Racialist Double Standards
Jerome Walker
The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
In Mississippi, most of the 30+ state legislators that have ties to the CofCC
are Democrats.
Black conservative, Armstrong Williams, has denounced the CofCC, and has
denounced both Lott and Barr for their ties to the CofCC.
Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
state legislators?
--
"Ignorance is the thing that makes most men get into a political party and
shame is what keeps them from getting out of it." - George Savile
Jerome Walker
David C. Waters
: Black conservative, Armstrong Williams, has denounced the CofCC, and has
: denounced both Lott and Barr for their ties to the CofCC.
: Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
: state legislators?
It seems to me that you're just looking for an excuse to rejoin the
Republican party. If you have to join a party at all then why don't you
just consider which one is more likely to be inclusive rather than
exclusive?
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
_/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
_/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
trudogg
> The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
Both the parties have dirty sheets...er, laundry to clean. Ask yourself,
"who's doing the most for me now?", and that's the platform you should
align with.
You can choose your friends, but you can't choose your relatives...or
assorted "other" members of a political party that some damn fools
elected.
--
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity's a better defense...
http://www.mindspring.com/~trudogg/indexvb.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~trudogg/indexvm.html
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>It seems to me that you're just looking for an excuse to rejoin the
>Republican party. If you have to join a party at all then why don't you
>just consider which one is more likely to be inclusive rather than
>exclusive?
The inescapable truth is that the leaderships of both major parties
have scant concern for the actual welfare of non-Whites, Blacks in
particular.
The principle difference between them is that the Democratic party is
willing to give lip-service to the interests of Black people while the
Republicans for the most part don't make even a pretense. I'll leave
it to you to determine which if either is any better, deceit or open
hostility.
I don't think that Rep. Floyd Flake felt better being called a
"nigger" by Craig Livingstone than by a Republican.
Artclemons
writes:
>
>The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
Jerome, you've got to stop trotting out Byrd. How has Byrd voted on
civil rights legislation (one hint, Strom Thurmond doesn't agree with
him)? How many times can you bring this up. Jesse Helms wrote
speeches for Klan rallies, does that make him worse. Strom T. ran
as a Dixiecrat yelling segregation now, segregation forever, now
why is being a former KKK member worse?
>In Mississippi, most of the 30+ state legislators that have ties to the CofCC
>are Democrats.
Yes, but 19 out of 30 still leaves 11 republicans, and it should be noted that
the REPUBLICAN senator from Missisipi is the one who accepted at the
least an honorary membership, and now claims not to have known about
their beliefs. It seems that one can rise above dogcatcher with such
beliefs openly espoused only intthe republican party.
>Black conservative, Armstrong Williams, has denounced the CofCC, and has
>denounced both Lott and Barr for their ties to the CofCC.
>
>Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
>state legislators?
I'm confused, I didn't know that Armstrong Williams was a Republican
spokesman. Further I note that most of the heat on Lott came from
folks supposed to be associated with democratic party ideals. While
the chairman of the GOP has denounced the CCC, it also took ten years
of pressure and outing for the event to happen. Where are the powerful
democrats who are members or associates of the CCC? I also note
that many of the democrats in Missisipi are democrats in name only, and
if elected to higher office are likely to defect and become republicans at
the first opportunity.
-art clemons-
Tha' Duke
>
>The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
>
>In Mississippi, most of the 30+ state legislators that have ties to the CofCC
>are Democrats.
Jerome, shouldn't the above be more properly posted in s.c.a.a., where
the questions "why don't blacks denounce Farakhan" and retorts that
"blacks took slaves, too" pass for argument? Or will we just
acknowledge that Democrats are people too, with skeletons, faults and
foibles.
Nah...that'd be too easy.... :-)
>Black conservative, Armstrong Williams, has denounced the CofCC, and has
>denounced both Lott and Barr for their ties to the CofCC.
>
>Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
>state legislators?
Ah, yes...those black conservative, who are showcased in public, and
neutered in the backrooms where the dealing goes on...they're really
jeopardizing themselves by denouncing Lott and Barr...a lot like daring
to love your mother.
Earl "beams and motes...they both &*$# up a set of contacts" Bryant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl "Duke" Bryant/ebryant at inreach dot com/
Protecting and Defending: 1987-1999
"You live and learn...or you don't live long..."--Robert Heinlein
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated ebry...@inreach.com (Tha'
Duke) wrote:
>wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
>
>>
>>The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
>>
>>In Mississippi, most of the 30+ state legislators that have ties to the CofCC
>>are Democrats.
>
>Jerome, shouldn't the above be more properly posted in s.c.a.a., where
>the questions "why don't blacks denounce Farakhan" and retorts that
>"blacks took slaves, too" pass for argument? Or will we just
>acknowledge that Democrats are people too, with skeletons, faults and
>foibles.
My question is when is it acknowledged?
Remember when Congress was making a big fuss over "denouncing" Khalid
Mohammed? Well, during that spin cycle, it came out that Sen.
Hollings, a Democrat, was known to tell some racist jokes.
David Duke was a Democrat when he was a state legislator in
Louisianna.
And in Weedowee (sp), Alabama, the city elected as the school
supervisor, a man who, as principal of a high school, said that he
would cancel a dance if any interracial couples attended. He was a
democrat. When he won the primary election, local Blacks asked the
Democratic party to step in. But they didn't.
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
If U don't C the good N U, Y should others C the
good N U?
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1999 Edwin Brown
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>It seems to me that you're just looking for an excuse to rejoin the
>Republican party. If you have to join a party at all then why don't you
>just consider which one is more likely to be inclusive rather than
>exclusive?
Why not base it on what party is going to be best for the country in
the aggregate. As a black man, I have more concerns than simply race
issues, there's the environment, abortion, gun laws, taxes, FDA
regulations, education, etc, etc., people should look at far more
going on out there than what party appeals to what race.
--
regards,
The Devil's Advocate
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
The Devil's Advocate...Online
http://surf.to/advocate
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
remove "nojunk" to email
js...@cornell.edu
> : Black conservative, Armstrong Williams, has denounced the CofCC, and has
> : denounced both Lott and Barr for their ties to the CofCC.
> : Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
> : state legislators?
>
> Republican party. If you have to join a party at all then why don't you
> just consider which one is more likely to be inclusive rather than
> exclusive?
I personally favor the Republican party because they gave big tax breaks
corparations and they reduced things such as the capital gains tax. So for
me, the Republican party is inclusive, since their actions ultimately lead
for higher salaries for me. And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
privatized the internet, and they in many local governments are pushing for
the privatization for things such as garbage, sewage and water services .
Already, NYC sells much of it's garbage to recyclers and to plants that
convert organic waste to alcohol to be used for fuel, sells 70% of it's
sweage to farmers as fertilizer and the remainder to ranchers as fertizler.
The private sector is simply much more efficient than the public sector. And
Alan Greenspan was appointed by Reagan, and he is the one who cut interests
rates low to stimulate the economy. The Republicans were the ones to push
for NAFTA and other free trade. All these economic policies were Republican,
which is why I favor them.
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
> _/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
> _/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Alice Holman
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
> I personally favor the Republican party because they gave big tax breaks
> corparations and they reduced things such as the capital gains tax. So for
> me, the Republican party is inclusive, since their actions ultimately lead
> for higher salaries for me.
I, My, Me, Mine and screw society at large.
> And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
> privatized the internet, and they in many local governments are pushing for
> the privatization for things such as garbage, sewage and water services .
So the private companies can pay min. wages and no benefits. Some of us have seen
various states do this to the detriment of the community at large. It takes a
whole lot of money to get it back under control. And you don't even have to ask
yourself "why." If you're being paid a non-living wage and you can't even take
your kid to a doctor, why would you do a good job? There's another thankless job
just like that waiting should you get fired. On the other hand, for workers who
have something to lose.....
alice
David C. Waters
: wrote:
: >It seems to me that you're just looking for an excuse to rejoin the
: >just consider which one is more likely to be inclusive rather than
: >exclusive?
The Devil's Advocate (soca...@earthlink.netNO-JUNK) wrote:
: Why not base it on what party is going to be best for the country in
: the aggregate. As a black man, I have more concerns than simply race
: issues, there's the environment, abortion, gun laws, taxes, FDA
: regulations, education, etc, etc., people should look at far more
: going on out there than what party appeals to what race.
I couldn't agree with you more, but my reply was directed at Jerome
because of his apparent criticisms of the Democratic party for
(supposedly) not supporting AfAms as much as he seems to think that they
should.
The fact is simply that the United States is a nation of competing
interests among all of its corporations, constituent states, and people.
It's virtually impossible to address even the most pressing issues to the
satisfaction of any majority across the board. So, the question should
be which party or organization makes the best effort to genuinely
conseider all things...see my next post in this thread.
Mycroft
Jerome Walker wrote:
> Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
> state legislators?
Question, did Armstrong Williams denounce ANYBODY in the CofCC before
some of the big guns in the republican party attended a CofCC meeting?
No? Well when Democratic leader in the Senate speaks at the CofCC
get back with us. Small fish, big fish.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>In article <7c6j8k$409$1...@panix7.panix.com>, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>writes:
...
>>In Mississippi, most of the 30+ state legislators that have ties to the CofCC
>>are Democrats.
>
>Yes, but 19 out of 30 still leaves 11 republicans,
There is a problem here.
The problem is 19 Democrats.
>and it should be noted that
>the REPUBLICAN senator from Missisipi is the one who accepted at the
>least an honorary membership, and now claims not to have known about
>their beliefs. It seems that one can rise above dogcatcher with such
>beliefs openly espoused only intthe republican party.
So you are saying that the 19 Democrats are all dogcatchers?
Try that again.
Jerome Walker
Tha' Duke <sain...@aol.com> wrote:
>wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
>
>>
>>The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
>>
>>are Democrats.
>
>the questions "why don't blacks denounce Farakhan" and retorts that
>"blacks took slaves, too" pass for argument? Or will we just
>acknowledge that Democrats are people too, with skeletons, faults and
>foibles.
Well, who acknowledges the racist goings on of the Democrats?
Where are they?
Who are they?
What are they saying?
<silence>
Oh, just what I thought.
The Devil's Advocate©
wrote:
>Jerome Walker wrote:
>
>> The Democrats have a known former KKK member in the Senate.
>
>Both the parties have dirty sheets...er, laundry to clean.
All parties have both dirty sheets and clean sheets, just as all
people have good and bad things about them.
>Ask yourself,
>"who's doing the most for me now?", and that's the platform you should
>align with.
How about who's doing the best for the country as a whole?
David C. Waters
: I personally favor the Republican party because they gave big tax breaks
: corparations and they reduced things such as the capital gains tax. So for
: me, the Republican party is inclusive, since their actions ultimately lead
: for higher salaries for me.
This is what's so amazing to me...critics of lotteries like to call it a
regressive tax, a tax on the desperate. Well, in a way, that it may be.
The number of unsatisfied hopefuls will greatly exceed the miniscule
number of satisfied winners. And, eventually even some of those
satisfied winners will find their way back into destitude.
But this line of reasoning can also be applied to supply-side economic
theory, except that you essentially have pre-determined winners (large
corporations) and a number of "wannabe" hopefuls in the form of employees
who have faith that someday they will ascend to the ranks of the few who
are truly privileged.
What's interesting about my case is that I worked on the Space Shuttle
program and a DARPA/USAF project from 1979-1993. Initially, my salary
included cost of living allowances (COLA) to compensate for inflation.
The COLA program ended under a Republican administration.
Coincidentally, so did most of my wage increases as the company
implemented (selective) wage feezes. My rights to challenge those
(selective) wage freezes were also restricted under a Republican
administration.
While I'm not at liberty to discuss my current salary, especially in this
forum, let's just say that I pay more in taxes than most US citizens make
in gross earnings...and it happened under a democratic administration.
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
: privatized the internet, and they in many local governments are pushing for
: the privatization for things such as garbage, sewage and water services .
: Already, NYC sells much of it's garbage to recyclers and to plants that
: convert organic waste to alcohol to be used for fuel, sells 70% of it's
: sweage to farmers as fertilizer and the remainder to ranchers as fertizler.
: The private sector is simply much more efficient than the public sector.
There are way too many issues to address here, so let me outline what
happened in Los Angeles to help create the most toxic air in the nation...
L.A. had a mass transit system called the Red Car. It was a light rail
system that connected downtown to many remote locations, long before the
population swelled to its current level. I don't even remember the Red
Car because I was born pretty much after it was dismantled.
Essentially, a giant automobile maker (GM), a giant oil company (Standard
Oil?), and a giant tire manufacturer (Firestone), participated in an
illegal collusion which included a conspiracy to eliminate the Red Car in
favor of promoting automobiles.
Initially they convinced the controlling politicians to allow them to
maintain the Red Car, using the claim that privatization was more
efficient, etc. Well, Red Car service deteriorated to the point that the
system was eventually dismantled altogether.
Frustrated with traffic and the resulting higher smog levels, the
citizens voted to reinstate a mass transit system in Los Angeles at
considerable expense. The Red Line, the only subway section, has been
highly criticized for cost overruns, construction problems, etc.
But what's interesting is that it's not THE GOVERNMENT that's doing the
work that it eventually gets criticized for - it's PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
who are either wasteful and abusive of spending TAX DOLLARS. So, the
government gets criticized for the actions of the private enterprises
that it pays to do work. Yet, what do you constantly hear Republicans
fight for on behalf of these same (private) spenders of public money:
"Stop regulating private industry".
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: Alan Greenspan was appointed by Reagan, and he is the one who cut
: interests rates low to stimulate the economy. The Republicans were the
: ones to push for NAFTA and other free trade. All these economic
: policies were Republican, which is why I favor them.
First of all, Greenspan's job function is non-partisan and NAFTA has been
supported by every presidential administration but opposed by even
Republican congressmen.
Do you also favor budget deficits? Well, thank Ronald Reagan and his
Republican administration. Do you favor depressions? Well, that's
another one that you can credit to a Republican administration.
The fact of the matter is that economic activity is cyclical.
Eventually, economic problems in Asia will come (back?) to the USA...
Artclemons
(The Devil's Advocate©) writes:
>Why not base it on what party is going to be best for the country in
>the aggregate. As a black man, I have more concerns than simply race
>issues, there's the environment, abortion, gun laws, taxes, FDA
>regulations, education, etc, etc., people should look at far more
>going on out there than what party appeals to what race.
To ask people to vote for a party which does not represent the interests
of a people because a nationwide vote for that party might be better
is ludicrous. It belies for example the habit of corporations contributing
soft money, or executives of said corporation contributing supposed
salary to a PAC to contribute hard money to candidates. Why should
African-Americans, a group which have been neglected and discarded
suddenly be expected to behave more nobly than someone with a lot
capital gains, who wants to vote for a party which will lower the tax
rate on capital gains?
It should also be noted that since 1964, all too many republican presidential,
senatorial and congressional candidates have used code words, and in effect
run for sheriff rather than representing the interests of their districts.
Now,
btw in all of the things you listed like the environment, FDA, gun laws, the
public when polled seems to agree more with democrats than with republicans.
