, and far too
> little to what he actually does.
Actually, the words are what I'm cynical about. If a more
straightforward opinion would be preferred, then mine is that both the
Decatur school board *and* Jackson overreacted. The "zero tolerance"
policy should be scrutinized, as should improper invocation of civil
rights martyrdom.
> In your view, should "more credible" actually have anything to do with
> the facts of a matter or is it okay that it be merely imagery?
I think that's the crux of the Jackson dilemma. Objectively, the facts
of the matter should be the main thing, but we don't live in a perfect
society. Mistrust along racial lines exists for the obvious reason that
racial bias exists, although as you know I'm inclined to agree that the
mistrust goes too far too frequently. My reference to credibility was as
regards black people, not others. Sure, ideally, we should all agree
upon "the facts" without regard to race, but we're not at that ideal
stage yet, so figures like Jackson "mean something" to a lot of people.
I had this debate with a good friend of mine recently regarding the SF
mayoral race (before the election.) He's black. He said he was going to
vote for Willie Brown, "holding [his] nose, just because he's black." I
couldn't believe what I was hearing (this friend is very intelligent,)
but had to accept that to him, having a black mayor was more important
than having *the best* candidate in office. He didn't necessarily think
that Brown was the best choice. Now I know very well what you think of
this, and to a large extent, I agree, as my friend knows. Still, I'm not
black, and I'm not the type to tell those of other races what their
concerns and opinions should be. I'll make my case, no problem, but I'll
listen to theirs thoughtfully.
> >Imagine Al Gore, for example, stepping into the frey and attempting
> >to mediate. Wouldn't fly.
>
> LOL! The very idea is laughable and yet this is the moron that
> several million Americans believe should be the next President.
I'm not so convinced about that...
> He'd better keep Naomi Wolf by his side for some quick and timely
> advise on manhood; all things considered, her fifteen grand a month
> price tag is, for him, a steal, for in the words of Woody Allen: "You
> can't learn to be real, it's like learning to be a midget."
He should have known that hiring her would elicit hilarity, not that
she's a dimwit by any means. I just can't understand this business of
needing to *appear* "more manly." I mean, he's fine...he's not
effeminate. Boring, stiff, yeah, but what's with the "manly" thing? Is
Jesse Helms manly? No, he's grandmotherly, maybe schoolmarmy, but nobody
cares. Maybe Gore should wear a feather boa like Ventura, if he needs
to feel more masculine. :)
> >So, while I find the personality annoying, my annoyance is probably
> >irrelevant, since for good or ill Jackson does represent an
> >articulate voice to many who feel they have none that will be heard.
>
> Swell. What you've just said is that it doesn't matter what he says
> or how much damage he does, it only matters that he's *there* and
> says *something*. Oh, well.
No, Jafo, let me qualify the above; My annoyance is irrelevant to black
folks and others who consider him articulate and inspirational.
Obviously, what he says and does do ultimately "matter," given that he
has any influence in the case. I have a feeling that his intervention in
this case may come back to bite him on the ass, even if he helps with
the resolution, though.
> >But there must be a way to encourage them to temper their
> >emotionality with more critical, thoughtful analysis, no?
>
> Is that a question? "No". You're engaging in a form of wishful
> thinking that has absolutely no historical backing in fact.
Yes, "no?" was sort of like saying "n'est-ce pas?" or "que no" except in
English. Did it seem too affected? Oh well. Now what's this about
history and wishful thinking? Yes, I wish that young zealots could be
invited to reconsider their tactics. As for "historical backing," I'm
not sure there's any point in debating. It appears that you believe that
such people *absolutely* can't be reasoned with. I've never found such
predetermined thinking to have much successful effect with people. I
have found that giving them the benefit of the doubt *sometimes* works.
> The latter, Dean. I just keep adding to a text file of various stuff
> that I run across and use my memory plus the program's search
> function to pick out what's appropriate.
I'm impressed, and have ordered the D'Souza book. Very curious about
that one...
- Dean
Nopalito
cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
> >Nopalito wrote:
> >At first, it appeared to me that Jackson was
> >unjustifiably "playing the race card." A thug
> >is a thug, no matter what color. Playing the
> >race card inevitably divides us. False cries
> >of victimhood and racism, as noted in this thread,
> >serve nobody's best interest.
