Rand and "Black Hate Radio"

Donna, you wrote,

Bill, I was certain my post demonstrates that I understand what you have in mind.

I disagree.

I maintain my position: Knowing what one is "for" does NOT define all that one is against.

I never said it did. I simply said that knowing what a person is for can tell you a lot more about his or her values than knowing what the person is against. Do you disagree with that? Seriously.

Also,
YOU SAY:
"...wouldn't it be better to say that you for the rights of all human beings, blacks included? "

*chuckle*

Why? To make sure that I "include" you?...*s*
and imply/render my greatest concerns secondary?

Nah...

Donna, I don't know whether you are joking or serious. But if I take you seriously, then what you are telling me is that to be in favor of the rights of blacks is not to be in favor of the rights of human beings in general -- that, for you, rights are not human, but racial -- not non-discriminatory (in the invidious sense), but biased and preferential. Rather than dismiss this view out of hand, which most people would, let me simply point out that it cannot be consistently maintained. The concept of unequal rights is a contradiction in terms, because a right is a moral principle and, as such, applies to all moral agents, regardless of their race or ethnicity. But common sense should already have told you that.

YOU SAY:
"Well, if all you knew about a person is what you saw him do, that certainly wouldn't tell you that his actions conform to or contradict his explicit philosophy, since you wouldn't know his philosophy to begin with; nor would his action tell you as much about the rest of his values as if you did know his philosophy."

Actions speak loudly to a person's beliefs, passions, etc.
BOTH listening and observing, to me, are useful in knowing who a person is, and what he/she stands for.

Yes, of course, and I have never denied that. My point was only that defining oneself in terms of negatives, and especially in terms of that which one hates and despises is a far less effective means of communicating one's values than stating that which one supports and upholds.

There is another problem with making hate the centerpiece of one's philosophy. Once you've negated or destroyed the object of your hate, what are you going to replace it with? To tear down is not to build up. To destroy is not to create. Life requires positive, productive activity, not just the elimination of the negatives. When the communist revolutionaries destroyed the Czarist regime in Russia, they didn't think too much about the political system they were going to replace it with, and of course, the replacement turned out to be a disaster. Similarly, in South Africa, getting rid of apartheid didn't improve matters as much as people had thought it would. There's a tremendous amount or crime there now, even though you no longer have the kind of political segregation that existed before. Or take Iraq. The U.S. thought that with the ouster of Saddam, there would be a significant improvement for the average Iraqi citizen. But I don't think they considered who or what would be likely to fill the vacuum. "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss" (or worse!)

What you're against is not as important as what you're for.

- Bill

Post 101

Friday, March 17, 2006 - 11:21am

Whew!...I'm still reeling trying to figure out how I'm gonna figure out what the Torian "morning' hours are.
4:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.? 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.? 6:00 to 9:00?

*s*

Anyway, Bill

1) When I vouched for Mr. Torain re non-discriminatory, you DID attempt a negative spin via "indiscriminate"

2) Also, YOU SAY:
Donna, I don't know whether you are joking or serious. But if I take you seriously, then what you are telling me is that to be in favor of the rights of blacks is not to be in favor of the rights of human beings in general -- that, for you, rights are not human, but racial

Not "joking", perhaps "jesting"
(that's meaning what I say in an amusing way).

As for the rest of your post and what I'm telling you - Negatory, there Bill
For ME, rights are racial? Surely you jest!
(How about for those who constructed race to begin with?)

3) YOU SAY: To tear down is not to build up...

A tearing down makes room for a building of something else.

Also "tearing down" as a perequisite to rebuilding
i.e.,The public education system (in addition to other systems) needs to be torn down and rebuilt...on a new foundation

4) YOU SAY: What you're against is not as important as what you're for.

My response to that, in the words of Bill Dwyer -

That depends...

*s*

Post 102

Friday, March 17, 2006 - 1:07pm

Donna wrote,

1) When I vouched for Mr. Torain re non-discriminatory, you DID attempt a negative spin via "indiscriminate"

Okay. Here is what I said,

You mean racially non-discriminatory hate, I take it. There's another meaning of non-discriminatory, and that's "indiscriminate." Obviously, indiscriminate hate, like indiscriminate love, is a contradiction in terms, because these emotional responses presuppose a standard of value - a standard of discrimination or preference.

