[OT] Senate Office Building Name

[Quadibloc]

YouTube shows me the Thom Hartmann program, although I've learned
that he has left-wing views that are significantly to the left of mine in
some respects.
However, from there I learned about the name of an office building used
by the U.S. Senate. Doing a Google search, though, I found here

https://www.senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_Russell.htm

that the building was given its name in 1972.

I mean, I could have understood this if the building had been named in, say, 1890. But by 1972, I would have thought it would already have been recognized
that anyone seeking to oppose or obstruct equality for black people was an
enemy of humanity itself - due to a change in the consciousness of the
people of the democratic nations of the world that was set in motion on
April 15, 1945.

John Savard

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:3c82d010-6eaf-44d5...@googlegroups.com:

Appaerntly, we can add 1972 to the list of things you don't know your
ass from a hole in the ground about.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[pete...@gmail.com]

Oh, you sweet summer child...

Pt

[Lynn McGuire]

John, I am very close to kill filing you.

Lynn

[Charles Packer]

A skim through the newspaper archives of Sep-Oct 1972, when the
Senate resolved to name the building after Russell doesn't turn
up any public awareness of the implications, let alone any
protests. In the meantime though, if I've got the history
right, the desegregation of Southern schools was actually taking
place. Maybe the press knew when to keep quiet.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:32:16 AM UTC-7, Charles Packer wrote:
> Maybe the press knew when to keep quiet.

And, of course, during 1972 to 1974, it also knew when to speak up...

But I don't blame the American people for electing Nixon in 1972.

After all, there was a clear issue in that election; they were electing
Nixon in order that the gallant sacrifices of so many American boys
in Vietnam would not be in vain.
Sadly, under Ford, and due to the hasty actions of many Democrats
in Congress, this hope was dashed, and the people of Vietnam
languish under Communism to this day.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

Have you asked any of them if they feel that they are "languishing"?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 5:43:59 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> Have you asked any of them if they feel that they are "languishing"?

Where did the boat people come from if Communism in Vietnam
was so great?

John Savard

[Scott Lurndal]

Why? Senator Russell was a prick.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:UvAFJ.790$8Q....@fx19.iad:

So is Quaddie.

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:gfddugdqt9up6bblv...@4ax.com:

How could you possibly doubt that Quaddie knows what's best for
oppressed (not white) minorities better than they possibly could?

[Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:6d064af2-a11e-4f62...@googlegroups.com:

How many boat people are escaping from Vietnam now? Or have b een
for, say, the last two decades?

Dude, it's like you're not even trying any more.

[David Johnston]

Where did the United Empire Loyalists come from if American independence
was so great?

[The Horny Goat]

The trouble is of course that there is not a consensus on what
"equality" actually means. Equality of opportunity is something I'd
like to think all decent people support - but equality of outcome is a
horse of a totally different color and those who don't support THAT
are being cancelled, flamed and all sorts of other indecent acts.

If a group receives more than their "fair share" of government support
it may not be racist - there may actually be a genuine need (there may
not be either as racial preference for aboriginal peoples in Canada on
COVID vaccines demonstrates - since that is applied to ALL of them not
just those in isolated communities less equipped with doctors and
hospitals) If the government can make a fact based case (e.g. not
based on fuzzy political "logic") all well and good but you know how
often that is!

So if you make a demand and I say "bollocks!" it doesn't "prove" I'm a
bad person or a bigot. And you the activist for the particular
interest DON'T get the final say on what's acceptable and what not in
the way of differing opinions. You DON'T get to say for instance
"anybody who disagrees with me is a racist" (or other nasty epithet)

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 1:52:16 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:

> The trouble is of course that there is not a consensus on what
> "equality" actually means. Equality of opportunity is something I'd
> like to think all decent people support - but equality of outcome is a
> horse of a totally different color and those who don't support THAT
> are being cancelled, flamed and all sorts of other indecent acts.

Certainly _individuals_ are only entitled to equality of opportunity, not
equality of outcome. That's the kind of society we've chosen to live in;
people are allowed to keep whatever they might earn above the average
due to their own talents or efforts, after paying a share in tax.

When it comes to *racial* equality, though, invoking this principle is
seen by many as largely a red herring. Why?

Surely the reason should be obvious. Individuals aren't expected to be
equal to each other in intelligence or other talents and abilities. But the
idea that members of one race are inherently inferior to the members
of another race is considered to be *part* of racism. And so, if the inherent
talents and abilities of each race are equal, but the average outcomes of
members of each race are very different - that tells us even if it is claimed
that their opportunities are equal, that can't really be true.

Now, this is in one important way an oversimplification, as it leaves out
the major excuse advanced for this situation.