>
> clockwft wrote:
> I am tired of hearing this attempt to "prettify" the act of outright
> lying.
Who tried that? Is Jackson actually saying that this is a case of
selective, racist enforcement? The comments I heard said the
opposite...that the zero tolerance policies hurt everyone. Did you see
somewhere that he said they only hurt blacks?
> And, yes, I stand by my belief that within several minority groups
> today, the vast majority (hence "de rigeuer") support either through
> active support or "strategic silence" the use of the Race Card by
> members of their group.
Understood. I'll look forward to the prospect of seeing you criticize
this in specific circumstances, rather than general, if you're ever so
inclined.
> I certainly find that there is little to no open opposition to its
> use.
I see a lot of opposition to it, but then, we may not be "looking" in
the same places. Johnny Cochran...yeah, he's a creep on that count. So
is "ipm," if you ask this observer. As a guy who actively engages
friends and associates in discussion of racial matters with folks of
many races (when reasonably appropriate, of course,) I find that persons
in all groups deplore the playing of the race card. I suppose my job,
having dived into this thread, is to review the Decatur stories and look
for specific instances of Jackson playing the race card in the matter.
Nobody's offered any here, other than to simply accuse him of doing so.
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> Of course they are, Dean. Mexicans never involve
>> themselves in gangs. Where did I ever get *that* idea?
>Gangs are an unfortunate American export to Mexico,
Actually they aren't much of an export. They obviously
remain right here in this country.
> but once again, you
>evade providing the evidence of your outlandish claims. Unless you can
>give us some facts about "Mexican gangs" in San Mateo, Doug, you've
>failed yet again to back up your typically xenophobic assertions. Yes,
>Doug, *that word* again. It does fit you perfectly, doesn't it?
>> > Upon what evidence do you base your
>> >racist falsehood?
>> Back to the old vocabulary? I knew I could count
>> on you. Nice going.
>It was a racist falsehood, Doug. Have you ever wondered why people
>think you're a weak-kneed weasel, Doug?
Gosh you're mean.
>> > You made the original assertion. Back it up, doug. You
>> >can't. It was a lie.
>> Get off it, Dean. You know that San Mateo High School
>> has Mexican gangs.
>No, I don't. I know better than that, in fact. There were
>ethnically-associated gangs at SMHS back in the early '70's, but not
>since then. Give 'em a call, Doug. They'll tell you the same thing.
You have no idea, do you. I mean, you actually believe
your own BS, don't you. I'll tell you this: one of my sources
on the matter is *at* San Mateo H.S, and the other is in
local government. By the way, I excised the remainer of
your post here. I'm just not the fish-wife type. I mean,
you really are some kind of nutcase, aren't you.
The Pervert
reasoned, spirited discussion (certainly not always agreeing) based on
issues rather than personal inventive.
YOWSA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bravo, gentlemen.
Nopalito
can disagree without being a nutcase or a flame-bot about it. Like many,
I lose my cool sometimes, but prefer it when people here can discuss
their differences in the manner you describe.
In article <383278...@spambad.yahooo.con>,
Nopalito
"Douglas Long" <dkl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Nopalito wrote:
>
> >> Of course they are, Dean. Mexicans never involve
> >> themselves in gangs. Where did I ever get *that* idea?
>
> >Gangs are an unfortunate American export to Mexico,
>
> remain right here in this country.
...And are a spreading threat, including in places previously thought to
be havens from that menace. I think you know what I meant, though.
American-style gangs are now appearing in Mexico. It's a myth that they
were originally a Mexican export to the States. In places like East
L.A., the gangs have much to do with the breakdown of traditional family
and social structures and perceived hopelessness. The gangs in San
Francicso appear to be the same, so far as the Sureños go, although the
Norteños seem to me like bored kids looking for the wrong kind of
thrill. San Mateo just doesn't have the problems that LA, SF, and
Oakland does, and it's pure foolishness to say, as you did, that San
Mateo "used to be nice before Mexican gangs moved in" and ruined it.
Actually, Silicon Valley moved north and changed it, mostly for good
IMO.
> >It was a racist falsehood, Doug. Have you ever wondered why people
> >think you're a weak-kneed weasel, Doug?
>
> Gosh you're mean.
Only when necessary.
> >> Get off it, Dean. You know that San Mateo High School
> >> has Mexican gangs.
I know that it does not, for a fact. I was just there this afternoon.