I wasn't putting a negative spin on "racially non-discriminatory hate," although the concept of "hate" already has a negative connotation; I was putting a negative spin on indiscriminate hate, which, as I said, is another meaning of the term "non-discriminatory."

2) Also, YOU SAY:
Donna, I don't know whether you are joking or serious. But if I take you seriously, then what you are telling me is that to be in favor of the rights of blacks is not to be in favor of the rights of human beings in general -- that, for you, rights are not human, but racial
Not "joking", perhaps "jesting"
(that's meaning what I say in an amusing way).

As for the rest of your post and what I'm telling you - Negatory, there Bill
For ME, rights are racial? Surely you jest!
(How about for those who constructed race to begin with?)

Donna, will you please stop speaking in code, and say what you mean. Are you serious, or aren't you? You say you were "jesting" which is meaning what you say in an amusing way. Okay, then you were serious. You meant what you said, and what you said is that you don't believe in generalizing the concept of rights to all human beings. In case you've forgotten, here is the dialogue:

Also,
YOU SAY:
"...wouldn't it be better to say that you for the rights of all human beings, blacks included?"
*chuckle*

Why? To make sure that I "include" you?...*s*
and imply/render my greatest concerns secondary?

Nah...

"Nah" meaning you don't believe that rights are inclusive. Then when I say that for you rights are racial, you accuse me of jesting! What kind of game are you playing, sister?!

3) YOU SAY: To tear down is not to build up...

A tearing down makes room for a building of something else.
Of course, it does! Why would you think that this is something I would deny??
Also "tearing down" as a perequisite to rebuilding
i.e.,The public education system (in addition to other systems) needs to be torn down and rebuilt...on a new foundation.

Yes, and what is that foundation? You see, this is precisely the problem. I agree that the public school system needs to be dismantled, but what I favor -- what I am for -- is replacing it with private education. The problem with public education is that it is public education -- publicly financed and run by the government. Show me one activity that the government runs well that couldn't be run better by private enterprise! The old saying, "Good enough for government work" has a real basis in fact. What is good enough for the government is not good enough for the rest of us. As economist Milton Friedman argues, if you want to upgrade the quality of our educational system, make it competitive, and allow schools to compete with each other. There's a reason socialism doesn't work, whether it's socialized medicine or socialized education: State-run enterprises are notoriously incompetent and inefficient, because they have no competition. They cannot go out of business, because the government can simply increase taxes and continue pouring money down a rathole. Privatization is the best foundation for future education.

4) YOU SAY: What you're against is not as important as what you're for.

My response to that, in the words of Bill Dwyer -

That depends...

There's a sense in which it does, but I was counting on you to keep the relevant context. *s* Of course, if I say, "I'm for apple pie, but I'm against genocide," what I'm against is more important than what I'm for. But that's not the sort of thing I had in mind, as if you didn't know! *s* I was assuming a certain context. If we keep the context the same, then what I'm for is more important than what I'm against. For example, if I say, "I'm against genocide," that doesn't mean that I'm against slavery, but if I say, "I'm for individual rights -- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that means that I'm against genocide and slavery and coercively financed public education, and a whole host of other statist evils too numerous to mention!

- Bill

Post 103

Friday, March 17, 2006 - 5:51pm

Bill, I know what ya said.

I got it.

I SAID - You attempted to put a negative spin...

YOU SAID - I didn't put a negative spin on this, I put a negative spin on that...*sigh*

You attempted to put a negative spin on "non-discriminatory". Stop it.


YOU SAY - what one is "for" is more important than what one is "against".

I SAY - Not necessarily and/or in all cases.

YOU SAY - Individuals should never define themselves by what they're against.

I SAY - I'm cool with individuals defining themselves how they choose.
             What's more important, to me, is that individuals begin to "define THEMSELVES.


With this comment of yours, I rest my case...

YOU SAY: if I say, "I'm for individual rights -- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

"Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"...Dang, where have I heard that before?

that means that I'm against genocide and slavery and coercively financed public education, and a whole host of other statist evils too numerous to mention!

*Falling off of my chair laughing*

Maybe that's what it means FOR YOU, Bill.

