WAYS TO DIVIDE: On the basis of region!

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2014

Part 3—The infernal South: We humans!

We love to divide ourselves up into tribes. Quite often, we imagine our own imagined tribe as the one which is morally good.

The other tribes? Not so much!

There are a million ways to divide ourselves. At present, we live in a time of high tribal impulse—and alas:

As we divide ourselves up in these ways, the one percent continues to conquer! For evidence of this ongoing process, see the report in today’s New York Times about the decline of American middle-income groups.

(Headline: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest)

People in those declining income groups come from red states as well as blue. Those people vote for both parties. As we picture ourselves in warring tribes, we’re all getting heavily screwed.

On Monday, we mentioned the new Salon’s fascination with dividing us by generations. Yesterday, we briefly considered the tendency to divide ourselves by our zealotry—by the way we welcome the hate of those Others.

Today, let’s consider division on the basis of region. In particular, we’ll recommend the fascinating piece in the current Atlantic about the “resegregation” of the Tuscaloosa public schools.

The piece was written by ProPublica’s Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Warning! When we say the piece is “fascinating,” we don’t necessarily mean that as a compliment. Since we plan to discuss that piece all next week, we won’t discuss it much now.

That said, Hannah-Jones is discussing a process of white and black flight which has happened all over the nation. At one point in her very long piece, Hannah-Jones basically states this obvious fact, though in a fleeting fashion:
HANNAH-JONES (4/6/14): Schools in the South, once the most segregated in the country, had by the 1970s become the most integrated, typically as a result of federal court orders. But since 2000, judges have released hundreds of school districts, from Mississippi to Virginia, from court-enforced integration, and many of these districts have followed the same path as Tuscaloosa’s—back toward segregation. Black children across the South now attend majority-black schools at levels not seen in four decades. Nationally, the achievement gap between black and white students, which greatly narrowed during the era in which schools grew more integrated, widened as they became less so.

In recent years, a new term, apartheid schools— meaning schools whose white population is 1 percent or less, schools like Central [High in Tuscaloosa]— has entered the scholarly lexicon. While most of these schools are in the Northeast and Midwest, some 12 percent of black students in the South now attend such schools—a figure likely to rise as court oversight continues to wane. In 1972, due to strong federal enforcement, only about 25 percent of black students in the South attended schools in which at least nine out of 10 students were racial minorities. In districts released from desegregation orders between 1990 and 2011, 53 percent of black students now attend such schools, according to an analysis by ProPublica.
The term “apartheid school” is of course designed to excite. That said, Hannah-Jones notes, in a fleeting aside, that most of the nation’s “apartheid schools” are in the Northeast and Midwest.

We’ll guess that many readers of her piece didn’t completely ingest that fact. Various aspects of her piece may give us the feeling that we are considering an artifact of the South.

The portion of the piece we’ve quoted was also quoted by Ta-Nehisi Coates, in this blog post about the piece. Coates’ post appears beneath the headline, “Segregation Forever.”

That headline’s meaning is fleshed out by a photo of George Wallace, who famously stands in the schoolhouse door.

“[F]or right now, the struggle for integration is largely over,” Coates says at the end of his post, which we’ll discuss next week. The first commenter said this:
COMMENTER: It might be over, for now, in the south. It MUST continue in other places. I live in Pittsburgh PA. It's pretty awfully segregated now. I can only hope—and apply work toward—the idea that it is crucial for all colors of people (which mostly means convincing fellow whites) that integration, voluntary integration, is critical for our success.
Is the struggle for “integration” largely over? Is it largely over in the South?

Is the struggle more over in the South than in our own more enlightened regions? Is it possible that there is more of a struggle going on in the South?

Every time we divide ourselves into tribes, we help the plutocrats conquer. Sometimes, such division or opposition is necessary, of course.

When it isn’t, we the superior beings are committing a type of “own goal.” Our conduct makes us feel good about ourselves—and it helps the plutocrats conquer.

In the current political environment, we liberals and progressives are strongly inclined to divide. Our multimillionaire TV stars strongly recommend this process. In part, it may be their way of puffing us up, thus keeping ratings alive.

When we divide without good cause, we help the plutocrats win. And we’re strongly inclined to tribal division on the basis of region. Just consider that news report in the New York Times.