Beautiful school, isn't it? They don't build 'em like that anymore. Home
of the Bearcats, launch site of countless fine minds; Alma mater of Cal
Tjader and other distinguished Americans.
> You have no idea, do you. I mean, you actually believe
> your own BS, don't you.
One observes that you're full of it, from the original assertion that
"Mexican gangs" had degraded San Mateo, California, to your sudden
attempt to switch goal-posts mid-game. So now you're specifying the high
schools in the San Mateo area. I see. Not too clever, but I did take the
bait out of personal interest and investigated your narrower assertion.
> I'll tell you this: one of my sources
> on the matter is *at* San Mateo H.S, and the other is in
> local government.
Ah, Doug's moles in San Mateo. Fine, Doug. I had a pleasant chat today
with an administrator in the front office of SMHS. I asked about gangs.
She advised that they're a concern at practically all American high
schools, but that SMHS is fortunate not to have any particular problem
with them. I asked about "Mexican gangs." She said that while the Latino
population of SMHS has grown considerably in the past decade, there is
no problem with Latino or "Mexican" gangs. I'll be checking with the San
Mateo police as soon as possible on the issue, assuming they'll grant me
the time. I most certainly trust the evidence of my own eyes and
experience. I'm currently on assignment in San Mateo, and have been for
a few months. You're ranting from Texas. The city (S.M.) is looking
better than I can ever remember. If you want to bitch and moan about
some menace to the city's older charm, you'd do better to lambast
Starbucks than imaginary gangs which, according to you, destroyed its
livability. Your original assertion was incorrect, and your more recent,
er, refocussing is, per a *real* source, also incorrect.
> By the way, I excised the remainer of
> your post here.
But of course you did. Truth hurts, eh?
> I'm just not the fish-wife type.
You certainly aren't the honest-man type!
> I mean,
> you really are some kind of nutcase, aren't you.
I am quite sane. Seek help, Doug. And next time you're in California, be
certain to visit beautiful San Mateo. Be sure to bring one of those
cameras that can capture ghosts. Mexican ghosts. Whomever said that
"Doug has nightmares to feed" was right on target. Sweet dreams, Doug.
- Dean
Miguel O'Pastel
are racist and have done nothing to indicate otherwise.
M
Jafo wrote in message ...
|As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
|
|>In article <L8ssOL07jP6wMj...@4ax.com>,
|> Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote:
|>> As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
|>> > cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
|>> >> Hey....it's the US in the 1990s. If you are a minority it is de
|>> >> rigeuer to Cry Racism to the max....After all, it's free & your
|>> >> get all kinds of perks afterwards (you know...gee wiz, you poor
|>> >> victim, etc.).
|
|>> >Said like a true racist, Clock! Congrats!
|
|>> Perhaps he is, but the words you quoted above bear a great deal of
|>> truth. In fact, the ethnic grievance industry is built around
|>> them.
|
|>I frequently agree, Jafo. Knee-jerk accusations of racism are no
|>better than knee-jerk racism itself. Who doesn't agree that "PC"
|>goes too far, too frequently?
|>
|>Apparently I expressed my meaning very poorly. By now I've posted
|>repeatedly that I don't actually consider Clock a racist. I merely
|>thought that Clock was being dangerously general and unspecific. It
|>could be said that "ethnic grievance industry" is also an
|>unqualified generalization, but I don't want to belabor that, since
|>people sometimes distort your own opinions.
|
|"Sometimes"? :-D
|
|>I will say that I think Clock is (sometimes) at least as hot-headed
|>and quick-to-assume as she accuses others of being, but if I
|>understand Clock's *real* intent, hers is a message which needs to
|>be part of debates about race relations at present.
|
|Absolutely. Look at *The Reverend* Jackson's current campaign, for
|example. Desperate for a cause to keep himself in the limelight lest
|he be forced to find honest work, he's now lowered himself to being
|an advocate for a bunch of common thugs. How fortunate for him that
|these particular thugs happened to have a skin color similar to his
|own.
|
|>> "Publicly inconsolable about the fact that racism continues, these
|>> activists seem privately terrified that it has abated."
|>> -Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a
|>> Multiracial Society (New York: The Free Press, 1995), p. 554.