Maybe that's what it means for you.


I'm done...

(Edited by Get to living! Donna Reed on 3/18, 6:00am)

Post 104

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 5:06pm

Donna wrote:

You attempted to put a negative spin on "non-discriminatory". Stop it.

I've explained repeatedly that the term "non-discriminatory" has more than one meaning -- that it can mean non-discriminating or indiscriminate -- and that is it non-discriminatory hate in this latter sense that I regard as incoherent. Yet you continue to ignore my explanation and act as if "non-discriminatory" can have only one meaning, which is "unbiased." Either you are incapable of grasping the simplest distinctions, or you are being deliberately obtuse and are not arguing in good faith -- most likely the latter.

YOU SAY - what one is "for" is more important than what one is "against".

I SAY - Not necessarily and/or in all cases.

Donna, I replied to this objection in my last post. If you found my reply unsatisfactory, at least make some effort to address what I said, rather than simply repeat your previous objection.

YOU SAY - Individuals should never define themselves by what they're against.

I SAY - I'm cool with individuals defining themselves how they choose.
What's more important, to me, is that individuals begin to "define THEMSELVES.

Yes, people should be free to define themselves however they choose. I have no problem with that. My point was only that if you want to communicate your values, which is the purpose of defining yourself to others in certain way, then you will accomplish that goal better by stating in fundamental terms what you are for rather than what you are against.

With this comment of yours, I rest my case... YOU SAY:
If I say, "I'm for individual rights -- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,"...
"Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"... Dang, where have I heard that before?
...that means that I'm against genocide and slavery and coercively financed public education, and a whole host of other statist evils too numerous to mention.
*Falling off of my chair laughing*
What's funny about that, Donna? Apparently everything is a big joke to you. Everything merits a sarcastic response of some kind.
Maybe that's what it means FOR YOU, Bill.

Maybe that's what it means for you.

Really! So, for you, the right to life does NOT imply an opposition to genocide? The right to liberty does NOT imply an opposition to slavery? The right to the pursuit of happiness does NOT imply the right to spend your money on the school of your choice? Then what DO these rights imply? You said earlier, "I'm cool with individuals defining themselves how they choose." But, apparently, when it comes to individuals living their their lives however they choose, which is what the above rights are all about, that's not so cool, since the kind of response it elicits from you is one of derision: "Falling off my chair laughing."

It seems pretty clear to me, after lo these many exchanges, that you're either unwilling or unable to carry on a serious discussion, maintain the relevant context, and engage in an honest and sincere dialogue. If anything is ridiculous here -- if anything deserves to be derided -- it's the disingenuous manner in which you've chosen to discuss ideas.

I'm done...

Good.

- Bill

Post 105

Thursday, May 11, 2006 - 5:43pm

Has anyone seen what happened here? I have not heard the context, but the outrage is over the top - there was the city councilman getting on TV and saying how the evil corporations are doing "anything for a profit" when in fact they are remarkably weak and cave in at every turn. Then there was this crying woman who I don't believe for a second thought there was any real threat to her daughter. What a crock.

Post 106

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 12:03am

Quoted for the truth, Bill eloquently stated:

There is another problem with making hate the centerpiece of one's philosophy. Once you've negated or destroyed the object of your hate, what are you going to replace it with? To tear down is not to build up. To destroy is not to create. Life requires positive, productive activity, not just the elimination of the negatives. When the communist revolutionaries destroyed the Czarist regime in Russia, they didn't think too much about the political system they were going to replace it with, and of course, the replacement turned out to be a disaster. Similarly, in South Africa, getting rid of apartheid didn't improve matters as much as people had thought it would. There's a tremendous amount or crime there now, even though you no longer have the kind of political segregation that existed before. Or take Iraq. The U.S. thought that with the ouster of Saddam, there would be a significant improvement for the average Iraqi citizen. But I don't think they considered who or what would be likely to fill the vacuum. "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss" (or worse!)

Here here. I've read every single line of "Star the Hater's" posts and I don't know where he stands. Even after trying to get past the incoherence of most of his posts, the only thing I can really get out of his words is he defines himself as a negative. (I don't understand why people think his words are poetic or entertaining, even poems still need to be coherent for them to have meaning) I also found him intellectually dishonest as he refused to reveal what he was for and used a future book deal as a cop out to actually articulating a coherent philosophy.