At the University of Mississippi, a couple of undergraduates had done a pitifully stupid thing. They defaced a statue of James Meredith, who bravely integrated the school when a different governor stood in a schoolhouse door.

The New York Times doesn’t care for the South. The great newspaper swung into action, helping us learn to divide.

The report was written by Alan Blinder (headline included). Sometimes, God perhaps may send us messages through real people’s real names:
BLINDER (2/21/14): Racist Incidents Continue to Stir Ole Miss Campus

[...]

By many measures, the university, which hosted a presidential debate in 2008, is an entirely different place from the one Mr. Meredith entered, one that combines contemporary ambition with seductive charm. Nearly 41 percent of its undergraduates are from outside Mississippi, up from 33 percent a decade ago. Minorities make up nearly a quarter of the student body, and the university's average ACT score is at its highest level ever.

But reminders of the university's Jim Crow past continue to permeate its idyllic campus, set among oaks and magnolias and fabled for the Grove, perhaps the most hallowed football tailgating spot in a region full of imitators.

An epithet-saturated demonstration in the aftermath of President Obama's 2012 re-election resulted in the arrests of two students.

More recently, a September production of ''The Laramie Project,'' a play about the 1998 murder of a gay college student in Wyoming, gained notoriety after an outbreak of homophobic heckling by audience members.

University officials readily acknowledge the residual intolerance that has so often called attention back to a place where the federal authorities had to force Mr. Meredith's enrollment. And even as administrators note their successes, they concede that they are confronting a challenge with deep and difficult roots.

''There are some people who see this institution through the eyes of the '60s and forever will,'' said Donald R. Cole, the university's assistant to the chancellor for multicultural affairs.
Was Cole talking about those pitiful teens? Or was he thinking of Blinder?

We’re just asking! Let’s return to the heart of this news report:

Is Blinder’s basic premise true? Do reminders of this school’s Jim Crow past continue to permeate its campus?

To appearances, Blinder had so few “racist incidents” to cite that he had to turn to a homophobic incident as the second example of this campus’ fallen nature.

(In its original reporting on that incident, the Times said the heckling had come from varsity football players who had been told to attend the play. This at least suggests the possibility that the unfortunate heckling—which could have happened on many campuses—may at least have been a case of “black and white together.”)

In its rather obvious hatred of the South, we think the Times often acts as a regressive force. By the way: Did you ever imagine that the weird Clinton/Gore hatred which emerged from the Times was, in part, perhaps inspired by this regional bias?

It almost surely was, of course—and it had demonic effects. Did it cross your mind that the regional bias of our favorite journalists could end up producing deaths all over the world?

Can we talk? In our view, Blinder didn’t seem to have many “racist incidents” to trumpet. But, as is the norm at the Times, the thrilling phrase found its way into a pleasing headline.

We saw a lot of unwise regionalism in that fascinating piece at the Atlantic. We’ll discuss that piece next week, along with Coates’ (admittedly brief) assessment.

But lord, how we humans love to think that our tribe is morally better than theirs! Very often, that isn’t the case—and the mistaken belief just helps the plutocrats win!

Tomorrow: Attempting some tenderness

Classic Times reporting: Note the classic New York Times reporting:
BLINDER: By many measures, the university, which hosted a presidential debate in 2008, is an entirely different place from the one Mr. Meredith entered, one that combines contemporary ambition with seductive charm. Nearly 41 percent of its undergraduates are from outside Mississippi, up from 33 percent a decade ago. Minorities make up nearly a quarter of the student body, and the university's average ACT score is at its highest level ever.
By many measures? Blinder’s first (apparent) example is not a measure of the way the university differs from the one Meredith entered.

The second example is a measure of the difference. Today, the student body is 25 percent “minorities.” Back then, the corresponding percentage was of course zero percent.

Has someone been trying to do the right things even here, in the state we most love to hate? Is it possible that a little tenderness would let us find allies in Mississippi, even perhaps in locations we didn’t perhaps suspect?

48 comments:

  1. Blinder wrote: Nationally, the achievement gap between black and white students, which greatly narrowed during the era in which schools grew more integrated, widened as they became less so.

    I have three questions.

    Did the achievement gap really widen in recent years? I seem to recall figures Bob has presented showing that the gap has been narrowing.