|
|>I'd like to read this book. As you may be aware, it's considered by
|>many to be the most "racist" bestseller since "The Bell Curve,"
|>although this reader would prefer to make up his own mind about
|>that. When judging overheated activists, remember that there is
|>nothing more passionately idealistic than a college student in their
|>20s.
|
|Well, the book's author can hardly be described as your garden
|variety WASP, and his primary fault seems to be that his opinions
|violate current standards of political correctness. For an example
|of the, er, "thoughts" of just such a young liberal asshole as you
|describe, we can turn to "The Brown Daily Herald", Brown University's
|independent daily student newspaper. The writer begins by referring
|amiably to D'Sousa as a "well-known racist ideologue" and proceeds to
|go downhill from there in his downright comical letter to the editor.
|This writer identifies himself as one "Pranav Jani" - a name which
|sounds as if it's bearer may have a similar ethnic origin to D'Souza,
|thereby rendering the "racist" comment rather humorous - declares
|himself to be a member of the ISO, or "International Socialist
|Organization". Need anything more be said?
|http://www.netspace.org/herald/issues/110797/jani.f.html
|
|>How might one engage such persons in a constructive dialogue, or
|>invite them to reconsider their unexamined "good intentions?" I
|>don't have perfect answers, but wish more folks would look for them,
|>rather than slamming entire groups based on the counterproductive
|>behavior of the few.
|
|One generally doesn't, because if one does, then one finds oneself
|attempting to deal with a mind that routinely substitutes feelings in
|place of the thought process. Often, the best that one can do is to
|derive considerable amusement by satirizing them. :)
|
|--
| ~ Jafo http://www.cheetah.net/jafo/
|
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> >> Of course they are, Dean. Mexicans never involve
>> >> themselves in gangs. Where did I ever get *that* idea?
>> >Gangs are an unfortunate American export to Mexico,
>> Actually they aren't much of an export. They obviously
>> remain right here in this country.
>...And are a spreading threat, including in places previously thought to
>be havens from that menace. I think you know what I meant, though.
>American-style gangs are now appearing in Mexico. It's a myth that they
>were originally a Mexican export to the States.
The gangs most active in this country are Mexican.
The gangs that might be forming in Mexico must be
learning from Mexicans in this country. I never claimed
gangs were an import from Mexico; though Mexicans
here are certainly more prone to join gangs than are
any other group, given the numbers.
> In places like East
>L.A., the gangs have much to do with the breakdown of traditional family
>and social structures and perceived hopelessness. The gangs in San
>Francicso appear to be the same, so far as the Sureños go, although the
>Norteños seem to me like bored kids looking for the wrong kind of
>thrill. San Mateo just doesn't have the problems that LA, SF, and
>Oakland does, and it's pure foolishness to say, as you did, that San
>Mateo "used to be nice before Mexican gangs moved in" and ruined it.
>Actually, Silicon Valley moved north and changed it, mostly for good
>IMO.
No, what is pure follishness is to claim that San Mateo
has no mexican gangs, as you did. Exactly how many
Mexican gangsters does it take to ruin a place?
>> >It was a racist falsehood, Doug. Have you ever wondered why people
>> >think you're a weak-kneed weasel, Doug?
>> Gosh you're mean.
>Only when necessary.
You're too dumb to deal with, really, aren't you.
Mexican gangs are in San Mateo. You deny it and
call names when I assert it. I'm right, you're wrong.
Mexican gangs are in San Mateo.
>> >> Get off it, Dean. You know that San Mateo High School
>> >> has Mexican gangs.
>I know that it does not, for a fact. I was just there this afternoon.
>Beautiful school, isn't it? They don't build 'em like that anymore. Home
>of the Bearcats, launch site of countless fine minds; Alma mater of Cal
>Tjader and other distinguished Americans.
So you meandered around campus and determined
that no Mexican gang thugs were there? A 20-minute
stroll and you're now thoroughly briefed? I see.
>> You have no idea, do you. I mean, you actually believe
>> your own BS, don't you.
>One observes that you're full of it, from the original assertion that
>"Mexican gangs" had degraded San Mateo, California, to your sudden
>attempt to switch goal-posts mid-game. So now you're specifying the high
>schools in the San Mateo area. I see. Not too clever, but I did take the
>bait out of personal interest and investigated your narrower assertion.
I never narrowed the assertion; I expanded it by *adding*
that San Mateo H.S. had Mexican gangs. Keep up with
the discussion.