It's an interesting connundrum indeed, and people are not voting for
republicans
because the republican best represents the country.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
>I personally favor the Republican party because they gave big tax breaks
>corparations and they reduced things such as the capital gains tax. So for
>me, the Republican party is inclusive, since their actions ultimately lead
>for higher salaries for me. And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
>privatized the internet, and they in many local governments are pushing for
>the privatization for things such as garbage, sewage and water services .
>Already, NYC sells much of it's garbage to recyclers and to plants that
>convert organic waste to alcohol to be used for fuel, sells 70% of it's
>sweage to farmers as fertilizer and the remainder to ranchers as fertizler.
>The private sector is simply much more efficient than the public sector. And
>Alan Greenspan was appointed by Reagan, and he is the one who cut interests
>rates low to stimulate the economy. The Republicans were the ones to push
>for NAFTA and other free trade. All these economic policies were Republican,
>which is why I favor them.
Uh Justin, in 1986, what was the breakdown in Congress, when the 1986 tax
reform act was passed? You know, the year when the biggest drop in
corporate and capital gains occurred. To pay for the supposed cuts for the
middle class, the deductions for most interest payments were dropped among
other losses for folks up to let's say the upper middle class level.
Now, you also applaud the privatization of the internet, but in real terms,
from
day one, the silly thing relied not on military or government expertise, but on
private enterprise providing necessary services and maintenance. For example,
ask yourself where the leased lines for connecting one university to another,
or one base to another came from? As for trash recycling, uh what percentage
of NYC's sewage and waste is being recycled? Your rosy picture sure doesn't
agree with the official NYC stats, but perhaps the official stats are outdated.
Now, it should also be noted that Greenspan is the man, who probably cost
George Bush being re-elected by an untimely rise in interest rates and a
recession. It should also be noted that if lowering the deficit is as
important
as most republicans used to claim, that democrats, who raised taxes should
get the credit for the surplus. It's interesting how you want to give
republicans
credit where they shouldn't get it, and miss giving them credit for things like
allowing the free flow of capital out of the U.S. under Reagan and his
enforcement properties. Incidentally, despite all of the claims about the
benefits, one might want to look at the net flow of capital since 1981 and
see if everyone in the U.S. or even the average figure is really better off
with corrected figures.
One more comment, I believe that DejaNews allows editing, you could cut off
signatures and the like when quoting and avoid leaving behind something to
which you aren't going to bother to respond..
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
...
>
>I personally favor the Republican party because they gave big tax breaks
>corparations and they reduced things such as the capital gains tax. So for
>me, the Republican party is inclusive, since their actions ultimately lead
>for higher salaries for me.
Oh really?
Well, what about all of the layoffs due to mergers of the financial
corporations? That means banks, brokerage houses, and the like.
>And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
>privatized the internet,
Fact check: Citations please.
You and Al Gore must have the same history book.
...
>Already, NYC sells much of it's garbage to recyclers and to plants that
>convert organic waste to alcohol to be used for fuel, sells 70% of it's
>sweage to farmers as fertilizer and the remainder to ranchers as fertizler.
Then why is Ghoul-iani saying that NYC has the right to dump trash
where ever it wants to dump it, and that other cities and states have
no say in the matter?
Fact: Ghoul-iani is telling the state of Virginia, that they have to
accept the trash from NYC, and that the state has no right to
interfere. Since when does a state have no right to regulate business
within its boundaries?
> And
>Alan Greenspan was appointed by Reagan, and he is the one who cut interests
>rates low to stimulate the economy.
And it is also the Republicans who say interest rates are not low
enough. It is also Republicans who say that Greenspan has too much
control over the economy.
> The Republicans were the ones to push
>for NAFTA and other free trade.
Which is credited for the recent layoffs in manufactoring.
> All these economic policies were Republican,
>which is why I favor them.
You need to check your facts.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu>
wrote:
>
>
>Jerome Walker wrote:
>
>> Now, on the Democrat side, who has spoken out against the Mississippi
>> state legislators?
>
>Question, did Armstrong Williams denounce ANYBODY in the CofCC before
>some of the big guns in the republican party attended a CofCC meeting?
Did you know about the CCC before the current dust up?
>No? Well when Democratic leader in the Senate speaks at the CofCC
>get back with us. Small fish, big fish.
If what was said on BET's "Lead Story" was true, get ready to fry some
Democrat fish.
Wayne Johnson
>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:13:05 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>They are not the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House for
>>four years, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the
>>head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, or one of the House
>>Managers on the Impeachment of the President of the United States.
>
>No, but they do control what areas get paved roads, updated sewage
>systems, money for schools, money for attempting to bring "clean"
>business to the area, ...
Of course, and that's why we need to get behind Jesse Jackson and his
call to get two million Black voters registered by 2000 elections.
The notion that claiming that the Democratic Party is racist isn't
going to help that effort, Ed.
The party leadership isn't supporting that kind of nonsense, and the
need to excoriate it is being prompted by the GOP, desperate to find
ANYTHING to do after the impeachment disaster.
>After Cynthia McKinney's district was redrawn because it was "racially
>gerrymandered," she wrote an article that appeared in The Washington
>Post and later in Emerge. The article detailed how a segment of the
>population she served was living in near "3rd world" conditions. The
>roads weren't paved, plumbing came from hand pumps for many people in
>this one area, and the sewage system was lacking. This group of people
>were neglected until the district was drawn to include them and she
>was their representative.
Ed, you have a good grasp of the facts. I'm sure you could find out
what the percentage of Black people in her district were registered to
vote - and further, had actually voted in the last election.
When we continually try to be "balanced", and give the GOP and their
agenda equal weight with Democrats, we wind up equating the highest
leadership of the GOP with the lowest ward heelers and courthouse
hangers-on who CLAIM to be Democrats.
Those types need to be turned out, which won't happen when ennui among
Blacks is fed by claims that "they're all the same - Democrats and
Republicans", and the Black people working hard to get them involved
are dismissed with insults about their integrity or courage.
>Now, given the views of some of the CCC people, would you believe they
>would give a damn about Black people living in those kinds of
>conditions?
Ed, there are Black people who don't give a damn about these
conditions.
We need to elect better leadership, and I am saying that if these CCC
nutcases knew they couldn't be elected as Democrats, they'd mosey on
over to the GOP like the rest of the Dixiecrat, "Southern Strategy",
"Angry White Male" racists did for that icon of GOP politics, Ronald
Reagan.
>Does the fact that they are not "Senate Majority Leader" make a difference?
Hell, yes. It takes FAR fewer votes to get rid of them, and unlike
Trent Lott, you can get right up in the face of some of these phonies,
right near home.
The idea that Jackson is saying that two million votes makes a hell of
a lot more sense to me, than calling the Democratic Party racist due
to the actions of 19 Dixiecrats that won't go where they're wanted.
Wayne "Show me a Republican who gives a damn about Black folks in
Cynthia McKinney's district" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> The party leadership isn't supporting that kind of nonsense, and the
> need to excoriate it is being prompted by the GOP, desperate to find
> ANYTHING to do after the impeachment disaster.
Let's leave aside the Republican party and the drive for 2000, and look at
the situation in Mississippi for a moment. Why isn't the party leadership
more vocal in its denunciation of such a state of affairs? Wouldn't the
knowledge that there's a political party that not only "doesn't support",
but actually "isn't willing to tolerate' racism in the party, be a good
thing? Wouldn't this help Jesse's drive more than any amount of benefit
concerts or bake sales?
> The idea that Jackson is saying that two million votes makes a hell of
> a lot more sense to me, than calling the Democratic Party racist due
> to the actions of 19 Dixiecrats that won't go where they're wanted.
Why not send them packing? Why wait for osmosis to work? Why not tell them
where they're *not* wanted?
> Wayne "Show me a Republican who gives a damn about Black folks in
> Cynthia McKinney's district" Johnson
I could have done so, up until about a month ago.
;-)
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 842-1231 x4286
"When I'm up, I can't get down."
-Great Big Sea
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Let's leave aside the Republican party and the drive for 2000, and look at
>the situation in Mississippi for a moment. Why isn't the party leadership
>more vocal in its denunciation of such a state of affairs?
It's mainly because this is not a Democratic issue; it's a GOP attack
issue. The Republican Party kept the CCC as it's dirty little secret
for one hell of a long time, using it as a stalking horse for
contributions and legitimizing it's "Southern Strategy" in the '90's.
I never even heard of the CCC until Alan Dershowitz leveled his blast
at Bob Barr during the House impeachment hearing, after Barr started
in with the CCC code-word "Real Americans" speech.
Now, the Republican Party is hoping that they can "out" the Democrats,
when the Mississippi situation is really the fruit of Republican plans
from the outset. The GOP in the South, made up of ex-Dixiecrats who
moved to the GOP only after liberals took over the national Democratic
leadership, has encouraged conservative Democrats to stay in the party
- and use Democratic money and connections to con their way into
leadership positions, nullifying any moves by liberal Democrats to
move into positions of influence in the South. When the candidate or
officeholder is so obviously a GOP stooge that the ruse no longer
makes sense, they simply jump ship and publicly move over to the GOP.
The latest shill to pull this stunt in a major office was a Senator,
elected as a Democrat, who waited until the day after the election to
announce that he was now a Republican.
The GOP is obviously stressed at having their leadership exposed in
this way; so they cut their losses - the Far Right led them to the
impeachment debacle, and they're seeing the mistake of that now - and
they now find a bunch of small fry in a Mississippi backwater to claim
that the Democrats are the same as they are.
This is designed to keep the Democrats from registering new voters in
places like Mississippi, because they would like to say that a vote
for Democrats is a vote for the CCC - their plan all along.
Anyone can see it.
>Wouldn't the
>knowledge that there's a political party that not only "doesn't support",
>but actually "isn't willing to tolerate' racism in the party, be a good
>thing?
I see that you, too, have never heard of Barbara Jordan. Instead of
concentrating on Lani Guinere, go look up Barbara Jordan, and read of
her ideas - wholly accepted by the leadership AND rank and file of the
Democratic Party - on how the Democrats view racism.
The GOP came out maybe a month ago with their stirring stand against
the CCC. The Democrats did it in 1964, Rich, when the Civil Rights
Act was enacted, and they have reaffirmed it every year since.
It is the centerpiece of every political convention the Democrats ever
held. Ask Jesse Jackson about it, if you don't understand what the
Democrats have to say about racism.
>Wouldn't this help Jesse's drive more than any amount of benefit
>concerts or bake sales?
Rich, I am completely astounded that you actually are unaware of the
official platform of the Democratic Party, year after year. If you
are truly unaware of the dedication of this political party to
opposing racism, drop by this web address and see what Roy Rohmer had
to say about the CCC:
http://www.democrats.org/outreach/newsletters/aa0299.html
Here's the pertinent excerpt:
"DNC Chair Roy Romer Denounces Racist Council of Conservative
Citizens. Roy Romer, General Chairman of DNC, denounced the CCC as "an
organization that should not get the support of any person who
believes in democracy in this country." [Washington Post, 1/20/99]"
Go look up his comments in the Washington Post for details. It
predates the Republican commentary by about a month, wouldn't you say?
Is it unequivocal enough for you?
I noted:
>> The idea that Jackson is saying that two million votes makes a hell of
>> a lot more sense to me, than calling the Democratic Party racist due
>> to the actions of 19 Dixiecrats that won't go where they're wanted.
>
>Why not send them packing? Why wait for osmosis to work? Why not tell them
>where they're *not* wanted?
Send them packing how? Tell them to get out of office? Do you
understand what Rohmer said, and do you understand the political
process in this country?
>> Wayne "Show me a Republican who gives a damn about Black folks in
>> Cynthia McKinney's district" Johnson
>
>I could have done so, up until about a month ago.
>
>;-)
Who?
Wayne "I don't get it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 18:39:56 CST, Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >Let's leave aside the Republican party and the drive for 2000, and look at
> >the situation in Mississippi for a moment. Why isn't the party leadership
> >more vocal in its denunciation of such a state of affairs?
>
> It's mainly because this is not a Democratic issue; it's a GOP attack
> issue.
Wouldn't a more vocal denunciation defang the attack, as well as the added
benefit of having the undisputed moral high ground?
> from the outset. The GOP in the South, made up of ex-Dixiecrats who
> moved to the GOP only after liberals took over the national Democratic
> leadership, has encouraged conservative Democrats to stay in the party
> - and use Democratic money and connections to con their way into
> leadership positions, nullifying any moves by liberal Democrats to
> move into positions of influence in the South.
Why should the Democrats tolerate this state of affairs?
N.B. I'm not making the claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the
same. What I am saying is that the Democrats can, and should, for both
practical and moral reasons, do better.
> This is designed to keep the Democrats from registering new voters in
> places like Mississippi, because they would like to say that a vote
> for Democrats is a vote for the CCC - their plan all along.
>
> Anyone can see it.
So why, as a Democrat, tolerate this? Why not do something about it? If,
as you point out the state of affairs is not only wrong but harmful to the
wellbeing of the Democratic party, why not send the rats packing?
> It is the centerpiece of every political convention the Democrats ever
> held. Ask Jesse Jackson about it, if you don't understand what the
> Democrats have to say about racism.
I know what they have to say. I know what they have done. I want to see
what they're going to do in this particular instance.
Give me one good reason why even racist dogcatchers should find a
comfortable home in the Democratic party.
> Rich, I am completely astounded that you actually are unaware of the
> official platform of the Democratic Party, year after year.
This isn't true. I am aware.
> If you
> are truly unaware of the dedication of this political party to
> opposing racism, drop by this web address and see what Roy Rohmer had
> to say about the CCC:
I've never said this wasn't part of the platform. I'm saying this is a
very good opportunity to act on this principle. Why not, not only
publically denounce the CCC, but also publically denounce members in
particular. WOuldn't this send a positive message?
> >;-)
>
> Who?
Jerome Walker.
Von Bailey
>In article <36ED4EC7...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I, My, Me, Mine and screw society at large.
>
>And that's the way the world has always operated, and the way it will always
>operate. Look out for yourself.
>>
Step back everyone we have found and immortal. Otherwise how do we
explain how he knows what has always been and will always be. Oh, he
could just be wrong.
>I have always laughed at this talk about the "community". What community?
>No one certainly ever helped me outside of my relatives. Let individuals
>work hard at pulling themselves out of poverty, instead of asking the
>government to hold their hands every step of the way. Mind you, I do think
>the government should provide funds for education(school vouchers, which the
>mayor here in NYC will implement).
>
Your inablity to commune with others does not invalidate the concept
for those who obviously have the ability.
von
______________________________________________________________
It is better to be right and march into hell than to follow a
bunch of fools into heaven...
Elementary School Teacher of John Henrik Clark
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> It's mainly because this is not a Democratic issue; it's a GOP attack
>> issue.
>
>Wouldn't a more vocal denunciation defang the attack, as well as the added
>benefit of having the undisputed moral high ground?
Roy Rohmer, then head of the Democratic National Committtee, did this
back in January. The quote is posted in this group; his denunciation
is in the Washington Post, issue dated 1/20/99, about a month before
the GOP decided to finally come out about it.