    If the gap has been widening, is greater racial separation the cause? When Brown v. Board of Ed. was decided, black schools were given lower budgets and were mostly second-rate schools. That's not the case today. Primarily black schools are given pretty much equal budgets. In some cases, they're given larger per-student budgets.

    So, why should black students learn less if a school has fewer non-black students, assuming that's the only change?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The football player who yelled out an anti-gay slur may have been doing it because he felt coerced into seeing the play. When you take into account the immense hostility directed towards males and the ongoing campaign to make us, especially the white straight ones, feel guilty about pretty much everything real and imagined (see, for example, rape culture), acts of rebellion are going to happen. And, as we have seen when minorities have been rebelling against their oppression, people who have legitimate complaints are not always smart about it.

    As a young man I remember people giving Hitler salutes during patriotic ceremonies they were forced to attend during the Vietnam War. Same principle and they most definitely had my sympathy. People, it seems, don't like being coerced for some reason. Who's doing the coercion and for what reason is often a decidedly secondary issue. And as anyone reading these threads should be able to see, left-wingers are no slouches at attempted abuse and intimidation.

    Ironically, Matthew Sheppard may actually have been murdered by a gay lover with whom he was also apparently a rival in the illegal drug trade with.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/stephen-jimenez-matthew-shepard_n_3914707.html

    If true, that would severely damage the purity of the narrative. And the pseudo-enlightened bigots of the left just love their purity and the rage-aholic fury that goes with it. See Duke lacrosse.

    Also the wage-gap myth.

    Let the abuse begin!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a mighty fine whine!

      S

      Delete
    2. Maybe we should let both David and HB have this blog. Or what's left of it.

      Delete
    3. It appears we're off to a slow start.

      Delete
    4. You're right. Let's get cracking!

      It seems that HB, the beneficiary of a white supremacist, heteronomative, misogynist culture isn't getting as many goodies as he used to. So I'm having a sad. A sad for you and all the angry white guys out there who aren't getting as much "white guys r best" bang for their buck.

      Oh, wait. I lied. HB, the world is changin, get over it.

      S

      Delete
    5. Yep HB, now days if you're white man with a job you're labeled an "oppressor", guilty of and responsible for all the sins of mankind.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @1:15 is absolutely right.

      Meritocracy is dead. Grievance culture is the new world order. Get over it.

      Delete
    7. Poor widdle picked on white boys! Waaaah, waaaah, WAAAAAH!

      Delete
    8. Dear S,

      You are a perfect self-parodying stereotypical left-wing ass. Your go-to reaction is to mock, demean and stereotype me and dismiss anything I have to say simply because I am white and male. I am, to you, the hated other.

      First off, we are not a white supremacist culture anymore. It just so happens that the wealthiest demographic happens to be Asian. Also our current president appears to have a suspiciously dusky hue for this white supremacist culture you claim we have. Maybe the attorney general should investigate.

      Gay rights are advancing as they should. Homophobia is stupid. Before long gay marriage will be legal in every state. I voted for it in mine.

      Also did anyone tell you that one of our US senators from the very milk-fed state of Wisconsin is openly a lesbian? How heteronormative can one get?

      The idea that our society is misogynistic but not misandrist is stupidity itself.

      Let's take reproductive freedom as an example. In America a woman has a multitude of birth control options. There's the pill, injections, diaphrams, implants, rings, she can get her tubes tied, take the morning after pill, use condemns and, in the vast majority of cases can get an abortion if she wants one.

      And even if she gives birth she can give the kid up for adoption.

      Now let's look at the man's situation. He can trust the woman to say she's taking the pill, although women who want babies when their men don't have been known to lie and go "oops!" There's condoms which cut down on sensitivity. They can get vasectomies which only make it six times more likely that you'll get prostate cancer and that's pretty much it.

      And if a woman gets knocked up he has no rights. If she wants to get an abortion she can get one even if he offers to raise the child himself. If she wants to have a child and he doesn't she can force him into financial servitude for 18 years. If he fails to pay he can even be tossed into debtors' prison.

      And of course men are always being portrayed as violent criminals and characters like Homer Simpson--who BTW is funny as hell.

      That doesn't look like a misogynistic culture to me.

      But of course, S, no one can possibly have a valid opinion on this sort of thing except you and your friends, right?

      Why you're so enlightened you don't even have to think about it!

      And thank goodness you're not some jerk like me who's obviously living in the past.