>> I'll tell you this: one of my sources
>> on the matter is *at* San Mateo H.S, and the other is in
>> local government.
>Ah, Doug's moles in San Mateo. Fine, Doug. I had a pleasant chat today
>with an administrator in the front office of SMHS. I asked about gangs.
>She advised that they're a concern at practically all American high
>schools, but that SMHS is fortunate not to have any particular problem
>with them. I asked about "Mexican gangs." She said that while the Latino
>population of SMHS has grown considerably in the past decade, there is
>no problem with Latino or "Mexican" gangs.
What a joke. "... no particullar problem with them" means no
gang presence? You were *handled*. You got the PR treatment.
The biggest joke of all is you bought it. You really are dumber than
I thought you were. I mean, really ...
> I'll be checking with the San
>Mateo police as soon as possible on the issue, assuming they'll grant me
>the time. I most certainly trust the evidence of my own eyes and
>experience. I'm currently on assignment in San Mateo, and have been for
>a few months. You're ranting from Texas. The city (S.M.) is looking
>better than I can ever remember. If you want to bitch and moan about
>some menace to the city's older charm, you'd do better to lambast
>Starbucks than imaginary gangs which, according to you, destroyed its
>livability. Your original assertion was incorrect, and your more recent,
>er, refocussing is, per a *real* source, also incorrect.
I understand your handicap much better now. By the
way, talk with a street cop; none sargeant or above.
Otherwise you'll probably get handled again. Just
a tip for the naive - unbelievably naive - inquirer.
>> By the way, I excised the remainer of
>> your post here.
>But of course you did. Truth hurts, eh?
No, endless rambling fishwifery is just annoying. *Then
you said then I said then he said ...* You'd have made a
good back-fence gossip.
>> I'm just not the fish-wife type.
>You certainly aren't the honest-man type!
People who brag about how honest they are and
how dishonest everyone else is usually are themselves
telling stories. Only liars are obsessed with accusing
others of being liars. So rave on. It probably suit you.
>> I mean,
>> you really are some kind of nutcase, aren't you.
>I am quite sane. Seek help, Doug. And next time you're in California, be
>certain to visit beautiful San Mateo. Be sure to bring one of those
>cameras that can capture ghosts. Mexican ghosts. Whomever said that
>"Doug has nightmares to feed" was right on target. Sweet dreams, Doug.
Thanks for confirming my assertion. You're nuttier than
a fruitcake, aren't you, Dean.
The pervert
Here's an exercise even you might understand. Take your exact sentence
and change just two words; whites to blacks, and racist to dishonest.
You now have, "Most people know that black Americans are dishonest and
have done nothing to indicate otherwise." See? Just as much a vicious
lie as what you said, but your neurotic obsession makes your racism more
than okay to you. To you it's enlightened.
As always, you show yourself to be a sick, disgusting, racist bastard
(with apologies to your alleged parents) damned by your own vile words.
Kinda makes you almost identical to ipm, Crusader and Byker.
rrcrumb
eliciting angry responses and probably laughing
when he gets them.
IOW..... out trolling.
For illegal immigration news please visit:
http://americanpatrol.com
http://www.newnation.org/NNN-news-invasion.html
http://www.alamanceind.com/newfol~4/immig.html
BEST CONSERVATIVE WEBSITE:
http://www.freerepublic.com
The pervert <perv...@spambad.yahooo.con> wrote in message
news:3833B7...@spambad.yahooo.con...
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote in message <80v98l$ha3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Thanks, Perv. One thing I've always appreciated about Jafo is that he
>can disagree without being a nutcase or a flame-bot about it. Like many,
>I lose my cool sometimes, but prefer it when people here can discuss
>their differences in the manner you describe.
I need to get some of those little airline barf bags
and keep them handy at the desk here. Sometimes
the sanctimony really sets off the gag reflex.
Nopalito
Thank you for illustrating that you are a prime example of an immature
pilot fish (again,) doug. Ever wonder why you can only get peon jobs at
crummy little schools? I don't.
hc23hc
>
> Nopalito wrote
> >can disagree without being a nutcase or a flame-bot about it. Like many,
> >I lose my cool sometimes, but prefer it when people here can discuss
> >their differences in the manner you describe.
>
> I need to get some of those little airline barf bags
> and keep them handy at the desk here. Sometimes
> the sanctimony really sets off the gag reflex.