I note with interest that the idea that the GOP is the only one who
made such a stand is based on the amazing spectacle of the GOP coming
out against racism. No one expects it; therefore, it gets big
publicity. When the Democrats do the same thing - BEFORE the GOP does
it - no one even notices; we all expect that the Democrats will oppose
racism, and they did, right on time.
>> from the outset. The GOP in the South, made up of ex-Dixiecrats who
>> moved to the GOP only after liberals took over the national Democratic
>> leadership, has encouraged conservative Democrats to stay in the party
>> - and use Democratic money and connections to con their way into
>> leadership positions, nullifying any moves by liberal Democrats to
>> move into positions of influence in the South.
>
>Why should the Democrats tolerate this state of affairs?
Because this is a democracy, and the national Democratic Party can't
tell anyone who can join, and who can't.
It's not a private club, Rich.
>N.B. I'm not making the claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the
>same. What I am saying is that the Democrats can, and should, for both
>practical and moral reasons, do better.
Do WHAT better? Kick people out of the party by force? You're
obviously not familiar with the structure and workings of American
political parties, Rich.
Look, Tom Metzger ran for Congress as a Democrat, here in California.
The Democratic Party endorsed his Republican opponent; they did NOT
kick Metzger out of the Democratic Party. They couldn't; it doesn't
work that way.
Now, in Mississippi, the Democrats would have to endorse Republicans
for office to quell the CCC Democrats you despise; and guess what?
The Republicans are the ones who have more CCC members than anybody!!!
The solution is to REGISTER SOME VOTERS. Get some people registered
and participating locally, and replace these racists. That is what
Jesse Jackson is intent on doing; why are you saying that the
Democrats - of which Jesse is definitely one - are tolerating this
situation?
They've come out publicly against the CCC, they're trying to replace
the warhorses who dominate the local party by getting people
activated, so where is the meat of your contention?
>> This is designed to keep the Democrats from registering new voters in
>> places like Mississippi, because they would like to say that a vote
>> for Democrats is a vote for the CCC - their plan all along.
>>
>> Anyone can see it.
>
>So why, as a Democrat, tolerate this? Why not do something about it? If,
>as you point out the state of affairs is not only wrong but harmful to the
>wellbeing of the Democratic party, why not send the rats packing?
Rich, YOU CAN'T KICK PEOPLE OUT OF AN AMERICAN POLITICAL PARTY.
It's not possible. Anyone who can register to vote can register with
any party they choose. That is how it works.
Any elected official can be recalled only by a vote of the electorate,
not the whim of a party official. The problem is a lack of registered
Black voters in Southern states where the racists dominate both
political parties; by registering, and by trying to eliminate the
cynicism about the political system so people participate, the
Democratic Party is trying to eliminate this situation.
You're making the assumption that because some GOP party official made
a televised speech, that the Democrats aren't doing anything. You
need to go check your facts.
>I've never said this wasn't part of the platform. I'm saying this is a
>very good opportunity to act on this principle. Why not, not only
>publically denounce the CCC, but also publically denounce members in
>particular. WOuldn't this send a positive message?
No.
Wayne "That's another topic" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:55:49 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:13:05 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>They are not the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House for
>>>four years, the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the
>>>head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, or one of the House
>>>Managers on the Impeachment of the President of the United States.
>>
>>No, but they do control what areas get paved roads, updated sewage
>>systems, money for schools, money for attempting to bring "clean"
>>business to the area, ...
>
>Of course, and that's why we need to get behind Jesse Jackson and his
>call to get two million Black voters registered by 2000 elections.
It appears, to me, the problem is not the number of registered voters,
but the numbers of those who are registered, who vote.
>The notion that claiming that the Democratic Party is racist isn't
>going to help that effort, Ed.
The notion that I am making is that there are racists in the Democratic
Party and that thare are racists in the Republican party. When there
are facts to prove both cases, why ignore one side and highlight the
other side?
I took a lot of crap when I was a Republican over this very issue. And
when I explained myself, I always said the same thing: the racists are
in both parties, so other factors weigh in my being a Republican. That
other factor was economics. Economic freedom means respect. Begging
people gets you nothing. Linking with the Democrats means continuous
begging, imo.
>The party leadership isn't supporting that kind of nonsense, and the
>need to excoriate it is being prompted by the GOP, desperate to find
>ANYTHING to do after the impeachment disaster.
The name of the Democrat who spoke to the CofCC is Dick Gephardt.
[ edit ]
>When we continually try to be "balanced", and give the GOP and their
>agenda equal weight with Democrats, we wind up equating the highest
>leadership of the GOP with the lowest ward heelers and courthouse
>hangers-on who CLAIM to be Democrats.
This is garbage. The issue is truth. Dick Gephardt is a Democratic
leader.
>Those types need to be turned out, which won't happen when ennui among
>Blacks is fed by claims that "they're all the same - Democrats and
>Republicans", and the Black people working hard to get them involved
>are dismissed with insults about their integrity or courage.
Who is doing this? If anything, those who dare speak out against some of the
policies held by Democracts are slandered. Just look at Rev. Floyd
Flake. That man has done alot for his local black community, but the
moment he speaks in favor of vouchers, he is called a sellout.
[ edit ]
>>Does the fact that they are not "Senate Majority Leader" make a difference?
>
>Hell, yes. It takes FAR fewer votes to get rid of them, and unlike
>Trent Lott, you can get right up in the face of some of these phonies,
>right near home.
Tell that to the people that Ed mentioned in McKinney's district.
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[ edit ]
>
>"DNC Chair Roy Romer Denounces Racist Council of Conservative
>Citizens. Roy Romer, General Chairman of DNC, denounced the CCC as "an
>organization that should not get the support of any person who
>believes in democracy in this country." [Washington Post, 1/20/99]"
>
>Go look up his comments in the Washington Post for details. It
>predates the Republican commentary by about a month, wouldn't you say?
Actually, it doesn't. The Republican Chairman did the same thing about
the same time. I'll go find the statement.
Alice Holman
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
> In article <36ED4EC7...@cudenver.edu>,
> Alice Holman <alice....@cudenver.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I, My, Me, Mine and screw society at large.
>
> And that's the way the world has always operated, and the way it will always
> operate. Look out for yourself.
Not even. Seems to me some greedy Europeans went out of their way to destroy
societies who felt the collective good was where it was at. Worked overtime. Used
religion and "science" (see the beginnings of anthropolgy) to explain away their
ugly behavior.
snip:
>
> Actually the workers at the private companies are often well paid.
That is generally not the case and you know it. The bottom line for private
companies is the almighty dollar. If they can get away with paying min. wage, they
will do it. We have seen it here in the janitorial services (you couldn't even leave
your coat unattended in your locked office and expect it to be there when you got
back - if you complained - you were told "oh, he quit in the middle of the shift
last night and we don't know where he is) Privitizing some of the bus drivers has
been a major attempt to bust the union, drive down wages and erode benefits. Then
once that's done and there are fewer and fewer jobs that pay living wages, folks can
begin to scream about the immorality of the folks who rob, shop lift, sell drugs to
feed themselves and their kids. But the upside is, we can support the for-profit
prison system.
> snip:
>
> I have always laughed at this talk about the "community". What community?
The one that will show up with a gun to take your stuff from you. That community.
>
> No one certainly ever helped me outside of my relatives.
Probably if you stopped and thought about that.................
> Let individuals
> work hard at pulling themselves out of poverty, instead of asking the
> government to hold their hands every step of the way.
Yes, these same indiviuals whose jobs you wish to privitize, make sure they don't
make enough money to live on, can't afford medical insurance and then demand that
they rise up out of poverty. After all, it is their fault that society is set up in
tiers of have and have-nots with the haves working over time to make sure they keep
it all. You have stated that quite well.
> Mind you, I do think
> the government should provide funds for education(school vouchers, which the
> mayor here in NYC will implement).
Right. For the haves once again. Who cares about the children of the poor. Until
they show up with a gun, anyway.
alice
>
>
David C. Waters
: > (selective) wage freezes were also restricted under a Republican
: > administration.
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: Well it was a government paid job. And yes, it was indeed theire right to
: restrict your wanges. If you didn't like it you could have left.
Actually, I wasn't a NASA employee although I worked with NASA counterparts.
I was an employee of a private corporation who billed me out to the
government for more than $100/hour while paying me "weakly" on a weekly
basis! Government paid or not, wage discrimination is illegal!
But this goes to the point about how republicans like to use tax cuts and
reduced government spending (on people) as a rallying cry, while taking
that money and giving it to private corporations as welfare. It seems
to me that the mentality buying into this "scam" suffer from the same
problem as people who're convinced that they'll win the lottery.
BTW, astronauts were lucky if they made more than $30K/year (standard
military/government pay grades) but you want to hang out with them at
restaurants because you get immediate service! :-)
: mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters) wrote:
: > Essentially, a giant automobile maker (GM), a giant oil company (Standard
: > Oil?), and a giant tire manufacturer (Firestone), participated in an
: > illegal collusion which included a conspiracy to eliminate the Red Car in
: > favor of promoting automobiles.
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: This route provdied more work, and was bettere for the economy. It's
: for the best the Red Line was dismantled.
Wrong! Los Angeles still has toxic air as the result of automobile exhaust
emissions despite recent air quality "improvements". Once again, the people
voted to reinstate a mass transit system. Critics blame the government for
problems caused by private contractors who weren't regulated enough. But
it's republicans who cry for more privatization and fewer regulations.
: mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters) wrote:
: > But what's interesting is that it's not THE GOVERNMENT that's doing the
: > work that it eventually gets criticized for - it's PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
: > who are either wasteful and abusive of spending TAX DOLLARS.
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: It is the fasult of the local government in LA that this money is being
: wasted. They could fire their contractors and seek out other companies.
: However, since LA is so spread out, a mass transit system there isn't really
: viable anyway, qand certainly nothing like the system in New York City.
Mass transit is viable in LA if engineers are allowed to do their jobs
according to natural design instead of having politicians do the engineering
according to some whiny constituent(s) who would prefer to be segregated.
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: ANd depressions have occcured under Democracxtic amdinistrations as well.
The Great Depression was inherited by Democrats after it began under a
Republican watch. Democratic work programs (and the war) helped to end it.
: mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters) wrote:
: > The fact of the matter is that economic activity is cyclical.
: > Eventually, economic problems in Asia will come (back?) to the USA...
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: And things will rebound.
Hmmm, I'm sure a bunch of former optimists can be seen in unemployment
lines too...
DarkStar
> On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:12:30 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
> Johnson) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:30:10 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Well, who acknowledges the racist goings on of the Democrats?
> >
> >What "racist goings on", Jerome? The Democrats aren't pushing the
> >platforms of people like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Pat Buchanan,
> >Bob Barr, Trent Lott, and so on.
> >
> >These are the LEADERS of the GOP. All I hear about are incidents with
> >small fry, usually Yellow Dog Democrats busy screwing the pooch in
> >some jerkwater backwoods town like Wedowee or Outer Diddywah or some
> >such place.
Like David Duke was a small fry.
A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the
African American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt." --
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
...
> Let's see now, isn't there a
>difference between being a member of let's say the House of Representatives
>and being a member of the Miss. legislature in salary, the need to raise
>campaign funds and power?
See my earlier reply citing Cynthia McKinney.
IMO, you are making excuses for racism.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Mycroft <dr...@cis.uab.edu>
wrote:
>DarkStar wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:51:30 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7c6j8k$409$1...@panix7.panix.com>, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>> >writes:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >>are Democrats.
>
>switching to the Republican party when time to run for "big office" hypocritical
>dixiecrats.
Are they members of the Democratic Party? If not, is how big is the
Dixiecrat Party?
And if they are actually Republicans in Democrat clothing, then it
should be easier for the Democratic Party to speak out against them.
At least I would think so.
It seems, to me, that you are making excuses.
Rich Thompson
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:25:34 CST, Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >Wouldn't a more vocal denunciation defang the attack, as well as the added
> >benefit of having the undisputed moral high ground?
>
> Roy Rohmer, then head of the Democratic National Committtee, did this
> back in January.
he denounced the 19 Mississippi "dogcatchers"??? Really? I had read he had
made a general denunciation of the CCC. If he had made this specific
denunciation, I apologise.
> I note with interest that the idea that the GOP is the only one who
> made such a stand is based on the amazing spectacle of the GOP coming
> out against racism.
This would be a very strange idea indeed, and I'm not sure where it comes
from, but it certainly isn't what I'm saying.
> Any elected official can be recalled only by a vote of the electorate,
> not the whim of a party official. The problem is a lack of registered
> Black voters in Southern states where the racists dominate both
> political parties; by registering, and by trying to eliminate the
> cynicism about the political system so people participate, the
> Democratic Party is trying to eliminate this situation.
People can and have been made to feel unwelcome in parties before.
> You're making the assumption that because some GOP party official made
> a televised speech, that the Democrats aren't doing anything. You
> need to go check your facts.
I have never said 'that the Democrats aren't doing anything'. What I have
said is in this specific instance, what I would like to see.
> >very good opportunity to act on this principle. Why not, not only
> >publically denounce the CCC, but also publically denounce members in
> >particular. WOuldn't this send a positive message?
>
> No.
Why not?
You're really going to have to explain this one to me.
Artclemons
<Dark...@flash.net> writes:
>Like David Duke was a small fry.
>
> A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
The problem is that many school systems are run by racists, some too
politically aware to make the same remarks that the individual in question
did. Duke isn't a small fry, he got most of the republican votes in a primary
and general election in a state. That's slightly larger than dogcatcher, in
fact it's about the same criteria that most republicans who ran as republican
for governor or senator meet too. BTW, how long did it take for the head of
the school district to be fired even after his braindead actions? You can't
cut it this way. You have lots of statewide and nationwide republicans
associated with racism, now how many democrats of the same level can
you point to and say the same of? Pointing to dog & pony shows for state
legislature is ludicrous. Come on, didn't Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan
run using code words? Didn't Bush use race as an issue against Dukakis?
Now just when was the last time a democrat ran doing the same? The
racists deserted the democratic party for the republicans if they wanted
statewide office and we both know it.
-art clemons-
js...@cornell.edu
> Actually, I wasn't a NASA employee although I worked with NASA counterparts.
> I was an employee of a private corporation who billed me out to the
> government for more than $100/hour while paying me "weakly" on a weekly
> basis! Government paid or not, wage discrimination is illegal!
If the government doesn't want to pay a certain salary fine. If the workers
don't like it, they should quit their position.
>
> But this goes to the point about how republicans like to use tax cuts and
> reduced government spending (on people) as a rallying cry, while taking
> that money and giving it to private corporations as welfare.
This is necessary in many cases. Farming is done by corparations ,and we do
need to keep food prices down. Without these subsidies, food prices will rise.
> BTW, astronauts were lucky if they made more than $30K/year (standard
> military/government pay grades) but you want to hang out with them at
> restaurants because you get immediate service! :-)
I prefer being a stockbroker. We get 6 digit salaries or above, and I never
have to wait long for service.