      Delete
    9. Shorter HB:

      Waaaah, Waaaaah. Everybody's being mean to me cause I'm a poor widdle white boy! Waaaah, waaaah, WAAAAAAAH!

      Delete
    10. Oh, HB,

      Forgive me for underestimating you. Little did I realize that you are almost a citizen of the 21st century. So, let me get this straight, you're down with people of color, and embrace the destruction of the closet, it's just the bitchezzz that are the problem.
      Pro tip: trusting people that you have sex with makes it way less stressful. You can have that one for free!

      S

      Delete
    11. Dear S,

      I'm not "down with" black people. I simply pointed out that your claim of ours being a white supremacist society is obviously false. And that your implied accusation that I was "heteronormative" was based on nothing more than your stupid, bigoted notions of what white men are like.

      As for women, it's not that the "bitchezzz" are the problem. It's that feminists (who do not represent women as over 70% of all women refuse to identify themselves as such). It was your claim that we live in a misogynistic society. I simple used reproductive rights as an example of one area where women are obviously advantaged over men, which would not be true if your claim was accurate. It was perfectly clear that that was my intent. I said as much. The fact that your reading comprehension sucks is your problem.

      Regarding your tip: You may want to consider forming an organization called Future Suckers of America and make yourself president. Chances are you're going to escape trouble because most women are OK. But there are a few destructive loonies out there and you're leaving yourself open to permanent tragic damage.

      Delete
    12. "I simple used reproductive rights as an example of one area where women are obviously advantaged over men,"

      BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

      Congratulations, HB. You just broke the record for the dumbest thing ever said on TDH, and that takes some doing.

      Delete
    13. 4:02 you are right.

      But I still maintain partiality to "Losers, guess what? The volume of traffic on the bridge has nothing to do with this story. Traffic across the bridge was not affected..." followed closely by "Governor Ultrasound still hasn't been charged!"

      Delete
    14. Dear Anonymous at 4:02,

      You claim that the idea that women are advantaged over men when it comes to reproductive rights is "the dumbest thing ever said on TDH."

      Fine. Please explain to me how men are advantaged over women in this area. This is your opportunity to really show me up.

      Go!

      Delete
    15. "Is it possible that the mess in Fort Lee really was some sort of bungled traffic study?"

      And . . .

      "For ourselves, we almost never root for people to get charged with crimes, and this case [Gov. Ultrasound] doesn’t seem all that heinous, despite the cheerleading Maddow has done in the past year."

      Nope. Even that obvious stupidity can't top ""I simple used reproductive rights as an example of one area where women are obviously advantaged over men"

      Delete
    16. Dear Anonymous at 4:32,

      Perhaps you and the other Anon missed it but I went into some detail to show how women are advantaged over men when it comes to reproductive freedom. in my post at 2:48.

      You can mock me if that's what you emotionally need to do but, according to feminists we live in a society in which men are privileged over women in virtually all aspects of society. I think the claim is bullshit.

      But here's your chance to prove me wrong. I issue you the same challenge I issued the other Anonymous who called me stupid. Show everyone how men are advantaged over women when it comes to reproductive freedom. Make a case. In fact, I think you'd better because if you can't you seriously risk looking like one tremendous asshole.

      Delete
    17. Well, fear not, HB. Your stupidity record lasted just long enough for Somerby to launch into a defense of Hannity's coverage of Bundy.

      But to soothe your feelings, yes I did read your detail. I found it utterly stupid as well.

      And no, I do not have to "prove" you wrong. Or stupid. You're doing all the heavy lifting yourself.

      Delete
    18. I see. So, you're "proof" that what I said is stupid is your assertion that it's stupid.

      My, what a pathetically inadequate response.

      The real reason you are not responding is because I have you. If you could show why what I wrote was stupid you would. You would be nothing short of overjoyed to do it. But, not being an rigid intellectual conformist such as yourself I am easily able to out think you. Therefore you are forced to make an ass of yourself by calling me stupid without being able to explain why.

      You are a victim of your education. You don't know how to think and are ruled by prejudice.

      And you are stupid.

      Delete
    19. "The real reason you are not responding is because I have you."

      Yep. You got it. How could anyone possibly argue against this piece of brilliance?

      "I simple [sic] used reproductive rights as an example of one area where women are obviously advantaged over men"

      BWWAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHA!