This reminds of me of a lot of Rand's writings rejecting the notion of identifying yourself with only a negative, she attributed the failure of Vietnam to this. Our leaders knew we were against communism, but what were they for? No one advocated a constitutional republic for Vietnam based on individual liberty. It was only we have to defeat the communists. At least the communists, even if they had a pseudo-intellectual argument, at least had an argument!

I was recently invited on myspace to a group titled "Anti-Communists", I joined because I consider myself anti-communist, but what I found intriguing about the individuals on the group was the amalgamation of idealogies intermingling with each other, you had mysticists that professed god was the source of our rights, you had people who used to live in a communist country and hated it because of poor economic conditions (yet they could not articulate why communism produced these conditions other than stating communism was just evil) and you have people on there who were Objectivists. It was as if the group name really had very little meaning at all.

Post 107

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 5:36am

I watched the "outrage" segment on the Bill O'Reilly show last night. The Hater was gunning for a broadcast competitor's 4 year old daughter. He announced a reward for information as to where the child attends school, and then said he was after the competitor's "seed" with sexual overtones.
Clear Channel fired Star Troi after a NY city council member held a press conference lambasting the network's lack of responsibility regarding broadcast personalities and what they say on the air.

The mother of the child, and wife of Star's target, ended up having to call her daughter's school and alert them to possible security problems. The child wasn't allowed to go to recess or play outside.

The "Hater" is living up to his label. What a stupid thing to do.

Post 108

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 6:53am

I agree it was stupid and uncalled for. I also agree that I couldn't make much sense of his posts. I am also not sure that the "hater" idea made a lot of sense. However, I am also sure that there was no serious threat. It reminds me of this event on local news where an entire school was shut down because a few .22 bullets were found in a kid's backpack. I mean, seriously, how is this any danger whatsoever in reality? There was no gun, the girl had taken them because she was afraid for someone in her family using their gun, so it was a problem that should not have affected anyone else at the school. It was pure fear mongering and panic.

Post 109

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 8:38am

I think the girl's mother was justified in her reaction to someone offering a reward to give up information about the girl's whereabouts. Secondhander's like Star attract more secondhanders looking for attention who wouldn't think twice about helping a "hero" out by hurting his perceived enemies.

No doubt Star was trying to be funny at the expense of the girl's safety.

Not only is Star incoherent, he's nihilist phoney.

Post 110

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:02am

I frankly do not understand the people on this forum's fawning over this guy (there is no other word for it). Perhaps, they did so, because they wanted to support a talk-show host (especially a black talk-show host) with an interest in Rand, however bizarre his interpretation of her philosophy. But he was so off the wall, he should not have been tolerated for more than a New York minute! I'd hate to think that he was patronized because he was African American. If he had been white and been saying the same things, would people have treated him the same? Or would they have quickly dismissed him as unworthy of serious consideration?

I attended a talk by Shelby Steele two nights ago, in which he discussed his latest book, White Guilt. By "Guilt," Steele means the stigma that whites have among blacks of being racist until proven otherwise. He said that this stigma forces whites into always having to prove the negative - to prove to blacks that they are not racist. In relating to blacks, they tend, therefore, to be on the defensive, lest they do or say something that might be construed as racially insensitive. So, they don't treat blacks the same as they would whites; they don't apply the same standards.

I wonder if something like this wasn't behind the obsequious reception given to Troi Torain.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/12, 2:04pm)

Post 111

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 10:28am

I engaged him because I thought he was intriguing, but upon further investigation I realized that he really didn't have anything to say. He's just a shock-jock with a slightly different twist.

Post 112

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 2:21pm

Yeah, but look at the harm he could be doing to Objectivism. The last thing Rand would have wanted is to have her philosophy associated with "Black Hate Radio," and to be supported by cranks like him. One of the reasons she made a point of distancing herself from religious conservatives is their anti-intellectualism. If that charge applies to Bible thumpers, it applies even more to people like "Star, the Hater."