>
> Wrong! Los Angeles still has toxic air as the result of automobile exhaust
> emissions despite recent air quality "improvements". Once again, the people
> voted to reinstate a mass transit system. Critics blame the government for
> problems caused by private contractors who weren't regulated enough. But
> it's republicans who cry for more privatization and fewer regulations.
As do I. Actually, my industry, investment banking, is the most regulated
industry of all, and that is very necessary for this industry. However, the
government has actually upheld monopolies like the region Bell monopolies,
until it deregulated the telephone industry . Industries like telecom and
electric industries have benefited from fewer regulations.
>
>
> Mass transit is viable in LA if engineers are allowed to do their jobs
> according to natural design instead of having politicians do the engineering
> according to some whiny constituent(s) who would prefer to be segregated.
Engineers can design systems, yes. They aren't analysts or politicians can't
determine whether what they build is economically, or politically viable. As
since this is being built with tax dollars, then the public has every right to
whine.
>
> js...@cornell.edu wrote:
> : And things will rebound.
>
> Hmmm, I'm sure a bunch of former optimists can be seen in unemployment
> lines too...
Things have always rebounded after depressions.
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
> _/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
> _/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Artclemons
writes:
(I chopped off an "A", Ed's original had one)
>re they members of the Democratic Party? If not, is how big is the
>Dixiecrat Party?
The question instead is how a party removes local candidates that it doesn't
like if a majority of the voters in a district will vote for those candidates?
I
don't for example see the Republicans killing off pro-choice state legislators
in the northeast, or republicans being told not to use code words to win
an election even if most African-Americans or Mexicans or Puerto Ricans
will view the choice of words as good evidence of racism. You can however
be sure that if democrats expelled the dog & pony CCC legislators that they
would be gladly accepted by republicans. At what point does a party
exclude people who usually vote with it, but on race disagree with the
official position of the party?
>And if they are actually Republicans in Democrat clothing, then it
>should be easier for the Democratic Party to speak out against them.
>At least I would think so.
Democrats did speak out against the CCC and its ilk in Missisipi, but that
doesn't stop white nominal democratic voters from electing people who
attend CCC meetings and have membership cards in said organization.
One more time, where is the statewide election featuring a democratic
CCC member or fellow traveler?
>It seems, to me, that you are making excuses.
So are you for the establishing of loyalty tests, and don't you object when
J.C. Watts & Clarence Thomas get condemned for not following some set of
loyalty strategies? You don't find African-American democrats applauding
or electing folk who are members of the CCC, and you also don't find the
democratic CCC members getting to run for higher office do you? Now
how is it an excuse to note that finding dogcatcher level democrats doesn't
excuse Barr or Trent Lott's involvement with the organization, nor does it
in any way prove that democrats are just as liable to be involved as
republicans.
-art clemons-
js...@cornell.edu
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
> In article <7ces3d$cho$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, js...@cornell.edu writes:
>
>
> Uh Justin, in 1986, what was the breakdown in Congress, when the 1986 tax
> reform act was passed? You know, the year when the biggest drop in
> corporate and capital gains occurred.
I am happy this occurred.
> Now, you also applaud the privatization of the internet, but in real terms,
> from
> day one, the silly thing relied not on military or government expertise, but
on
> private enterprise providing necessary services and maintenance. For example,
> ask yourself where the leased lines for connecting one university to another,
> or one base to another came from?
I know the internet was orginally built by the government for military
purposes, Art. I also know it later was used for research. However, since
it has been privatized many more private companies and individuals have used
it ,whic hhas led to job growth. And with the internet being upgraded for
extra capacity as the telephone companies(who now own the internet), you've
more jobs being created there as well.
As for trash recycling, uh what percentage
> of NYC's sewage and waste is being recycled? Your rosy picture sure doesn't
> agree with the official NYC stats, but perhaps the official stats are
outdated.
Present them then. According to Nationa Geographic, 70% of NYC's sewage is
used as fertilizer ,and 30% is taken to Texas to be dumped on the grass lands
as fertilizer.
and miss giving them credit for things
like
> allowing the free flow of capital out of the U.S. under Reagan and his
> enforcement properties.
I am an investment banker, and I am fully in support of foriegn investment.
And yes, I give the republicans credit for this.
Wayne Johnson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999, Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> Roy Rohmer, then head of the Democratic National Committtee, did this
>> back in January.
>
>he denounced the 19 Mississippi "dogcatchers"??? Really? I had read he had
>made a general denunciation of the CCC. If he had made this specific
>denunciation, I apologise.
Hey, Rich: The GOP didn't denunciate Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Strom
Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, or any of their other warhorses
in the leadership who kissed up to the CCC.
What is your point about the "Mississippi 19"?
>> I note with interest that the idea that the GOP is the only one who
>> made such a stand is based on the amazing spectacle of the GOP coming
>> out against racism.
>
>This would be a very strange idea indeed, and I'm not sure where it comes
>from, but it certainly isn't what I'm saying.
The GOP announced, through their party chairman, their opposition to
the support of the CCC - and then grandly offered the chance for the
Democrats to do the same.
Funny thing is, the Democrats had already done so, a month before.
Isn't that interesting?
>People can and have been made to feel unwelcome in parties before.
So go at it, Rich. Why wait for somebody else to do it? Do you need
for me to quote Roy Rohmer again?
>I have never said 'that the Democrats aren't doing anything'. What I have
>said is in this specific instance, what I would like to see.
In "this specific instance", the Democrats aren't dancing to the GOP's
tune. The Democrats are actually trying to register voters for the
Democratic Party in 2000, and aren't going to be diverted by this kind
of attempt to muddy the waters at the last minute.
This is tactics, not strategy. The GOP is desperate, knowing that a
registration campaign is underway, and any way to characterize the
Democrats as racist will do it.
Do you think 19 racists run the Democratic Party?
Wayne "There is no way the GOP is going to start identifying racists
in their own nest" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Actually, it doesn't. The Republican Chairman did the same thing about
>the same time. I'll go find the statement.
Save your time. He did it in mid-February.
Wayne "If you do find it, please include the date he said it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Pushing it.
trudogg
> How about who's doing the best for the country as a whole?
Who is doing the best? And what criteria can I use to tell?...gordon
--
Honesty is the best policy, but insanity's a better defense...
http://www.mindspring.com/~trudogg/indexvb.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~trudogg/indexvm.html
js...@cornell.edu
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:05:08 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
e.
>
> Oh really?
> Well, what about all of the layoffs due to mergers of the financial
> corporations? That means banks, brokerage houses, and the like.
What about them? The companies cleaned house, and got rid of inefficient
workers. I just got offers from three very large Wall Street firms, including
one that just merged last fall.
>
> >And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
> >privatized the internet,
>
> Fact check: Citations please.
> You and Al Gore must have the same history book.
Gingrich led the intitative to privatize the internet, but you can aks others
on this thread ofr citations or look this up yourself. I won't provide them.
>
> Then why is Ghoul-iani saying that NYC has the right to dump trash
> where ever it wants to dump it, and that other cities and states have
> no say in the matter?
I said NYC sold 70% of it's Sewage as fertilizer, and was reusing much of it's
organic waste. A great deal of trash isn't recyclable at all. I didn't see
everything was being recycled.
>
> Fact: Ghoul-iani is telling the state of Virginia, that they have to
> accept the trash from NYC, and that the state has no right to
> interfere.
> > The Republicans were the ones to push
> >for NAFTA and other free trade.
>
> Which is credited for the recent layoffs in manufactoring.
The Government isn't responsible for guarnteeing jobs.
Jerome Walker
[ edit ]
>Actually the workers at the private companies are often well paid.
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You expect to be taken seriously?
Jerome Walker
[ edit ]
>
>I know the internet was orginally built by the government for military
>purposes, Art. I also know it later was used for research. However, since
>it has been privatized many more private companies and individuals have used
>it ,whic hhas led to job growth. And with the internet being upgraded for
>extra capacity as the telephone companies(who now own the internet), you've
>more jobs being created there as well.
The internet has always been open to the public.
For someone who says they were a history major, your impressive display of
historical ignorance is amazing.
[ edit ]
>Present them then. According to Nationa Geographic, 70% of NYC's sewage is
>used as fertilizer ,and 30% is taken to Texas to be dumped on the grass lands
>as fertilizer.
What publication date?
The last time I heard, NYC's trash is dumped at sea or buried in trash
dumps in other states.
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:12:55 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, it doesn't. The Republican Chairman did the same thing about
>>the same time. I'll go find the statement.
>
>Save your time. He did it in mid-February.
>
>Wayne "If you do find it, please include the date he said it" Johnson
It looks like Jan 20, 1999 to me.
GOP Chairman Denounces 'Racist' Group
Nicholson Urges Party Members to Resign From Council of Conservative Citizens
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 20, 1999
Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson yesterday called
on Republicans who are members of the Council of Conservative Citizens
to resign from the group, which was founded by leaders of the
segregationist White Citizens Council.
"It appears this group does hold racist views," Nicholson said in a
statement. " The Republican Party rejects and condemns such views
forcefully and without hesitation or equivocation."
The GOP chairman made a specific appeal to a South Carolina national
committeeman to leave the council. "It has come to my attention that
an RNC member, Buddy Witherspoon, is a member of the CCC. I have urged
Mr. Witherspoon to resign from that group and I will continue to use
my good offices to persuade Mr. Witherspoon that a member of the party
of [Abraham] Lincoln should not belong to such an organization."
Jerome Walker
Artclemons <artcl...@aol.com> wrote:
[ edit ]
> Yes the state legislators have power, but
>I also note that dogcatching is not usually an elective office but rather a
>way of disparaging the elective office.
Okay, state legislators have power.
Then it's not a small thing to have state legislators who have ties to the
CofCC, is it?
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 19:30:10 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>wrote:
>
>>Well, who acknowledges the racist goings on of the Democrats?
>
>What "racist goings on", Jerome? The Democrats aren't pushing the
>platforms of people like Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Pat Buchanan,
>Bob Barr, Trent Lott, and so on.
>
>These are the LEADERS of the GOP. All I hear about are incidents with
>small fry, usually Yellow Dog Democrats busy screwing the pooch in
>some jerkwater backwoods town like Wedowee or Outer Diddywah or some
>such place.
Dick Gephardt.
[ edit ]
>You know, I watched the 1968 and 1972 Democratic Party conventions,
>where these questions were asked and answered; I remember Barbara
>Jordan, who was the voice and the conscience of the Democratic Party;
>and I bet you weren't even born when she settled the issues you try to
>raise today.
>
>Do you know who Barbara Jordan was, Jerome?
Yes, I know who Jordan was. And I also have seen clips of her speeches.
There was one quote from her that I found interesting. Paraphrasing, she
said it was more important that she represent her district rather than
representing her race.
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
> Like David Duke was a small fry.
Absolutely. He has never held a major position in government.
> A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
That depends on how big the school system is. According to
http://hiway1.exit109.com/~harvey/smalltownsamerica/AL.htm
which cites 1996 United States Census figures, the town of Wedowee has
a population of 862 people. Less than 1,000 citizens in a town makes
it a very small place by anyone's standards.
For the people living there, it is a big deal; but trying to attach
significance to it beyond the bounds of a tiny town is pretty hard to
justify. If you look at the whole situation, it still doesn't amount
to a huge movement of national, or even regional significance.
Now, Wedowee is just one town in Randolph County, which includes other
towns. The population of the entire county is approximately 20,000,
so I imagine that there is some room to say that there some students
going to more than a one-room schoolhouse. A quick check of the Yahoo
Yellow Pages shows that there are perhaps five schools in the general
area, but I can't tell which ones are part of the school district that
includes Randolph High School.
However, there is only one high school in the town of Wedowee, with
its tiny population of 862. It is Randolph High School.
Now, Wedowee is the county seat but Roanoke is the county's largest
city. The official population of Randolph County is 20,312; the
school board covers the entire county, which has a smaller population
than the smallest suburb in my own San Fernando Valley.
A quick check of the local school board at
http://mypage.ihost.com/roanoke/board1.html
shows a snapshot of the new School Superintendant, Dr. James Irby. I
don't know what happened to the old one who caused the ruckus at
Randolph High School - maybe they tossed him into Lake Wedowee or
something.
You can also, take a look at the pictures of the other school board
members, including Barbara Staples and Warren Minifield. These are
Black people, and I'd like to think that they are at least as
concerned about what is happening on that school board as any outsider
or observer would be.
The number for the school board is on the web site, and the number for
Randolph High School is in the Yahoo Yellow Pages.
In any case, I think that using the Wedowee situation is a bad example
of racism being accepted by anyone in the Democratic Party. School
board elections are almost always non-partisan; I don't know if this
is the case in Wedowee, or Randolph County, but I am willing to bet
that it is.
As such, it would be wrong to make a partisan race out of elections
for the school board, and I don't understand how the Democratic Party
can be held responsible for any actions surrounding the former racist
school superintendent, or any move to replace him. If you could
explain what those issues were, I would have a better idea of why you
think the Democratic Party's involvement had anything at all to do
with the situation, for good or ill.
Certainly, the situation has changed remarkably in the three years
following the racist events in that town. Citing those events doesn't
seem relevant to any actions by any political party, and can only
reflect on the racists who supported it back then.
Wayne "Whatever happened back then is a thing of the past, not an
example of current reality" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:
....
> After that, whatever some minor party official gets away with in
> Mississippi is an aberration, and the idea that Democrats are supposed
> to say that we're as racist as the GOP is ridiculous.
What I'm saying is that the Democrats are not immune and that they should
be held accountable.
Blacks vote Democratic too much to be "taken for granted." And the sad fact
is that the Black vote is taken for granted by Democrats. This past election
cycle was the first time in years that the white Democrats, in mass,
tried to get out the Black vote.
--
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.com
http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
Welcome To My Virtual Reality!!!!
Rich Thompson
> Hey, Rich: The GOP didn't denunciate Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Strom
> Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich, or any of their other warhorses
> in the leadership who kissed up to the CCC.
>
> What is your point about the "Mississippi 19"?
That GOP behavior shouldn't be seen as some kind of minimal standard for
Democratic behavior. The hell with the GOP. I'm saying what I think the
Democratic party should do.
The GOP wants to have its cake and eat it too. That's why they haven't
done this. Why haven't the Democratic party?
> the support of the CCC - and then grandly offered the chance for the
> Democrats to do the same.
>
> Funny thing is, the Democrats had already done so, a month before.
> Isn't that interesting?
Sure is.
> So go at it, Rich. Why wait for somebody else to do it? Do you need
> for me to quote Roy Rohmer again?
Well, I'm not an American citizen, so I don't think I'm qualified to be a
member of a party yet.
> Do you think 19 racists run the Democratic Party?
Nope. I don't think they should be in it, either, but YMMV
> Wayne "There is no way the GOP is going to start identifying racists
> in their own nest" Johnson
Sure. And this is some evidence for the transparency and ethereal quality
of their anti-racist stance.
it's not clear why the Democrats can't or shouldn't do better.
maybe I'm slow today, but why is it that those people shouldn't be
specifically condemned?
DarkStar
cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:25:34 CST, Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
....