      Delete
    20. I've noticed that typing "BWWAAAAHAAHAHAHA" has become the new liberal call to arms. And to think I used to identify as one. It is embarrassing.

      Delete
    21. HB,

      I can't speak for others, but I mock you for a couple of reasons. The first is your absurd sense of grievance as a white, heterosexual man. Such a burden. It's a good thing that we own everything, eh? Kinda makes up for all the abuse we have to take.

      The second reason is that I'm just plain a bad person. Instead of mocking contempt, I should patiently try to come to an understanding with you. A football player was coerced into seeing a play, you say? The horror! How did that work exactly? Were there really Hitler salutes at patriotic ceremonies during the Vietnam War? Are you sure this just isn't an urban myth like all those leftists spitting on returning soldiers? Do you understand that those supposed salutes wouldn't be the antisemitic equivalent of homophobic slogans but rather protests against government policy?

      And those minorities who had legitimate complaints but weren't always smart about it? So true. Of course, you're referring to the the Freedom Riders who challenged segregated interstate bus lines in the face of repeated threats of violence that were often carried out, right? Not very smart to provoke the kind of beatings they invited, I agree.

      All those left-wingers howling after the Duke Lacrosse team. Like Nancy Grace? And on these threads abusing and intimidating. How does that work exactly?

      And let's discuss how Matthew Shepard was likely murdered by a gay lover. 'Cause we've got the proof from author Stephen Jimenez using anonymous sources, meth addicts, a disbarred lawyer, and a Laramie escort service operator who says he might have seen Shepard and his murderer together but he's not sure. Go here:

      http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/02/debunking-stephen-jimenezs-effort-to-de-gay-mat/196229

      But the truth is that I haven't got the strength to discuss the relative burdens or childbearing and childrearing with someone who thinks that vasectomies are linked to increased rates of prostate cancer.

      And if I can't laugh at you for your ignorance, I'm afraid I'll end up crying for myself.

      Delete
    22. Deadrat,

      I am angry because we are being treated in ways that would immediately be recognized as bigotry if that sort of talk was directed at any other group. Nobody likes that. Feminists accuse us of being part of a fictional entity called the patriarchy by which we assign all the advantages to men and all the disadvantages to women. Feminists have declared that masculinity itself is toxic. Also that there is this thing they call rape culture in which we seek to condone and normalize rape. Rape is almost the most despised crime in our culture. The claim is a lie.

      White men are constantly told "check your privilege" when we disagree with a point. That is, our opinions are being rejected precisely because we are white and male.

      What is so difficult to understand? Nobody likes being treated as less worthy because of their race, gender, etc. THAT INCLUDES WHITE MEN.

      I don't reject something as wrong or stupid or worthless just because it comes from a woman or a minority. Why don't I deserve the same respect?

      And nobody likes being coerced even if it's just to go see a play. What is so hard to understand about that?

      Look what happens when men try to speak out on men's issues.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

      What if a bunch of white guys treated gays like that? Women? Blacks? What would you say then?

      Let's talk about Duke lacrosse. Here you had a fraternity of men accused of one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, gang rape, by a woman with a history of mental illness and violent assault. The accused immediately offered police DNA samples and cooperation. Instead the prosecutor went on an obvious witch hunt. Yet despite the absurd flimsiness of the case against them the news media went into a months-long frenzy in which their guilt was vociferously presumed. Why? Because, we were told, white straight male athletes have privilege so naturally they would assume that they have the right to rape a black woman.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6nUOuD5nTc

      Nope. No hatred of white men there.

      If a bunch of blacks had gotten railroaded like that, left wingers like you would be jumping for joy over the continuing stain of racisma. Nothing like that has happened in decades.

      And nobody who got it wrong appears to have suffered the slightest career damage as a result. There was no soul searching, no accountability and certainly no apologies to all of the people they slandered.

      But I'm being ridiculous? Screw you.

      When I refer to blacks, for example, not being too smart I am not of course referring to the freedom riders. They were smart. So was MLK. You are assuming that I am being blind and stupid but that is because you are a bigot who hates white men.

      I was thinking more of Malcolm X who belonged to a crackpot religion which proclaimed that white people were literally devils created by a black mad scientist. I am referring to the black panthers who preached violence. I am referring the string of riots in places like Newark, Detroit, Watts, etc. in which blacks destroyed their own neighborhoods.