One major inequality between individuals is inherited property, or family
economic circumstances. So, if one holds that all the slaves were owed
was an end to slavery, and not compensatiion for past injustices, then
equality of opportunity would mean not equality with people whose ancestors
had the opportunity to build up wealth - but equality with new immigrants,
coming off boats with little but the clothes on their backs, building lives and
prosperity - to some extent, over generations - in a new land filled with
opportunity.

And so, when we look at how well Americans of Irish or Jewish descent
are doing - and the continued condition of black Americans - instead of
turning our attention to how segregation and the like continued for decades
after the end of slavery, it's less... problematic... to note things like...

- immigrant groups brought good habits, such as a good work ethic, and
recognition of the importance of school and study, from their homelands;

- black Americans, due to various causes (_some_ of which are accepted
as being related to discrimination; _others_ are blamed on our society's
destructive habit of not letting them starve to death while they're getting
sorted out enough to qualify for decent jobs...) have certain bad habits,
including weaknesses in their family structures.

The liberal response to this should be understandable. Such arguments
might well have *some validity*, and thus be enough to explain... minor
discrepancies in the average wealth and income of black Americans and
others. But the stark and extreme discrepancies that actually exist *cannot*
be explained away by such arguments, and require immediate action, so that
at long last the next generation of Americans will grow up in a country where
black skin versus white skin will only have the same level of meaning as, say,
red hair versus blond hair; that is, it will be an attribute of how people look,
not something that highly correlates with a vast assortment of indicators of
wealth and social status.

The current level of inequality is so large that it is inherently destructive and
corrosive. It makes prejudices which severely obstruct the ability of black people
who are honest, law-abiding, and hard working to advance... entirely rational.
Since so many black people _are_ desperately poor, you _do_ have to double-check
their educational qualifications, you _do_ have to worry about them shoplifting,
and so on and so forth. Including it not being rational to sink equity into real estate
in the neighborhoods where they live, particularly for one's own primary residence,
with all that has implied. (Thus, one can legitimately ask: was Donald Trump's
father really an "evil racist", or was he just acknowledging the everyday reality he
had to deal with in his line of work?)

And when it creates consequences like... to prevent black people from going
to our neighborhoods and commiting break-ins or shoplifting, we need to
avoid having effective public transit in our cities, to such an extent that if you
can't afford a car, you can't hold a job... action is _clearly_ required, and yet it
took global warming before this was even *noticed*.

But surely anyone living in the United States has heard this all before?

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:52:08 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
wrote:

I really wish that do-gooders would make up their minds whether black
people are every bit as capable as white people once institutional
barriers to their success are removed or whether they are helpless
stupid children who need to be swaddled in cotton to protect them from
their own incompetence.

Personally I'm fine with the former view but the latter view is just
insulting.

[J. Clarke]

That was more than 40 years ago. You said that people are current
"languishing". So have you asked any, or are you just assuming?

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 6:59:12 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> I really wish that do-gooders would make up their minds whether black
> people are every bit as capable as white people once institutional
> barriers to their success are removed or whether they are helpless
> stupid children who need to be swaddled in cotton to protect them from
> their own incompetence.

> Personally I'm fine with the former view but the latter view is just
> insulting.

I'm tempted to invoke Schroedinger's Cat here, but I don't think that will
lead to clarity.

Actually, though, the liberal... consensus? party line?... is firmly with the
former alternative, and so I guess that's good news.

The problem is, though, that one of the _consequences_ of "black

people are every bit as capable as white people once institutional

barriers to their success are removed" is that *black people will be
just about as successful as white people once institutional barriers
to their success are removed*, and hence if black people *aren't*
that successful, then, despite appearences or claims, clearly the
institutional barriers _haven't_ actually been removed, and we need
to look harder for *more* barriers to remove.

This is, no doubt, what you're mistaking for swaddling in cotton.

To go a bit further - as what I've said so far is no doubt stuff you've
heard before, and which will thus be unhelpful -

the conclusion that perhaps should be drawn is that the disadvantaged
status of black Americans, which is an urgent problem, as it is a cancer
eating into the heart of the American nation, is a _difficult_ problem to
solve, and even to achieve a partial solution, so that black people, although
still disadvantaged, are finally actually in a position to work their way
towards something approaching economic parity over a few more
generations... is going to require an immense amount of effort and money
on the part of the nation.

One thing that will likely be necessary, given that the resources of patience
and generosity of white Americans are not endless, is a willingness to write
off those black people who have turned to crime...

but *that* doesn't include yielding to the temptation to include in that category
a _lot_ of black people in what is really a means of continuing to keep them
down... so what you need is people who are genuinely committed to achieving
equality and yet who are not doctrinaire liberals in charge of the effort, and
good luck *finding* them (at least among white people, and who else would
be trusted in that position)...