>>I've never said this wasn't part of the platform. I'm saying this is a
>>very good opportunity to act on this principle. Why not, not only
>>publically denounce the CCC, but also publically denounce members in
>>particular. WOuldn't this send a positive message?
>
> No.
Huh?
Why not?
DarkStar
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) writes:
> In article <36f04f8...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
> writes:
....
>
>>It seems, to me, that you are making excuses.
>
> So are you for the establishing of loyalty tests, and don't you object when
> J.C. Watts & Clarence Thomas get condemned for not following some set of
> loyalty strategies?
Loyalty tests? Do you mean for Blacks? I've never said that Blacks are above
being criticized. And I'll say, YET AGAIN, that I've told you this many times
before.
If you mean for politicans, they are already in place. When was the last
time you heard a Democrat say he was "pro-life" even if he was? And you know
that if a politican doesn't follow the party game plan too many times, that
politican doesn't get some of the "pet projects" that he wants and that he
gets real competition in the party primary.
> You don't find African-American democrats applauding
> or electing folk who are members of the CCC, and you also don't find the
> democratic CCC members getting to run for higher office do you?
How do you know we don't?
Jerome is saying that Gephart spoke to the CCC. We know about Mississippi,
how many other do we not know about?
DarkStar
cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne Johnson) writes:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 05:55:49 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
....
>>No, but they do control what areas get paved roads, updated sewage
>>systems, money for schools, money for attempting to bring "clean"
>>business to the area, ...
>
> Of course, and that's why we need to get behind Jesse Jackson and his
> call to get two million Black voters registered by 2000 elections.
> The notion that claiming that the Democratic Party is racist isn't
> going to help that effort, Ed.
Forget registering 2 million Black voters! The ones already registered
aren't voting!
Here is something interesting: the numbers of Blacks, countrywide, who
voted in the November elections actually DECREASED. In some areas,
the number of Blacks voting increased, in some areas it decreased. The
areas that it decreased are California, Texas, New York, Florida and
Pennsylvania.
Go to http://www.jointctr.org/black.htm and read all of the report.
It's in Adobe PDF format and it does not allow copy/paste. Getting people
registered is one thing, but it doesn't mean much if we don't vote
consistantly.
> The party leadership isn't supporting that kind of nonsense, and the
> need to excoriate it is being prompted by the GOP, desperate to find
> ANYTHING to do after the impeachment disaster.
As if they shouldn't be doing it on their own?
In Florida there was a "civil war" between white Democrats and Black
Democrats. They asked V.P. Al Gore to come to Florida to mediate the
disagreement. In my view, the Black Democrats were right in telling Black
voters to vote for some Republican candidates. They did so because the
white Democrats, in a move to get white voters, kicked out the local
Democratic party head, who was Black, and replace him with a white woman.
>>After Cynthia McKinney's district was redrawn because it was "racially
>>gerrymandered," she wrote an article that appeared in The Washington
>>Post and later in Emerge. The article detailed how a segment of the
>>population she served was living in near "3rd world" conditions. The
>>roads weren't paved, plumbing came from hand pumps for many people in
>>this one area, and the sewage system was lacking. This group of people
>>were neglected until the district was drawn to include them and she
>>was their representative.
>
> Ed, you have a good grasp of the facts. I'm sure you could find out
> what the percentage of Black people in her district were registered to
> vote - and further, had actually voted in the last election.
Before being redrawn because it was "racially gerrymandered," Blacks made
up the majority. Afterwards, Blacks made up about 35-40%, if I remember
correctly.
What she wrote about her representing the Black people who were initially
a part of her district summed it up pretty nicely.
> When we continually try to be "balanced", and give the GOP and their
> agenda equal weight with Democrats, we wind up equating the highest
> leadership of the GOP with the lowest ward heelers and courthouse
> hangers-on who CLAIM to be Democrats.
I'm not trying to be "balanced" I'm just presenting information.
When I first registered to vote, I put down "non-aligned" because i didn't
know enough about either party. When the next national election rolled
around, it was Reagan against Mondale. I read in the newspapers that the
Black politicans were complaining the Mondale was not going to the Black
areas to ask for votes. In an interview he was quoted as saying there was
no need to go to Blacks because Blacks had no choice but to vote for him.
I refused to re-register as a Democrat because my vote will not be taken
for granted. And guess what happened? Blacks stayed home and Mondale got
his ass kicked.
....
>>Now, given the views of some of the CCC people, would you believe they
>>would give a damn about Black people living in those kinds of
>>conditions?
>
> Ed, there are Black people who don't give a damn about these
> conditions.
That doesn't make it right.
> We need to elect better leadership, and I am saying that if these CCC
> nutcases knew they couldn't be elected as Democrats, they'd mosey on
> over to the GOP like the rest of the Dixiecrat, "Southern Strategy",
> "Angry White Male" racists did for that icon of GOP politics, Ronald
> Reagan.
Then the Democratic Party should get people who can win to get them out
of office. Demanding that be done is not wrong. But, IMO, it should be
done without demanding it be done.
Wayne Johnson
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 09:25:34 CST, Rich Thompson
>> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
>>>I've never said this wasn't part of the platform. I'm saying this is a
>>>very good opportunity to act on this principle. Why not, not only
>>>publically denounce the CCC, but also publically denounce members in
>>>particular. WOuldn't this send a positive message?
>>
>> No.
>
>Huh?
>Why not?
Primarily because the GOP is writing the timetable, with their little
confession that they don't like the CCC (if you buy that), and now
they want to instigate civil war in the Democratic Party.
The better way is to have some ready replacements before starting in
with some political purge.
There are other reasons, too. Plenty of them. Two million of them.
Wayne "By the year 2000" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
js...@cornell.edu
wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
> In article <7cmmcd$19b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> [ edit ]
>
> >Actually the workers at the private companies are often well paid.
>
> BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You expect to be taken seriously?
Yes, I am a stockbroker, i worj for a private company, and I am well paid. I
wok for a well known reputable firm, not some two bit lame business.
Do you expect to be taken seriously?
>
> --
> "Ignorance is the thing that makes most men get into a political party and
> shame is what keeps them from getting out of it." - George Savile
>
> Jerome Walker
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Alright gentlemen, that's enough.
js...@cornell.edu
wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
> In article <7d264l$rdr$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
> [ edit ]
>
> >
> >I know the internet was orginally built by the government for military
> >purposes, Art. I also know it later was used for research. However,
since
> >it has been privatized many more private companies and individuals have used
> >it ,whic hhas led to job growth. And with the internet being upgraded for
> >extra capacity as the telephone companies(who now own the internet), you've
> >more jobs being created there as well.
>
> The internet has always been open to the public.
Show me where I said it was closed to the public. I said after it's
privatization, the newly owned private companies promoted it much more, which
led to increased usage and employment in this field.
>
> For someone who says they were a history major, your impressive display of
> historical ignorance is amazing.
Actually, your reading comprehension is appalling. And this for someone who
suposedly owns a small business.
But back the the history major bit, history majors specialize in small areas.
You do not have general history majors, as no one can know all history. My
field in history is Latin American, from the colonial era until the modern
times.
>
> [ edit ]
>
> >Present them then. According to Nationa Geographic, 70% of NYC's sewage is
> >used as fertilizer ,and 30% is taken to Texas to be dumped on the grass lands
> >as fertilizer.
>
> What publication date?
>
> The last time I heard, NYC's trash is dumped at sea or buried in trash
> dumps in other states.
>
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>In article <7d3psf$e6j$1...@panix7.panix.com>,
> wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
...
>> The internet has always been open to the public.
>
>Show me where I said it was closed to the public. I said after it's
>privatization, the newly owned private companies promoted it much more, which
>led to increased usage and employment in this field.
What was "privatized"?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
...
>The better way is to have some ready replacements before starting in
>with some political purge.
Since they can't throw them out of the party, a purge *MEANS* having
people ready.
So, since that's what I already said...
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>In article <36edb1a3...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:05:08 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
...
>> Oh really?
>> Well, what about all of the layoffs due to mergers of the financial
>> corporations? That means banks, brokerage houses, and the like.
>
>What about them? The companies cleaned house, and got rid of inefficient
>workers. I just got offers from three very large Wall Street firms, including
>one that just merged last fall.
Actually, when companies merge, efficient workers get the axe as well
as deadbeats.
>> >And I am glad the Republicans were the ones to
>> >privatized the internet,
>>
>> Fact check: Citations please.
>> You and Al Gore must have the same history book.
>
>Gingrich led the intitative to privatize the internet, but you can aks others
>on this thread ofr citations or look this up yourself. I won't provide them.
Fact check: Citations please.
>
>>
>
>> Then why is Ghoul-iani saying that NYC has the right to dump trash
>> where ever it wants to dump it, and that other cities and states have
>> no say in the matter?
>
>I said NYC sold 70% of it's Sewage as fertilizer, and was reusing much of it's
>organic waste. A great deal of trash isn't recyclable at all. I didn't see
>everything was being recycled.
Fact check: Citations please.
>> Fact: Ghoul-iani is telling the state of Virginia, that they have to
>> accept the trash from NYC, and that the state has no right to
>> interfere.
>
>> > The Republicans were the ones to push
>> >for NAFTA and other free trade.
>>
>> Which is credited for the recent layoffs in manufactoring.
>
>The Government isn't responsible for guarnteeing jobs.
Tell that one to Pat Buchanan.
How did the U.S. government "privatize" the internet?
DarkStar
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:26:55 CST, "DarkStar" <Dark...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Like David Duke was a small fry.
>
>Absolutely. He has never held a major position in government.
Hmmm....
A state legislator isn't a major position?
>> A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
>
>That depends on how big the school system is.
That's an excuse. Plain and simple, it's an excuse.
...
>
>In any case, I think that using the Wedowee situation is a bad example
>of racism being accepted by anyone in the Democratic Party. School
>board elections are almost always non-partisan; I don't know if this
>is the case in Wedowee, or Randolph County, but I am willing to bet
>that it is.
The Weedowee race was a partisan race. And it is these types of
examples that, RIGHTLY, get Republicans damned. The "friends" of
Blacks should know better and should act accordingly. And when they
don't Blacks should make sure they do.
...
>Wayne "Whatever happened back then is a thing of the past, not an
>example of current reality" Johnson
What?
Since when is the last election cycle a thing of the past?
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Of course, and that's why we need to get behind Jesse Jackson and his
>>call to get two million Black voters registered by 2000 elections.
>
>It appears, to me, the problem is not the number of registered voters,
>but the numbers of those who are registered, who vote.
Why does it appear that way to you? It would appear that if two
million people are unregistered, that is two million potential votes;
Presidential elections have been won and lost by smaller margins than
that, Jerome.
Many Black people are simply disgusted with the political system;
others are frightened by it, as participation in it has been
demonstrably dangerous, with numerous examples of the dangers within
living memory. With so many people unwilling to join the political
process, the remaining Black voters may not be influential enough to
change events, making the whole process tainted.
Simply coming in and noticing the taint isn't enough, Jerome. The
entire situation needs to change.
>>The notion that claiming that the Democratic Party is racist isn't
>>going to help that effort, Ed.
>
>The notion that I am making is that there are racists in the Democratic
>Party and that thare are racists in the Republican party. When there
>are facts to prove both cases, why ignore one side and highlight the
>other side?
You seem to want to have it the GOP way; that unless the Democratic
Party says that it is as racist and deceptive as the GOP, that it is
avoiding a discussion of problems within the Democratic Party
altogether.
These "facts" you cite are obvious most of all to the people who live
with the reality of the Mississippi 19, and those are the people who
don't want to register or vote. The Democrats aren't going to come
along and support Republican claims, in a state where racists in the
CCC are being feted by the LEADERSHIP of the GOP, for crying out loud.
There are better methods to deal with it than to dance to the
Republican tune, and Jesse Jackson, among others, knows that these
Yellow Dog Democrats will fade into the GOP when Black people are
registered, and voting for Black candidates for office.
Look, blatant attempts to start internecine warfare within the
Democratic Party in marginal places like Mississippi aren't going to
fly, Jerome. The GOP can try, but it's simply not going to work.
>I took a lot of crap when I was a Republican over this very issue. And
>when I explained myself, I always said the same thing: the racists are
>in both parties, so other factors weigh in my being a Republican. That
>other factor was economics. Economic freedom means respect. Begging
>people gets you nothing. Linking with the Democrats means continuous
>begging, imo.
This is easily rejected. The issue is truth. Black people are not
begging for anything, and I'd like to see where any Black person in
Congress, or any Black public official PERIOD is begging for anything
at all.
To characterize people who are working to help our people get into the
American mainstream, and Black Americans who support them, as simply
being beggars, is completely unacceptable to me.
>>The party leadership isn't supporting that kind of nonsense, and the
>>need to excoriate it is being prompted by the GOP, desperate to find
>>ANYTHING to do after the impeachment disaster.
>
>The name of the Democrat who spoke to the CofCC is Dick Gephardt.
When? No precision is necessary; just a general time frame, like what
decade?
>>When we continually try to be "balanced", and give the GOP and their
>>agenda equal weight with Democrats, we wind up equating the highest
>>leadership of the GOP with the lowest ward heelers and courthouse
>>hangers-on who CLAIM to be Democrats.
>
>This is garbage. The issue is truth. Dick Gephardt is a Democratic
>leader.
This is what? Garbage? Why are we talking about garbage? Gephardt,
unlike the GOP leadership, has no current connection with the CCC, and
according to what I've heard, hasn't spoken before them for
approximately twenty years.
Was he a Democratic leader when he spoke to the CCC? In what context
did he speak before the CCC? Were they supporting him? Was he
supporting them?
If Gephardt is still supporting the CCC - as Lott, Barr, Thurmond,
Helms, Gingrich, and numerous other GOP leaders are currently doing,
then I agree that criticism is in order.
But when did this occur? Has it been over a decade ago, or two
decades? For the GOP leadership, it may be within the past six
months. There is one hell of a big difference, and I think everyone
knows it.
>>Those types need to be turned out, which won't happen when ennui among
>>Blacks is fed by claims that "they're all the same - Democrats and
>>Republicans", and the Black people working hard to get them involved
>>are dismissed with insults about their integrity or courage.
>
>Who is doing this? If anything, those who dare speak out against some of the
>policies held by Democracts are slandered. Just look at Rev. Floyd
>Flake. That man has done alot for his local black community, but the
>moment he speaks in favor of vouchers, he is called a sellout.
It depends on why he is in favor of vouchers, but I have no
familiarity with Flake, and can't comment on it. Still, if he is
riding the same horse as the rest of the conservative voucher crowd,
it's no surprise that Black people, unable to accept the fact that
vouchers are going to help, are going to question why he wants them to
go down that road.
>>>Does the fact that they are not "Senate Majority Leader" make a difference?
>>
>>Hell, yes. It takes FAR fewer votes to get rid of them, and unlike
>>Trent Lott, you can get right up in the face of some of these phonies,
>>right near home.
>
>Tell that to the people that Ed mentioned in McKinney's district.
Ed didn't mention the people in McKinney's district, and if we're
going to discuss that issue, let's get into the details of it.