A lot of used ones have been showing up in San Mateo, sources say.
This outbreak of LunchSac© littering has not yet been officially linked
to a visiting stage production of "In and Out", in which Dean plays the
parts of Tom Selleck and Joan Cusack as well as doing Kevin Kline.
A city spokesman said that the play must soon go more "out" than "in"
for as-yet undisclosed reasons and refused to comment on reports that
several of the play's audience members on opening night were among the
first to come down with a virus "too horrible to describe on usenet".
.
.
.
Nopalito
nothing to contribute to the thread but her usual pilot-fish BS.
You're a lot like your dougling, HC.
In article <38343570...@artlink.ne>,
hc2...@artlink.ne wrote:
> A lot of used ones have been showing up in San Mateo, sources say.
> This outbreak of LunchSac=A9 littering has not yet been officially
linked=
> =
>
> to a visiting stage production of "In and Out", in which Dean plays
the =
>
> parts of Tom Selleck and Joan Cusack as well as doing Kevin Kline.
>
> A city spokesman said that the play must soon go more "out" than "in"
=
>
> for as-yet undisclosed reasons and refused to comment on reports that
> several of the play's audience members on opening night were among the
> first to come down with a virus "too horrible to describe on usenet".
hc23hc
>
> As viewed from alt.california, Nopalito wrote:
>
> >can disagree without being a nutcase or a flame-bot about it. Like many,
> >I lose my cool sometimes, but prefer it when people here can discuss
> >their differences in the manner you describe.
>
> in with the sort of calm, reasoned comment that goes something like,
> "Oh, yeah? Well, well... well, I seen better things than <name>
> crawling around in a dead jackass!"
Did you have to interrupt Dean while he's doing his fluff and fold ?
Did you, really ?
.
.
.
Douglas Long
Nopalito wrote:
>> >Thanks, Perv. One thing I've always appreciated about Jafo is that he
>> >can disagree without being a nutcase or a flame-bot about it. Like
>many,
>> >I lose my cool sometimes, but prefer it when people here can discuss
>> >their differences in the manner you describe.
>> I need to get some of those little airline barf bags
>> and keep them handy at the desk here. Sometimes
>> the sanctimony really sets off the gag reflex.
>Thank you for illustrating that you are a prime example of an immature
>pilot fish (again,) doug. Ever wonder why you can only get peon jobs at
>crummy little schools? I don't.
Dean, you don't *wonder* anything because mental
activity, evidently, is outside your ability. Try, but
don't hurt yourself. There's a good boy ...
Nopalito
hc2...@artlink.ne wrote:
> Did you have to interrupt Dean while he's doing his fluff and fold ?
>
> Did you, really ?
Unlike yourself, Jafo had something to say about the Decatur affair, and
challenged my own statements in a manner appropriate to USENET
discussions. It might be interesting to know what you think about
Jackson's intervention, HC, but your highly creative flames aren't
particluarly interesting. Do you have anything to say about Decatur, HC?
We know what you have to say about Jafo, or myself for that matter.
We've seen you trail-and-flame, ad naseum. It's established: That's
something you can do. You're very, very capable. Cool. Howzabout a new
dog'n'pony?
And what about Our Mr. Long? Care to say something of substance about
something topical, maybe even something about (gasp!) California?, Your
pilot-fish behavior of late is beneath even you. C'mon, Doug...Keep Hope
alive.
Yours in perpetual humility,
hc23hc
>
> hc2...@artlink.ne wrote:
>
> > Did you have to interrupt Dean while he's doing his fluff and fold ?
> >
> > Did you, really ?
>
> Unlike yourself, Jafo had something to say about the Decatur affair, and
Oh he did ? That's great, Dean. At least it *was* okay until you and
some pervert and ye olde Jafo began high-fiving each other for being such
titans of debate for its own sake. That gave away your washerwomanliness
altogether; you were adding way too much fabric softener because you got
so carried away with yourself, as usual.
Now it's back to doing your little solo from Swan Lake, and the initial
pointe has lost much of what small vitality, not to mention virility, it
had in the first place.
> Yours in perpetual humility,
> Dean
Yeh, right. Dean the perpetual groveler, begging to be admired by the boys.
Why is that so obvious, yet so very hard for him to admit to ?
.
.
.