      They behaved like assholes but the main point of their cause was just.

      Point taken on Sheppard (thanks, NPR) and slightly with vasectomies (there is a link but I overestimated it). I was going on memory which proved a mistake.

      However, I notice you copped out about reproductive freedom in which women have virtually all the rights in what is supposed to be an oppressive patriarchal society. (You waxed sanctimonious as in an obvious attempt to dodge the issue.) I therefore assume that you think men should be roped into 18 years of child support against their will. That you're OK with men having virtually no reproductive freedom at all. And being thrown in jail because of debts is OK with you.

      And if you're OK with this status quo then you have, of course, admitted that patriarchy theory is man-hating bullshit. Because if the Patriarchy were real, we'd have all the rights.

      Have to hit the road. Have fun.

      Delete
    23. HB,

      Here's what makes you ridiculous: your sense of outrage and your abyssal ignorance are in a positive feedback loop. Let me choose two examples.

      And nobody likes being coerced even if it's just to go see a play. But we're "coerced" all the time because society wouldn't work without that coercion. I just filed my taxes last week, the classic coercion, but I didn't fly into an epithet-spouting rage about it. The Ole Miss newspaper online says, "According to several accounts, the football players attended the play because they are enrolled in a freshman-level theater course that requires the students to attend a specific number of plays throughout the semester." So they enrolled in a course and were "coerced" into following the syllabus. In my junior year, I enrolled in a literature course and was forced to read Jude the Obscure. I still think that unconscionable, but I didn't disrupt the class.

      Do you get my point? I asked a question you should have asked yourself: how would coercing students into seeing a play even work? The answer would have informed you that there was no actual coercion, but you were so eager to be offended on behalf of the football players that you never challenged your own ignorance.

      Second example, Duke lacrosse team:
      <quote>
      And nobody who got it wrong appears to have suffered the slightest career damage as a result. There was no soul searching, no accountability and certainly no apologies to all of the people they slandered.... If a bunch of blacks had gotten railroaded like that, left wingers like you would be jumping for joy over the continuing stain of racisma [sic]. Nothing like that has happened in decades.
      </quote>

      But the original DA, Mike Nifong, who got it wrong, was forced from his job, disbarred, and convicted of criminal contempt. Nifong apologized to the team members, as did the President of Duke. Were there plenty of people who should have apologized but didn't? Sure, but you fuel your outrage with the "no accountability claim." Why didn't the recent death of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter might prompt you to rethink the "nothing like that in decades" comment? Google "Tulia, Texas."

      I haven't mentioned your absurd rant about reproductive freedom because I don't know how to have a rational conversation with someone who thinks that there are debtors' prisons in the US awaiting men who don't want to support the inconvenient children they fathered.

      So I resort to mockery. I know that makes me a bad person, but it's all I have left.

      Delete
    24. HB from a public computer.

      There's a difference between having to pay your taxes and being told that you are required to see a play as part of a politicized agenda. You should maybe spend some time at the web site called F.I.R.E for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Here's a pretty good example of men being forced to listen to hate propaganda directed at them:

      http://www.thefire.org/cases/hamilton-college-thought-reform-of-pro-rape-male-freshmen-5/

      My mistake on Duke lacrosse for not being clearer. I was referring to faculty and news reporters who got it wrong. Take Nancy Grace. None of the faculty who rushed to affirm that the players were guilty were punished. Many have received promotions. Then there's Amanda Marcotte. After the players were exonerated she declared as follows:

      "I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and fucked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair"

      During the whole imbroglio she called people who were correctly skeptical "rape apologists" and "rape loving scum."

      http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/04/flashback-amanda-marcottes-take-on-duke.html

      Yet instead of being marginalized, the left-wing blogosphere rallied around her. No career damage. She's even been since invited to skeptic conferences as an expert on gender issues and also appeared on the Rachel Maddow show. She has never acknowledged error.

      Hurricane Carter happened almost 50 years ago. That's over four decades. In the Tulia, TX incident the news media appropriately condemned the sheriff as soon as people realized what was happening. There was no comparable months-long-and-damn-the-facts media lynch mob to punish the innocent the way there was during Duke lacrosse. Ergo your examples don't hold water.