Wayne "I'd rather discuss specifics, instead of generalities, so we
can dispense with all this talk about garbage and so on" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Hmmm....
>A state legislator isn't a major position?
I really don't think so, Ed. State legislators are elected by a
pretty small section of the electorate, and unless they have a senior
leadership position in their legislative body, I wouldn't call being
in the lower house of some state a "major position".
For comparison, I would say that a judge, or a police chief, who had
jurisdiction over the same electorate had more real power than a
single state legislator.
>>> A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
>>
>>That depends on how big the school system is.
>
>That's an excuse. Plain and simple, it's an excuse.
I'm not looking to excuse anything. I'm trying to figure out why you
think the situation in Wedowee was so significant. It is a very tiny
example of an abusive individual, perhaps supported by a coterie of
supporters in a very small and racist backwater; the whole town has a
population of less tthan a thousand people.
Do you think that Wedowee, and the events that happened there, have
significance beyond Wedowee? How is noting that Randolph High School
is now administered by a school board that includes Black members,
some kind of excuse?
I don't get it.
>>In any case, I think that using the Wedowee situation is a bad example
>>of racism being accepted by anyone in the Democratic Party. School
>>board elections are almost always non-partisan; I don't know if this
>>is the case in Wedowee, or Randolph County, but I am willing to bet
>>that it is.
>
>The Weedowee race was a partisan race. And it is these types of
>examples that, RIGHTLY, get Republicans damned. The "friends" of
>Blacks should know better and should act accordingly. And when they
>don't Blacks should make sure they do.
I couldn't find any information on how the school board was elected,
and unlike other elected officials in other bodies, the school board
does NOT indicate what political party the members are part of.
When a governor, or Congressman, or state legislator, is named in
literature or media, usually you see their names listed like this:
"Wayne Johnson (D)" for Democrat, and so on. This was not the case in
the Roanoke School District, which covers Randolph High School in
Wedowee.
Further, I get the impression that since there is a new head of the
school board, and two Black members, that there must have been a
significant change in the way politics worked in this area from the
time you got your reports. Is this possible, or do you have
information that says that conditions have not changed since the ban
on interracial dating at the Randolph High School Prom occurred?
I don't have your information or sources, and if you'd give some more
details, I'd have a better idea of what you're talking about.
>>Wayne "Whatever happened back then is a thing of the past, not an
>>example of current reality" Johnson
>
>What?
>Since when is the last election cycle a thing of the past?
The last election cycle removed a racist dinosaur, and (I think) put
Black people on the school board.
Wayne "It's called moving on" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rick Jones
wrote:
>In article <7cmmcd$19b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <js...@cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>[ edit ]
>
>
>>Actually the workers at the private companies are often well paid.
>
>BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>You expect to be taken seriously?
I guess it depends which workers you're talking about, but I can't
help but notice that workers in countries where you have free
enterprise are ALWAYS paid better than in countries where you don't.
Minimum wage sucks, but it sure beats what you'll get in Cuba.
And sure, lots of workers are paid extraordinarily well. We have a
Dupont nylon factory in town and the workers get paid fabulously, with
great benefits. Jobs there are in high demand; the money's better
than what some university grads get.
Rick Jones
>> But this goes to the point about how republicans like to use tax cuts and
>> reduced government spending (on people) as a rallying cry, while taking
>> that money and giving it to private corporations as welfare.
>
>This is necessary in many cases. Farming is done by corparations ,and we do
>need to keep food prices down. Without these subsidies, food prices will rise.
Economics 101; The price of something has nothing to do with cost.
Subsisides given to a business will NOT affect how much they charge
for their product. The market price of a loaf of bread is determined
by what a loaf of bread is worth, not by what General Foods gets in
tax breaks from the Department of Agriculture.
The government does fix food prices via tariffs and price limits, and
by interfering in supply decisions. That's probably what you meant,
but it's important to note that they don't do it just by giving free
money to farms. If the ideal price of bread was 75 cents a loaf, and
the government gave you $500 million, why wouldn't you pocket the
handout and keep charging 75 cents a loaf?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
...
>This is necessary in many cases. Farming is done by corparations ,and we do
>need to keep food prices down. Without these subsidies, food prices will rise.
The "subsidies" are price supports. They also get paid not to grow
crops. Without the "subsidies," real price competition would take
place and prices would fall.
Since you are an "investment banker," you have access to everything
you need to find out about these "subsidies." You lack of knowledge
about this basic economic model is interesting.
DarkStar
>On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:58:29 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>Hmmm....
>>A state legislator isn't a major position?
>
>I really don't think so, Ed. State legislators are elected by a
>pretty small section of the electorate, and unless they have a senior
>leadership position in their legislative body, I wouldn't call being
>in the lower house of some state a "major position".
If I recall, Duke did hold such a position.
...
>>>> A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
>>>
>>>That depends on how big the school system is.
>>
>>That's an excuse. Plain and simple, it's an excuse.
>
>I'm not looking to excuse anything. I'm trying to figure out why you
>think the situation in Wedowee was so significant.
Because I believe that racism is significant, especially when it can
impact the education of children. It doesn't make a difference if it's
one child, six hundred, or a million.
I thank *GOD* that a high school history teacher named Mrs. Wilder,
didn't believe what you are writing.
In the 9th grade, I had a self-proclaimed red-neck pig farmer as a
trig. teacher. That sob was determined to make my life in that class
living hell. [ He threw me out of the classroom for saying "yeah" ]
But Mrs. Wilder helped me to get past that sob. She had a son who
attended the Navel Academy in Annapolis, MD. She called her son to
help me. After duty, he drove to Baltimore -- about 45 minutes --
tutored me in her home, and drove back home. She didn't have to do it.
He didn't have to do it. But she did it because *ONE* instance of
letting a racist sonofabitch win was too damn much.
And here you write that a racist being the head of a school system of
600 kids isn't significant.
...
>>The Weedowee race was a partisan race. And it is these types of
>>examples that, RIGHTLY, get Republicans damned. The "friends" of
>>Blacks should know better and should act accordingly. And when they
>>don't Blacks should make sure they do.
>
>I couldn't find any information on how the school board was elected,
>and unlike other elected officials in other bodies, the school board
>does NOT indicate what political party the members are part of.
>
>When a governor, or Congressman, or state legislator, is named in
>literature or media, usually you see their names listed like this:
>"Wayne Johnson (D)" for Democrat, and so on. This was not the case in
>the Roanoke School District, which covers Randolph High School in
>Wedowee.
Here is some of an article I saved.
Friday, June 28, 1996
`RACIST' PRINCIPAL COULD BE ELECTED
SUPERINTENDENT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WEDOWEE, Ala. -- A white principal who was ousted for
condemning interracial dating is on the comeback trail, winning a
runoff that puts him in line to be the county's superintendent of
schools.
``I didn't tie my campaign, or being a candidate, to anything
in the past,'' Hulond Humphries said Wednesday as a stream of
well-wishers found his table during lunch at a local restaurant.
Humphries, however, remains for his critics a symbol of racism
after threatening in February 1994 to cancel the Randolph County High
School spring prom if interracial couples planned to show up.
The stand, which he said was meant to lessen the chance of
violence, led to protests, strained race relations, an act of arson
that burned down the school, and Humphries' removal as principal.
Some townsfolk wondered Wednesday if Humphries, banned by
court order from contact with students until July 1997, could move
into the superintendent's post next year without starting another
crisis.
...
During the past year, the school system's student enrollment
was comprised of 1,660 whites, 543 African Americans, seven Latinos
and one American Indian.
Humphries led the field for superintendent in the June 4
Democratic primary. On Tuesday, he defeated runoff foe Jimmy Holmes by
a vote of 2,614 to 2,356. He has no Republican opponent, although a
write-in could be staged in November.
...
>>What?
>>Since when is the last election cycle a thing of the past?
>
>The last election cycle removed a racist dinosaur, and (I think) put
>Black people on the school board.
>Wayne "It's called moving on" Johnson
>cia...@ix.netcom.com
You mean like some people still like to mention Denny's?
js...@cornell.edu
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:18:05 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
> >In article <36edb1a3...@mail.flash.net>,
> > dark...@flash.net wrote:
> >> soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
> Actually, when companies merge, efficient workers get the axe as well
> as deadbeats.
Good workers will always be able to find work elsewhere.
>
> >I said NYC sold 70% of it's Sewage as fertilizer, and was reusing much of
it's
> >organic waste. A great deal of trash isn't recyclable at all. I didn't see
> >everything was being recycled.
>
> Fact check: Citations please.
Fast check, look it up yourself.
> How did the U.S. government "privatize" the internet?
They sold it to the telephone companies. MCI Worldcom owns the largrest share
own internet backgroun worldwide, whic hincudles networks purhcased fro mthe
government as well as their own networks. Other large holders include GTE,
IBM Global Network(which IBM recently sold to AT&T), PSiNet, and Cable and
Wireless.(A british company). To get their merger approved by the European
Union, MCI and Worldcom had to agree to sell all of MIC's internet capacity
to Cable and Wireless, a British cable and cell phone company.
>
> ---
> "Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
> American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt." -- Charles Aaron
> Spin (Nov.1998)
> Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
> http://www.charm.net/~darkstar
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Artclemons
(DarkStar) writes:
>If you mean for politicans, they are already in place. When was the last
>time you heard a Democrat say he was "pro-life" even if he was? And you know
>that if a politican doesn't follow the party game plan too many times, that
>politican doesn't get some of the "pet projects" that he wants and that he
>gets real competition in the party primary.
If you paid attention to Pennyslvania politics, you'ld discover that the last
democratic governor was a self described anti-abortionist (his words at one
time) and his son who was elected to a statewide office has similar views
now. I also note that many democrats have switched to the republican
party, especially in the senate. If every republican senator who switched
parties while in office had remained a democrat, democrats would effectively
control the Senate. Let's see, Strom T., Jesse H, What's his brainless
self from Alabama, and of course Phil G. from Texas (who at least first ran
for the Senate as a republican) and one other whom I can't presently recall.
I also suggest that you pay attention to voting records for republicans and
democrats. The grouping together of votes on certain issues is amazing
for republicans, or should I say that the party discipline is amazing.
Republicans
vote as a party consistently, while democrats seem to be fractured. The
lack of discipline in the democratic party is one reason that the party even
when it was in control of congress, needed republican votes for many issues,
while republicans seem quite capable of voting as robots. Somehow on
issues like civil rights bills, republicans seem to find some set of reasons
to ignore African-Americans or pretend that they inherently know what
is best for the community. That's as good a reason for rejecting them
presently as any other. When I also note the self serving folks whom they
attract from the community, all I can say is that you judge folks by whom
they associate with, and they are low lifes in my opinion!
>
>> You don't find African-American democrats applauding
>> or electing folk who are members of the CCC, and you also don't find the
>> democratic CCC members getting to run for higher office do you?
>
>How do you know we don't?
>Jerome is saying that Gephart spoke to the CCC. We know about Mississippi,
>how many other do we not know about?
No, the unattributed posting that Jerome is quoting claimed that Gephart spoke
before a precursor to the CCC, Gephart's office doesn't comment on the issue,
and I can't find any reference to a Gephart speech in St. Louis doing a search
albeit without access to the text of every newspaper.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
(DarkStar) writes:
>Blacks vote Democratic too much to be "taken for granted." And the sad fact
>is that the Black vote is taken for granted by Democrats. This past election
>cycle was the first time in years that the white Democrats, in mass,
>tried to get out the Black vote.
As a recent Editorial in a special edition of Emerge noted, nobody can point
to any reasonable attempt by republicans to attract masses of African-
American voters, either by voting records in aggregate or in positions of
the party on issues of concern to the community. It's sort of like going to
an ice cream parlor, and being told that they only have vanilla and ruffberry
fruiti tooti, and you are sadly allergic to ruffberries. You eat vanilla, or
you
don't have any ice cream that night. Well, most African-Americans don't
want to vote for obvious racists who use code words and take positions
that don't agree with what they do. In that sense, African-Americans who
stick with the democrats are making a choice even if they would prefer
chocolate, strawberry or any of a variety of other flavors. I note that most
third party candidates don't exactly have positions that the community would
gravitate towards or should gravitate towards. Ross Perot and the present
governor of Minnesota are prime examples of this sort of problem. Neither
is an improvement over a republican candidate.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
Jones) writes:
>Economics 101; The price of something has nothing to do with cost.
>Subsisides given to a business will NOT affect how much they charge
>for their product. The market price of a loaf of bread is determined
>by what a loaf of bread is worth, not by what General Foods gets in
>tax breaks from the Department of Agriculture.
Economics 100; the price of a product has nothing to do with what the
product is worth. Price instead is determined by a combination of
ascertaining the maximum that people will pay for the product, at which
price the maximum number of buyers will spring for a product, and the
inherent difference between the loss associated with not selling a lot
of the product at the maximum price and selling a lot at some price
where more buyers will spend money. The price of a loaf of bread has
little to do with the cost raw materials, labor to bake the bread, labor
and fuel to deliver the bread and advertising. Farmers usually claim that
they get less than $.03 (three cents) per dollar for the wheat in a loaf
of bread in a good year. If bread had an inherent worth in this country,
its price would probably be a lot lower. After all, you can with a bag
of flour, yeast, water and some skill produce a product inherently
less expensive than let's say a loaf of cheap enriched white bread.
It's sort of like pretending that salaries reflect the market or demand for
a particular skill. If that is true, why do residents in hospitals get paid
so little? Why do executives of corporations which lose money still
get paid?
-art clemons-
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:26:55 CST, "DarkStar" <Dark...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>> Like David Duke was a small fry.
>
>Absolutely. He has never held a major position in government.
Surreal.
>> A racist heading a school system is not a small deal.
>
>That depends on how big the school system is.
Surreal.
[ edit ]
> Certainly, the situation has changed remarkably in the three years
>following the racist events in that town. Citing those events doesn't
>seem relevant to any actions by any political party, and can only
>reflect on the racists who supported it back then.
>
>Wayne "Whatever happened back then is a thing of the past, not an
>example of current reality" Johnson
Surreal.
If I had written something like that about Republicans, people would be
calling me a sellout, an Uncle Thom, or saying I have my head in the sand.
And they would have been right for saying it.
Wayne, youare saying racism is racsim only when it comes from Republicans.
Surreal.
David C. Waters
: > >Actually the workers at the private companies are often well paid.
: wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
: > BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
: > You expect to be taken seriously?
js...@cornell.edu wrote:
: Yes, I am a stockbroker, i worj for a private company, and I am well
: paid. I wok for a well known reputable firm, not some two bit lame
: business.
So, if you found out that one, two, or most of your coworkers were
getting paid 20%, 30%, or 40% more than you for doing the same or less
work and for having the same or less experience/qualifications, would you
still decide that you're well paid?
Would you still be content with your salary? Would you protect your
investment of TIME at that company or would you throw it away and quit
under the assumption that you can go anywhere else and be treated fairly?
Essentially, do you believe that your employer has the right to pay
different workers different wages for the exact same work?