John Savard

[The Horny Goat]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 08:32:11 GMT, Charles Packer <mai...@cpacker.org>
wrote:

>> I mean, I could have understood this if the building had been named in,
>> say, 1890. But by 1972, I would have thought it would already have been
>> recognized that anyone seeking to oppose or obstruct equality for black
>> people was an enemy of humanity itself - due to a change in the
>> consciousness of the people of the democratic nations of the world that
>> was set in motion on April 15, 1945.
>>
>> John Savard
>
>A skim through the newspaper archives of Sep-Oct 1972, when the
>Senate resolved to name the building after Russell doesn't turn
>up any public awareness of the implications, let alone any
>protests. In the meantime though, if I've got the history
>right, the desegregation of Southern schools was actually taking
>place. Maybe the press knew when to keep quiet.

I didn't recognize the date so googled it to see what happened that
day and got a hit on 'first liberation of a concentration camp' which
REALLY made me wonder what you were talking about!

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:

> I didn't recognize the date so googled it to see what happened that
> day and got a hit on 'first liberation of a concentration camp' which
> REALLY made me wonder what you were talking about!

Well, as I noted when I've commented on just why the Louis Farrakhan
indident so thoroughly torpedoed the Presidential ambitions of Jesse
Jackson... it is my belief that the Holocaust, when brought dramatically
to the American consciousness by the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, caused
a significant change in how many people percieved racial discrimination.

Since the existence of a significant bloc of white people who are opposed
to racial discrimination in all forms is directly owed to the Holocaust...
it follows that those who were opposed enough that they could even consider
Jesse Jackson for President were likely to be far more sensitive to anti-Semitism
than to any other form of racism because of how they came to see that racism
was wrong.

While the "Southern strategy" gave Nixon some numbers by getting the Dixiecrats
out of his way, my understanding is still that he got elected because of the Vietnam
war; he was seen as the candidate committed to victory in that conflict. So I didn't
see the fact that he could get elected in those days as an argument against my
perception that, by the 1970s, institutional discrimination was largely abolished in the
U.S., and the national consensus there was solidly against racism, discrimination, and
segregation.

Not that all issues were resolved then, of course; just as today, the issues of black
poverty and the issues related to legitimate white concerns for personal safety,
in that time reflected in the controversy over busing, were still present.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 02:16:45 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 18, 2022 at 9:20:55 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> I didn't recognize the date so googled it to see what happened that
>> day and got a hit on 'first liberation of a concentration camp' which
>> REALLY made me wonder what you were talking about!
>
>Well, as I noted when I've commented on just why the Louis Farrakhan
>indident so thoroughly torpedoed the Presidential ambitions of Jesse
>Jackson... it is my belief that the Holocaust, when brought dramatically
>to the American consciousness by the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, caused
>a significant change in how many people percieved racial discrimination.
>
>Since the existence of a significant bloc of white people who are opposed
>to racial discrimination in all forms is directly owed to the Holocaust...
>it follows that those who were opposed enough that they could even consider
>Jesse Jackson for President were likely to be far more sensitive to anti-Semitism
>than to any other form of racism because of how they came to see that racism
>was wrong.
>
>While the "Southern strategy" gave Nixon some numbers by getting the Dixiecrats
>out of his way, my understanding is still that he got elected because of the Vietnam

>war; So I didn't

>see the fact that he could get elected in those days as an argument against my
>perception that, by the 1970s, institutional discrimination was largely abolished in the
>U.S., and the national consensus there was solidly against racism, discrimination, and
>segregation.

He got elected the second time because McGovern was a flake and
everybody who wasn't equally flaky knew it.

>Not that all issues were resolved then, of course; just as today, the issues of black
>poverty and the issues related to legitimate white concerns for personal safety,
>in that time reflected in the controversy over busing, were still present.

And busing has been a big failure, doing more harm than good.

[Kevrob]

Before "the wall fell in Europe" VietNam, went through its own economic
development that reminded me more of China under Deng than under Mao.

[quote]

Free Markets Blossom in Vietnam
...

In a military sense, the communists achieved their primary goal of subjugating the South and uniting
the two sections of Vietnam under one flag. But nearly 30 years later, Karl Marx wouldn’t recognize
the place, and neither would Ho Chi Minh and his comrades whose dream was to fashion a unified
Vietnam into a model of socialism. In many ways, the country’s economy is getting more free by the day.

The outlines of this story follow a pattern now almost monotonously familiar. Marxists come to power
and promise a socialist paradise. They collectivize, nationalize, and terrorize. Central planning, they
promise, will replace the “chaos” of the marketplace. In no time at all, everything falls apart. Another
nation is added to the mournful heap of countless socialist flops. In their quixotic attempts to create
omelets of society, statists of all stripes never produce much more than a lot of broken eggs. (See my
“Where Are the Omelets?” The Freeman, October 1999, www.fee.org/vnews.php? nid=4443.) Sooner or
later, they or their successors resort to the market to rescue them. It turns out that of all the bombs
dropped on Indochina since the war with the French colonialists in the early 1950s, socialism may have
done the most damage.