      And Duke lacrosse was a perfect example of what jerks lefties like you are. You ignored a mountain of evidence that the players were innocent. Any skepticism was met with accusations of white male privilege and rape apology. This went on for months and guess what, Deadrat? YOUR SIDE WAS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY WRONG. IT WAS THE VERY PEOPLE YOU LIKE TO MOCK WHO TURNED OUT TO BE RIGHT.

      And yet the total failure on your end certainly hasn't caused you to rethink your ideas in the least, has it? Why? BECAUSE YOU ARE A STUPID BIGOT.

      As for there not being debtor's prisons;

      http://www.alternet.org/economy/debtors-prisons-are-alive-and-well-america.

      http://www.acluohio.org/cases/james-harris

      Now please explain to me how we have a patriarchal society when women can opt out of parenthood but men can't.

      Delete
    25. HB,
      Get off the cross. We need the wood and nails.

      Berto

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    27. Sorry, Berton. I need it to beat imbeciles like you over the head with.

      Delete
    28. HB,

      Yes, there's certainly a difference between having to pay your taxes and being told that you have to do the work in a class you signed up for.

      Hamilton College is a private institution. They have broad discretion under the Constitution to set the rules for who listens to what on their campus. Even when stupid things get said and listened to. No one is forced to attend Hamilton College, and your own link makes it clear that the despised lecture was made optional.

      Hurricane Carter was just supposed to get you to slow down and think. What a fool's errand that suggestion was. Yes, there's a difference between Tulia and Duke LaCrosse. The Tulia victims spent time in prison.

      I don't have a side, and if I had one, Nancy Grace wouldn't be on it.

      You can always pull out an example of the worst. We tolerate these examples in our society because we value the 1st Amendment; we tolerate these examples in our universities because we value academic freedom. YMMV.

      There are no debtors prisons in Ohio or anywhere else in the country. Even the ACLU uses scare quotes. James Harris pleaded guilty to the charges so he could get probation. The problem here is that poor people get caught up in a system they have no means to fight, not that people who owe child support are being swept into prison.

      I mock you because there's no other mode of communication with you. You can't get your facts straight. The sources you cite don't support your position. You reify abstractions and project your opponents into them. Your ignorance is abyssal. (Do you have a clue how inapt it is to use the term "lynch mob" for the Duke Lacrosse media frenzy?) And your idea of disagreement is use ALL CAPS to call me a stupid bigot. Sorry, A STUPID BIGOT.

      Here's my explanation of why women can opt out of parenthood but men can't. You see, when a Mommy and Daddy love each other very much, and even when they don't know each other at all but have a shared taste for tequila, ….

      Delete
    29. The only thing that stops a bad guy with First Amendment rights (in this case, HB), is good guys with First Amendment rights.

      Berto

      Delete
  3. Those who come closer to representing my general political leanings are far more extreme, irrational, and repulsive than those representing the other tribe. On the authoritarian impulse plus power potential level, they seem far more dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you live in a world with just two tribes.

      Delete
    2. So do you, presuming you're an American voter.

      Delete
  4. Bob need to quit fostering regional divisions by constantly referencing the legal restrictions on the education of our black citizens. Because some people still see the Confederate battle flag as part of their heritage, suggesting some of their ancestors might have been less than racially tolerant could make difficult our efforts to find the common language necessary to unite all the 99% in struggle against our plutocratic looters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob, if you really want to know how easy it is to divide and conquer, read some of the crap your fan Hieronymous is writing.

    All you have to do is tell an idiot like him that someone else is getting something he's not getting, and that's the reason he's such a loser. It's THEIR fault.

    And the idiot will then do anything you want, including voting directly against his own economic interests and for the interests of the plutocracy.

    Bet he, just like you, thought the Mittster was just a swell guy.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate to break the news to you, if you voted for either of those two bankster buttlickers in '12 you were voting for the economic interests of the plutocrats.

      Delete
    2. Ah yes. Obama is just as bad as Romney. Sure.

      Thank you Mr. Nader. Now crawl back into your hole.

      Delete
    3. Just as bad? Plutocrats run the show either way. Deal with it.

      Delete
  6. I wonder if the follow up posts TDH promises on the single article by
    Nikole Hannah-Jones will demonstrate he actually read the article.
    This one clearly does not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We've made a lot of positive advances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As God is my witness I'll never go hungry again.

      Delete