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
_/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
_/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>>Wayne "Whatever happened back then is a thing of the past, not an
>>example of current reality" Johnson
>Surreal.
>
>If I had written something like that about Republicans, people would be
>calling me a sellout, an Uncle Thom, or saying I have my head in the sand.
>And they would have been right for saying it.
>
>Wayne, youare saying racism is racsim only when it comes from Republicans.
>
>Surreal.
Actually, what I'm saying is followed by my own signature. What
someone else chooses to interpret from my words is up to them.
As far as it goes in Wedowee, the guy named Hulond Humphries (from
Ed's post of the original news article) is long gone from the scene.
He has been replace by someone else, a fellow named Irby.
There are also two elected school board members who are Black. I am
assuming that they do not wish the topic for every school board
meeting to be about the events of 1996. That is why I am saying that
everyone needs to move on.
Humphries is gone. There are Black people - and I assume, talented
Black people with brains and a desire to protect all children, without
regard to ancestry - who I am willing to bet will NOT allow the
situation from 1996 to happen again.
Again, I am sure that there agenda for this year does not include
worrying about a racist who is no longer on the board, and is no
longer a problem. If they did think that this issue was still of
utmost importance, I would find THAT fact to be surreal.
Wayne "There comes a point when someone has to worry about current
events" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
js...@cornell.edu
mba...@netcom.com (David C. Waters) wrote:
> So, if you found out that one, two, or most of your coworkers were
> getting paid 20%, 30%, or 40% more than you for doing the same or less
> work and for having the same or less experience/qualifications, would you
> still decide that you're well paid?
We are paid by commission, so this situation does not apply to me.
Nevertheless, if I felt that I was being treated unfairly, I would go
elsewhere. I have done that with jobs before. You don't have to quit your
job imeddiately, instead, talk to other firms. When you pull something
trhrought that gibves you a better offer, leave. or if you know things just
aren't going to work out at your current company, then you probably should
leave immediately?
I've know people who told their companies htye were leaving precisely because
of the reasons you mentioned. Their employers valued them, and so gave them
the raises and promotions they wanted when they threatened to leave.
>
> Essentially, do you believe that your employer has the right to pay
> different workers different wages for the exact same work?
Yes. People who have more time wit hthe company should be getting paid more,
for one.
> --
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
> _/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
> _/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
js...@cornell.edu
dark...@flash.net wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 02:46:19 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >This is necessary in many cases. Farming is done by corparations ,and we do
> >need to keep food prices down. Without these subsidies, food prices will
rise.
>
> The "subsidies" are price supports. They also get paid not to grow
> crops. Without the "subsidies," real price competition would take
> place and prices would fall.
And farmers have been know to destroy or burn crops when prices fall to low.
If they aren't getting enough money, they simply will not farm. Farmers are
just like other workers. If their pay falls to low, they won't work.
>
> Since you are an "investment banker," you have access to everything
> you need to find out about these "subsidies." You lack of knowledge
> about this basic economic model is interesting.
I don't have a lack of knowledge in this model.
js...@cornell.edu
rj...@adan.kingston.net (Rick Jones) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 02:46:19 CST, js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>
> >> But this goes to the point about how republicans like to use tax cuts and
> >> reduced government spending (on people) as a rallying cry, while taking
> >> that money and giving it to private corporations as welfare.
> >
> >need to keep food prices down. Without these subsidies, food prices will
rise.
>
Whenever costs increases, businesses increase their prices. An example would
be raising the minimum wage. This increases the costs of all businesses, and
they respond by raising the prices of their services or products.
> Subsisides given to a business will NOT affect how much they charge
> for their product. The market price of a loaf of bread is determined
> by what a loaf of bread is worth, not by what General Foods gets in
> tax breaks from the Department of Agriculture.
Telephone companies recieve subsidies to operate in rural areas as well.
They would have to charge as much as 150 dollars per line in some rural areas
where it subsidized by the telecom operations in cities, as well as by the
government itself.
>
> The government does fix food prices via tariffs and price limits, and
> by interfering in supply decisions. That's probably what you meant,
> but it's important to note that they don't do it just by giving free
> money to farms.
Well certain taxes are charged on telephone bills and this money is used to
subsidize rural telephone service. yet telephone companies in rural areas do
not still charge 150 dollars a month for the rural services.(Because the
networks in rural areas have people living so far a part and low population
densities, it is quite expensive to maintain wire networks there). Yes, the
government does regulate rate increases of telephone companies to a degree,
but still subsidizes keep prices down. If the ideal price of bread was 75
cents a loaf, and
> the government gave you $500 million, why wouldn't you pocket the
> handout and keep charging 75 cents a loaf?
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>In article <1999032123...@darkstar.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net
>(DarkStar) writes:
>
>>Blacks vote Democratic too much to be "taken for granted." And the sad fact
>>is that the Black vote is taken for granted by Democrats. This past election
>>cycle was the first time in years that the white Democrats, in mass,
>>tried to get out the Black vote.
>
>As a recent Editorial in a special edition of Emerge noted, nobody can point
>to any reasonable attempt by republicans to attract masses of African-
>American voters, either by voting records in aggregate or in positions of
>the party on issues of concern to the community.
That says nothing about Democrats taking the Black vote for granted.
...
>In that sense, African-Americans who
>stick with the democrats are making a choice even if they would prefer
>chocolate, strawberry or any of a variety of other flavors.
Which means, Democrats can ignore certain issues of importance to
Blacks. I point to the Emerge edition that analyzed the California
anti-affirmative action proposition that demonstrates, clearly, how
the Democrats did not make a push for legislation that is important to
Blacks. And, IMO, those who did not support the effort to defeat that
prop., should be voted out of office with someone who is willing to
take Black interests more to heart.
olan
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
> In article <1999032123...@darkstar.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net
> (DarkStar) writes:
>
> >Blacks vote Democratic too much to be "taken for granted." And the sad fact
> >is that the Black vote is taken for granted by Democrats. This past election
> >cycle was the first time in years that the white Democrats, in mass,
> >tried to get out the Black vote.
>
> As a recent Editorial in a special edition of Emerge noted, nobody can point
> to any reasonable attempt by republicans to attract masses of African-
> American voters, either by voting records in aggregate or in positions of
> an ice cream parlor, and being told that they only have vanilla and ruffberry
> fruiti tooti, and you are sadly allergic to ruffberries. You eat vanilla, or
> you
> don't have any ice cream that night. Well, most African-Americans don't
> want to vote for obvious racists who use code words and take positions
> stick with the democrats are making a choice even if they would prefer
> third party candidates don't exactly have positions that the community would
> gravitate towards or should gravitate towards. Ross Perot and the present
> governor of Minnesota are prime examples of this sort of problem. Neither
> is an improvement over a republican candidate.
> -art clemons-
>
constitute an attempt by the GOP to "attract masses of African Amer.
voters"? What I'm asking for are actual statements from prominent
Republicans, or planks in the GOP platform, or anything that in your
mind would constitute an attempt by the GOP to attract more African
American voters.
The reason for my inquiry is to determine what statements, positions,
actions, etc. the GOP would need to take, other than simply adopting
the positions of the Democratic party, to attract African American
voters.
Wayne Johnson
>If I recall, Duke did hold such a position.
I have no idea how long Duke served in the Louisiana legislature, or
what positions in that body he held. I don't even know where to look
for such information, but the impression I got was that he served a
single term - not conducive to getting political plum jobs from
seniority.
If anyone knows anything about the Duke term in office, I'd like to
hear about it.
Wayne said...
>>I'm not looking to excuse anything. I'm trying to figure out why you
>>think the situation in Wedowee was so significant.
>
>Because I believe that racism is significant, especially when it can
>impact the education of children. It doesn't make a difference if it's
>one child, six hundred, or a million.
So do I. I am not talking about any child suffering under racism; I'm
talking about the political situation in Wedowee, which is far
different now than it was in 1996.
I don't see the CURRENT significance of those events.
>I thank *GOD* that a high school history teacher named Mrs. Wilder,
>didn't believe what you are writing.
What anyone chooses to interpret from what I say is wholly subjective,
and I have no idea if Mrs. Wilder would take my words the same way you
do.
In any case, anyone who thinks that a political discussion about
Hulond Humphries (thanks for the cite, by the way) is in any way a
defense of his racism, is drawing a conclusion that I don't agree
with, in any way.
I am actually curious about what significance this has, on the current
national scene. You discuss Wedowee quite frequently, having
mentioned it several times as an example of how a Democrat who was an
acknowledged racist was able to run for office.
Now, I have looked up the issue, and found that this racist Democrat
is no longer in office - and the school board he was a member of now
includes two Black people, who I trust are as vigilant about racism as
anyone we can imagine.
Is what happened in 1996 more valid than what happened SINCE 1996?
I'm sure that you aren't the only person who was outraged by what
happened in Wedowee; there seems to be at least two Black people who
felt exactly the way you and Mrs. Wilder would feel, and they are
probably the same type of vigilant and hard working people who Mrs.
Wilder was.
I had a teacher like that, too. And my own mother is a teacher, and
is like that. I am saying that Ms. Staples, and Mr. Minifield, the
two Black people on the Roanoke School Board, are probably like that,
too.
That is why I am wondering why you think what happened three years ago
in Wedowee is more significant that what is happening right now in
Wedowee.
Wayne "I thank God that those Black folks have replaced Humphries"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>In article <36f6f54a...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
...
justin:
>> >I said NYC sold 70% of it's Sewage as fertilizer, and was reusing much of
>it's
>> >organic waste. A great deal of trash isn't recyclable at all. I didn't see
>> >everything was being recycled.
>>
>> Fact check: Citations please.
>
>Fast check, look it up yourself.
Since you don't have a good grasp of facts, this one goes down as not
being true.
>> How did the U.S. government "privatize" the internet?
>
>They sold it to the telephone companies.
They sold what to the telephone companies?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>In article <1999032200...@darkstar.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net
>(DarkStar) writes:
>
>>If you mean for politicans, they are already in place. When was the last
>>time you heard a Democrat say he was "pro-life" even if he was? And you know
>>that if a politican doesn't follow the party game plan too many times, that
>>politican doesn't get some of the "pet projects" that he wants and that he
>>gets real competition in the party primary.
>
>If you paid attention to Pennyslvania politics, you'ld discover that the last
>democratic governor was a self described anti-abortionist (his words at one
>time) and his son who was elected to a statewide office has similar views
>now.
Gore was once anti-abortion. What changed his mind? Gephart was once
anti-abortion. What changed his mind?
....
>The grouping together of votes on certain issues is amazing
>for republicans, or should I say that the party discipline is amazing.
>Republicans
>vote as a party consistently, while democrats seem to be fractured.
Oh sure....
Who voted straight party line on the impeachment issue?
>The
>lack of discipline in the democratic party is one reason that the party even
>when it was in control of congress, needed republican votes for many issues,
>while republicans seem quite capable of voting as robots.
Then how come the "middle of the road Republicans" vote with Democrats
on key issues that the Republicans want?
...
>>> You don't find African-American democrats applauding
>>> or electing folk who are members of the CCC, and you also don't find the
>>> democratic CCC members getting to run for higher office do you?
>>
>>How do you know we don't?
>>Jerome is saying that Gephart spoke to the CCC. We know about Mississippi,
>>how many other do we not know about?
>
>No, the unattributed posting that Jerome is quoting claimed that Gephart spoke
>before a precursor to the CCC, Gephart's office doesn't comment on the issue,
>and I can't find any reference to a Gephart speech in St. Louis doing a search
>albeit without access to the text of every newspaper.
If it's not true, it would seem as though Gephart would say it's not
true.
olan
> : > >Actually the workers at the private companies are often well paid.
>
> : wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker) wrote:
> : > BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> : > You expect to be taken seriously?
>
> js...@cornell.edu wrote:
> : Yes, I am a stockbroker, i worj for a private company, and I am well
> : paid. I wok for a well known reputable firm, not some two bit lame
> : business.
>
> getting paid 20%, 30%, or 40% more than you for doing the same or less
> work and for having the same or less experience/qualifications, would you
> still decide that you're well paid?
>
> investment of TIME at that company or would you throw it away and quit
> under the assumption that you can go anywhere else and be treated fairly?
>
> different workers different wages for the exact same work?
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/_/ David C. Waters, Jr. _/_/ Integrated Business Solutions _/_/
> _/_/ Multimedia Business Answers _/_/ Video Audio CD-ROM Publishing _/_/
> _/_/ E-Mail: mba...@netcom.com _/_/ World Wide Web and TV Access! _/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
any amount he or she decides. Of course, the employer runs the risk
of losing an employee to another employer if that employee decides
his/her pay is less than others doing the same work.
Your question leaves out many variables that might have to be considered
by the employer.
m. o. mutuembe
Flake's church runs a very large christian school run by his wife. If
vouchers are approved and extended to parochial schools, his church and
family would benefit greatly from public funds.
m. o. mutuembe
Wayne Johnson
>Which means, Democrats can ignore certain issues of importance to
>Blacks. I point to the Emerge edition that analyzed the California
>anti-affirmative action proposition that demonstrates, clearly, how
>the Democrats did not make a push for legislation that is important to
>Blacks. And, IMO, those who did not support the effort to defeat that
>prop., should be voted out of office with someone who is willing to
>take Black interests more to heart.
All I know is that the GOP went all out for their boy Ward Connerly
and this initiative; the Republican Governor, Pete Wilson, was all for
it. Obviously the Republican Party is not offering an alternative, as
they've proven to be the problem.
After the latest election, we have a Democratic governor, a Democratic
majority in the state government (both houses), two Democratic
senators (both of them women), and numerous local officials who are
Democratic.
I don't know why you think that everyone who opposed the Connerly
initiative was silent about it. This was a tremendous issue in
California, and was hustled by the consummate definition of sellout,
Ward Connerly. This allowed non-Blacks who don't think AA will ever
benefit them to have a Black man say the things that they don't dare
say, something that many Black "conservatives" eagerly do.
These Black "conservatives" seem to be busy muddying the waters of
debate; every time any political movement attempts to do something
positive for Black people in politics, someone like Alan Keys, Ward
Connerly, Armstrong Williams, or some other talking head comes out and
claims that Black people either shouldn't agree, or should be ashamed
if they do agree, with Democratic Party initiatives and goals.
I've heard recently that being in the Democratic Party is equivalent
to "begging". I recall that Affirmative Action was characterized as
being simply begging, and cheating for advantage, and this was the
argument used to make Connerly's initiative successful in California.
Now, Connerly's patron, the Republican governor, is out of office, and
the Republican who sought to replace him was soundly trounced. The
Republican candidate for Senator, a fellow named Matt Fong who also
used his ancestry as a smokescreen to attack Affirmative Action, also
took a serious butt-whoopin at the polls.
>From your comments, it would seem that you are unaware of what has
happened in California politics in the wake of the Connerly
initiative. Exactly what you would like to see is what has come to
pass; the Republicans snuck in a racist initiative in an
non-Presidential year election, and won - only to get whooped in the
Big One. Just another repeat of the Republican "revolution" in 1994,
which saw the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996.