It’s a pattern that reminds me of the wise advice of the French economist and statesman, Frederic Bastiat:
“And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may
they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty.”

[/quote] - Lawrence W. Reed | 7 July, 2010

https://fee.org/articles/free-markets-blossom-in-vietnam/

Quaddie might want to attempt to solve economic problems in his own
country before messing with mine. Are the Metis and 1st Nations "equal"
to white Canadians who speak English as their cradle language? What about
those from French-speaking homes? Allophones* of all heritages?


* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allophone_(Canada)
--
Kevin R

[Kevrob]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 5:16:47 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

[snip]

> it follows that those who were opposed enough that they could even consider
> Jesse Jackson for President were likely to be far more sensitive to anti-Semitism
> than to any other form of racism because of how they came to see that racism
> was wrong.

Except for Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, his own self.

--
Kevin R

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 8:36:18 AM UTC-7, Kevrob wrote:

> Quaddie might want to attempt to solve economic problems in his own
> country before messing with mine.

Apparently I do have problems in my country:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/neurological-illness-affecting-young-adults-canada
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mystery-brain-disease-new-brunswick-1.6303781
https://www.macleans.ca/news/inside-the-murky-high-stakes-investigation-into-new-brunswicks-mystery-illness/

I became alerted to this through an unfortunately paywalled article which
expresses the opinion that the investigation into this disease is being
obstructed to protect the financial interests of the Irving family in New
Brunswick, as an algae bloom is one likely cause.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I was talking about white people there. I mean, black people don't
need to be sensitized in order to be against racism targeting black
people.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Although not everyone agrees with that, I certainly agree
that it caused some harm, and one potential consequence
was to create a generation of people with little sympathy
to the problems faced by black Americans.

This is in the what the heck where you expecting anyways
department.

Since nearly all black Americans are people of good will just
trying to get by in a difficult situation, I have great sympathy
for them. None the less, the survival of the American nation
is the top priority, since technical progress and any semblance
of political freedom depends on the maintenance of organized
society.

So if black people had to wait another hundred years to
escape their current plight, that would still be preferable to
the collapse of the present system - as _that_ would lead,
in short order, to Chinese or Russian world conquest. Just as
in ancient Greece, or pre-revolutionary France, it was the
wealthy, powerful, and comfortable classes that produced
scientific and technical progress - the kind of progress that
endures and which is essential for the survival of all humans.

So those who are so disgusted with injustice that they wish
to see a revolution to tear things down - I can understand
their feelings, but I cannot agree that this is the appropriate
course of action. Not as long as we're in a democracy, however
imperfect, where progress is taking place.

Revolution is for tyrannies - where all progress is suppressed
because it threatens the survival of iron-fisted rule. So a revolution
bringing down Russia or China would be a good thing, not one bringing
down America, as that would not lead to progress.

Donald Trump may not have been "literally Hitler", but he did
definitely present a threat of destroying American democracy
in much the way that Hitler destroyed German democracy, or
Putin destroyed Russian democracy - gaining power through
demagoguery, and then using that power to essentially vitiate
the democratic functioning of future elections.

This is a risk that should be viewed as utterly intolerable.

But obviously if the Democrats declared themselves the party
in power for life, that wouldn't be preserving democracy, would
it? It would be just the other side doing what it fears from its
opponents. They understand this, so they're... not doing anything
to address the problem, since what little they would like to do
is being blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

A Constitutional Convention probably would do more harm than
good, given the likely composition of its participants. How can one
take the oxygen away from the Republican Party as currently
constituted _without_ "destroying democracy in order to save it"?

I don't suppose there's a possibility for _one_ tactic that was suggested
in the wake of the 2020 election? Puerto Rican statehood. Finally,
the Democrats could afford the odd Manchin or Sinema.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 8:45:48 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

> Apparently I do have problems in my country:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/neurological-illness-affecting-young-adults-canada
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/mystery-brain-disease-new-brunswick-1.6303781
> https://www.macleans.ca/news/inside-the-murky-high-stakes-investigation-into-new-brunswicks-mystery-illness/
>
> I became alerted to this through an unfortunately paywalled article which
> expresses the opinion that the investigation into this disease is being
> obstructed to protect the financial interests of the Irving family in New
> Brunswick, as an algae bloom is one likely cause.

One possibility some people are considering is beta-methylamino-L-alanine, BMAA,
as it is a neurotoxin from algae blooms that can be found in lobster.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/16/neurological-illness-haunts-remote-canadian-region

John Savard