Wayne "The issue simply isn't as simple as it seems" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
<blak...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 1999 16:12:32 CST, wal...@panix.com (Jerome Walker)
>> wrote:
>
>> >Who is doing this? If anything, those who dare speak out against some of the
>> >policies held by Democracts are slandered. Just look at Rev. Floyd
>> >Flake. That man has done alot for his local black community, but the
>> >moment he speaks in favor of vouchers, he is called a sellout.
[My questions snipped]
>Flake's church runs a very large christian school run by his wife. If
>vouchers are approved and extended to parochial schools, his church and
>family would benefit greatly from public funds.
>
>m. o. mutuembe
This explains his speaking in favor of vouchers, I guess.
He doesn't sound like an impartial observer.
Wayne "Sounds more like a lobbyist with a vested interest, actually"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Wayne Johnson
>Gore was once anti-abortion. What changed his mind? Gephart was once
>anti-abortion. What changed his mind?
Maybe they talked to a child who was the victim of incest, or a rape
victim, Ed.
Wayne "It happens" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:12:01 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
> Wayne said...
> >>I'm not looking to excuse anything. I'm trying to figure out why you
> >>think the situation in Wedowee was so significant.
> >
> >Because I believe that racism is significant, especially when it can
> >impact the education of children. It doesn't make a difference if it's
> >one child, six hundred, or a million.
>
> So do I. I am not talking about any child suffering under racism; I'm
> talking about the political situation in Wedowee, which is far
> different now than it was in 1996.
>
> I don't see the CURRENT significance of those events.
It's now clear that this is what you meant to say.
You can see, however, how someone might interpret what you said above as
downplaying the significance of the occurence when it happened.
Above you said "I'm trying to figure out why you think the situation in
Wedowee *WAS* so significant". If you had said *IS* your meaning would
have been clear. As it is, you didn't state yourself clearly, and were
misunderstood.
But let's take the perspective that things that happened two or three
years ago aren't interesting or important. Think about that for a minute.
Is this what you want to claim? The Wedowee story ended well, but
meanwhile kids did, needlessly, have a racist principal for a number of
years...
> That is why I am wondering why you think what happened three years ago
> in Wedowee is more significant that what is happening right now in
> Wedowee.
I suppose that it's evidence of what can happen.
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 842-1231 x4286
"When I'm up, I can't get down."
-Great Big Sea
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>In article <36f858c4...@mail.flash.net>,
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Mar 1999 02:46:19 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated js...@cornell.edu wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >This is necessary in many cases. Farming is done by corparations ,and we do
>> >need to keep food prices down. Without these subsidies, food prices will
>rise.
>>
>> The "subsidies" are price supports. They also get paid not to grow
>> crops. Without the "subsidies," real price competition would take
>> place and prices would fall.
>
>And farmers have been know to destroy or burn crops when prices fall to low.
>If they aren't getting enough money, they simply will not farm. Farmers are
>just like other workers. If their pay falls to low, they won't work.
Wrong.
If they don't work, they loose their land.
>> Since you are an "investment banker," you have access to everything
>> you need to find out about these "subsidies." You lack of knowledge
>> about this basic economic model is interesting.
>
>I don't have a lack of knowledge in this model.
You certainly display your lack of knowledge.
olan
> >Wayne "Whatever happened back then is a thing of the past, not an
> >example of current reality" Johnson
> >cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
Would you agree with the above statement if used to compare the
younger Gov. George Wallace with the older Gov. George Wallace?
You will probably see this quote of yours again in future discussions.
I can see it now...."Not the same thing at all, Jerome!"
DarkStar
>On Fri, 26 Mar 1999 18:59:33 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>Which means, Democrats can ignore certain issues of importance to
>>Blacks. I point to the Emerge edition that analyzed the California
>>anti-affirmative action proposition that demonstrates, clearly, how
>>the Democrats did not make a push for legislation that is important to
>>Blacks. And, IMO, those who did not support the effort to defeat that
>>prop., should be voted out of office with someone who is willing to
>>take Black interests more to heart.
...
>I don't know why you think that everyone who opposed the Connerly
>initiative was silent about it.
I wrote: "... those who did not support the effort to defeat that
prop., should be voted out of office..."
...
>I've heard recently that being in the Democratic Party is equivalent
>to "begging". I recall that Affirmative Action was characterized as
>being simply begging, and cheating for advantage, and this was the
>argument used to make Connerly's initiative successful in California.
Again, there are Blacks across the political mainstream who don't like
AA, including former Black Panthers.
...
>
>>From your comments, it would seem that you are unaware of what has
>happened in California politics in the wake of the Connerly
>initiative. Exactly what you would like to see is what has come to
>pass; the Republicans snuck in a racist initiative in an
>non-Presidential year election, and won - only to get whooped in the
>Big One. Just another repeat of the Republican "revolution" in 1994,
>which saw the re-election of Bill Clinton in 1996.
I am very aware of what has happened in California. But in the mean
time, the prop. still stands and will stand. It's not much of a
victory, IMO.
olan
vouchers being in favor of them from one who stands to lose benefits
being against them?
The Flake fellow probably believes his school can do a better job
educating children and sees vouchers as a way to give more children
access to a better education. His school is also probably only one of
many private schools that parents can choose using their voucher.
Remember, Flake's school has to "compete" with other private schools
to attract students.
Are you as concerned with the vested interests of students advocating
more government student grants and loans? One can argue that increased
amounts of money for students who might not have been financially able
to attend college is a great benefit for all of society. This might
well be true. But it is surely true that the students who get the grants
and loans will point to the successes of such programs because THEY are
the ones who got the money!
Why would Flake be called a sellout for supporting vouchers? Aren't
their many in the African American community who support the idea of
school vouchers?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 01:12:01 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
...
>>Because I believe that racism is significant, especially when it can
>>impact the education of children. It doesn't make a difference if it's
>>one child, six hundred, or a million.
>
>So do I. I am not talking about any child suffering under racism; I'm
>talking about the political situation in Wedowee, which is far
>different now than it was in 1996.
>
>I don't see the CURRENT significance of those events.
The CURRENT significance of those events is that it may have harmed
the children that went through that garbage.
>>I thank *GOD* that a high school history teacher named Mrs. Wilder,
>>didn't believe what you are writing.
>
>What anyone chooses to interpret from what I say is wholly subjective,
>and I have no idea if Mrs. Wilder would take my words the same way you
>do.
>
>In any case, anyone who thinks that a political discussion about
>Hulond Humphries (thanks for the cite, by the way) is in any way a
>defense of his racism, is drawing a conclusion that I don't agree
>with, in any way.
>
>I am actually curious about what significance this has, on the current
>national scene. You discuss Wedowee quite frequently, having
>mentioned it several times as an example of how a Democrat who was an
>acknowledged racist was able to run for office.
What happens on the local scene is just as important as what happens
on the national scene. If the Democrats can be seen as ignoring
racists on the local scene, they can take over at the local level.
*THAT'S* the significance of it.
....
>Is what happened in 1996 more valid than what happened SINCE 1996?
It sure can be, and why it was allowed to happen in the first place is
what I question and what I will continue to question.
Artclemons
writes:
>The reason for my inquiry is to determine what statements, positions,
>actions, etc. the GOP would need to take, other than simply adopting
>the positions of the Democratic party, to attract African American
>voters.
Well for one, I'ld suggest an effort to cater to African-American lobbying
with the same fervor that the GOP responds to the lobbying of the NRA.
I'ld also suggest that an end to running against crime with crime as a
code word for dark skin would help too.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
writes:
>Oh sure....
>Who voted straight party line on the impeachment issue?
You raise an interesting topic. Democrats can be accused of voting as a
bloc on this one issue, but the republican vote to impeach Clinton for example
is also an example of rushing to judgement. Nobody with a consience for
example should have gone forward, and it was obvious that the impeachment
vote in the house was based not on overwhelming evidence, but political
convenience. It's also telling that the two counts passed by the House
were the two counts without sufficient evidence to convict.
If you want to discuss the Senate vote, whoopee, was there enough
evidence to vote to remove the man? If there was, then Democrats voted
as a bloc, if there wasn't, then republicans did. I'll give you one hint when
I
note that even most prosecutors questioned on the topic said that the case
was weak and shouldn't have been brought. With the exception of Barr,
every former US Atty I've heard on the issue said there was not enough to
convict at trial, and I note that Barr never once brought a case for perjury
in a civil rights case apparently despite some cases which appear to have
featured obvious outright perjury on issues germane to the cases.
A better discussion of party discipline is how party members vote throughout
a legislative term rather than just one issue or even two. When such a
loyalty test is done, republicans are and have been a lot more disciplined
and organized. In fact, it should be noted that Will Roger's old bastardized
canard, "I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat" still seems
to describe the two parties. Now for African-Americans, the republicans are
really problematic, and I note that for example the NAACP gives flunking
voting record grades to all of the house managers and most of the republican
senators who voted to remove Clinton from office. Why is abortion,
which I note is not something which divides politics in the African-American
community, supposed to be a means of judging how a party votes. The
impeachment trial could be important, but only because republicans
overwhelmingly voted in a way that the community did not and does
not approve of. Yes, there are African-Americans who believe that Clinton
should have been removed, but they aren't a majority or a substantial
minority, now why is it that bloc voting by republicans is ignored in your
analysis except on a few issues. Republicans seem to believe frankly that
party discipline is more important than consience, and fear of the right
wing also lead the party to seek a vote on an issue that the public could
never have accepted an alternate outcome on.
-art clemons-
olan
party manage to run against crime without the word crime being code
for dark skin? And aren't the majority of black voters against crime?
Even black crime? I would think a tough stance against crime would be
a vote "getter" in the black community, especially in some of the high
crime areas of our larger cities. Shows what I know!
As far as not providing for every wish of African American lobbying, I
assume you mean lobbyists advocating for African American interests,
and not lobbyists who are African Americans. I don't quite know how to
respond. Do African American groups lobby the Republican party? Who are
some of these groups and for what particular programs do they lobby?
As for the NRA, I'm sure they pour tons of money into electing Republicans,
as most Republicans I know are staunch supporters of the right to bear
arms in America. Don't the vast majority of African Americans support the
right to bear arms in America?
You have listed, as "starters", that the Rep.Party could attract more
African Amer. voters by "catering to the African American lobby" and
by not running for office by using code words like "crime". Are there
any other ways for the Republicans to attract more African American
voters?
bjc...@azstarnet.com
>
> This past election cycle was the first time
> tried to get out the Black vote.
When has the Republican party EVER done this?
Sheri
Artclemons
writes:
ac:
>>As a recent Editorial in a special edition of Emerge noted, nobody can point
>>to any reasonable attempt by republicans to attract masses of African-
>>American voters, either by voting records in aggregate or in positions of
>>the party on issues of concern to the community.
>
>
>That says nothing about Democrats taking the Black vote for granted.
It's a good indication of just why democrats can take the vote for granted.
Even half assed service is better than none in politics. That's the point,
republicans aren't competing for our votes or concerned about voting on
some issues in ways that will attract voters from the community.
>...
>
>>In that sense, African-Americans who
>>stick with the democrats are making a choice even if they would prefer
>>chocolate, strawberry or any of a variety of other flavors.
>
>Which means, Democrats can ignore certain issues of importance to
>Blacks. I point to the Emerge edition that analyzed the California
>anti-affirmative action proposition that demonstrates, clearly, how
>the Democrats did not make a push for legislation that is important to
>Blacks. And, IMO, those who did not support the effort to defeat that
>prop., should be voted out of office with someone who is willing to
>take Black interests more to heart.
So you're willing to suggest voting for republicans with stands on issues
even worse than the democrats who would be voted out. That's called
cutting off your nose to spite your face normally. Where are the candidates
with better stands on prop 209, and just what should democrats have done
on a supposedly non-partisan issue? Face it, Ward Connerly et al have
more funds, have learned to use parodies of civil rights legislation to deny
rights and are getting money from corporate sponsors to keep on doing
things like this. The fact that most whites are convinced that African-
Americans are living the good life based on affirmative action is a sad
commentary on how race still exists as a construct in this country, even
if the belief doesn't come near matching reality.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
wrote:
>What's the difference in someone who might stand to benefit from
>vouchers being in favor of them from one who stands to lose benefits
>being against them?
If you're making the statement that vouchers means losing the benefits
of the current educational system, I agree with you. If you're not, I
will simply say that I am not surprised that a man whose family is
deeply involved in the private school industry is a vocal supporter of
making it part of the public system.
That, in effect, is what vouchers do.
>The Flake fellow probably believes his school can do a better job
>educating children and sees vouchers as a way to give more children
>access to a better education.
As I said, his status as an impartial observer is totally compromised.
>s school is also probably only one of
>many private schools that parents can choose using their voucher.
>Remember, Flake's school has to "compete" with other private schools
>to attract students.
It also has to "compete" with public schools.
>Are you as concerned with the vested interests of students advocating
>more government student grants and loans?
You're obviously referring to college, which is not the issue that
school vouchers covers. It is a different system, Olan; attendance in
college is not mandatory, and is restricted by entrance requirements.
I don't really want to try to discuss the two issues in the same
context, as they are different altogether.
....
>Why would Flake be called a sellout for supporting vouchers?
I don't know, and I don't care. In fact, I don't even know who is
doing that, or if most people agree with the assessment in the town
where he lives.
>Aren't their many in the African American community who support the idea of
>school vouchers?
Sure, until they see the schools that vouchers support.
When most people find out what kind of education the meager handout of
vouchers will bring, they change their minds pretty quick.
Wayne "When you're starving, a chitlin sandwich sounds good, until you
smell it" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rich Thompson
> Every political party is against crime. Just how does the Democratic
> party manage to run against crime without the word crime being code
> for dark skin?
Willie Horton.
> And aren't the majority of black voters against crime?
Yes.
> Even black crime?
Yes.
> I would think a tough stance against crime would be
> a vote "getter" in the black community, especially in some of the high
> crime areas of our larger cities. Shows what I know!
No one's saying that being tough on crime isn't a vote getter. Art has
said nothing about being anti-crime. merely about using crime as code
words for Black.
> As for the NRA, I'm sure they pour tons of money into electing Republicans,
> as most Republicans I know are staunch supporters of the right to bear
> arms in America. Don't the vast majority of African Americans support the
> right to bear arms in America?
Again, you're missing Art's point. It isn't that the GOP should ignore the
NRA, but that they should pay as much attention to other lobbies.
> by not running for office by using code words like "crime". Are there
> any other ways for the Republicans to attract more African American
> voters?
Art?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>In article <36f998fd...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
>writes:
>
>>Oh sure....
>>Who voted straight party line on the impeachment issue?
>
>You raise an interesting topic. Democrats can be accused of voting as a
>bloc on this one issue, but the republican vote to impeach Clinton for example
>is also an example of rushing to judgement.
No disagreement.
...
>A better discussion of party discipline is how party members vote throughout
>a legislative term rather than just one issue or even two. When such a
>loyalty test is done, republicans are and have been a lot more disciplined
>and organized.
If you really look at it, you will find this is not the case. Just
look at the attempt to do term limits and campaign reform.