- Bill

Post 113

Friday, May 12, 2006 - 3:43pm

I really wanted to give the guy a chance, and thought he was just coming from a direction I didn't recognize. Unfortunately, he's just as common as they come.

Post 114

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 9:01am

Hey, William Scott [Dwyer]. You write in wonder at fawning [over Hate Man Troi], and hope against hope that some amorphous 'While Guilt' did not stop honest appraisals of his comments, his radio show and his occult philosophy.

I don't remember saying much except to myself in this thread, and only recall a vaque creepy feeling stealing over me.

He's an interesting guy, not a standard black stereotype** played large. This latest show with the city of NY and tabloids and the NYPD is sad and revealing . . . but only about the limits of intelligence (his).

With regard to 'White Guilt,' you call this a stigma and perhaps see it as an active agent, 'forcing' this action or that. This would be a non sequitur.

In practice, in many areas, the stigma does not obtain. You, a stranger, unknown to me, are 'forced' into stereotype before I even blink -- mature, groomed, large, light-skinned, verbose.

If you, a stranger, saunter blithely down some darker street, unbeknownst to the locals, you will be instantly assigned a stereotype as well. It is when you blink, and you open your mouth, and you smile into people's eyes and you make friendly noises and respectful assumptions about the strangers . . . that you defeat any stigma hastily attached to you. "Oh, you are Bill Dwyer! Well, come on in and have a soda, brother. Good to see you."

And you should ought remember Bill, that any purported stigma applied to you in a stereotyping reflex -- this stigma is not as easily comparable (or as enduring) as that applied to most black Americans by their less-black brethren. And that stigma is less easily removed by speech or behaviour: "Yes, I know you say you are not a crack whore, but you speak and dress as one, and I interpret your gimlet eye on me as an accusation of White perfidy. Please keep moving along, Miss. I am a Neighbourhood Watchman, and I have my eye on you . . . "

If guilt is *earned* individually but oft collectively applied (by way of that human cognitive habit, stereotype), it is the fault of the tort or the crime -- it doesn't matter that you or I or other cloistered fussbudgets cluck and peck at each other about it. We must swiftly add information to counter stereotype, if we wish the strangers to have a more accurate conception of who we are and how we act and how we believe. Stereotypes are crude estimations, not insurmountable barriers to further cognition.

Take home message: Americans can be 'sensitive' to racism, but this thing, this word, this atttude, this practice has kept them all from free unfettered achievement and trade in little ways and large -- in living memory, my pale-complected friend . . . if we bear a passing resemblance to David Duke or Strom Thurmond, it'd be their fault the connotations, not ours.

Do you feel the sting of the White Man's Stigma? So be it. You are an American, for-crying-out-loud. You must be used to it! You can either bitch and natter about it privately, or be the lighter-toned Martin Luther King, and proclaim your dream of racial neutrality.

Thus are all we humans honoured.

WSS

** steretyping understood as unconscious, refexive cognition, a sort of quick, intuitive weighing the odds: dumb, slutty crackwhore / Secretary of State / Governor General of Canada.
(Edited for precision by William Scott Scherk
on 5/13, 9:12am)

(Edited by William Scott Scherk
on 5/13, 9:33am)

Post 115

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 4:21pm

William Scott, you wrote,

Hey, William Scott [Dwyer]. You write in wonder at fawning [over Hate Man Troi], and hope against hope that some amorphous 'While Guilt' did not stop honest appraisals of his comments, his radio show and his occult philosophy.

Remember, the term "white guilt" is Shelby Steele's, not mine, and does not refer to "guilt" in the sense in which whites feel guilty for wrongs done to blacks, a point emphasized by Steele in his talk last Tuesday. In Steele's sense, "white guilt" refers to a presumption - to the fact that, in the eyes of blacks, whites are presumed guilty of racism until proven innocent. This does not, of course, mean that every black person views every white person this way. Steele is simply referring to a climate of opinion within the black community that has enabled demagogues like Jesse Jackson to "play the race card" and prompted existing institutions to do whatever it takes to dissociate themselves from any taint of racism, even if it means giving blacks preferential treatment that they don't deserve, thereby conveying the impression that blacks are inferior and that without this sort of patronage couldn't make it on their own.

According to Steele, the attempt by white institutions, from the federal government to corporations to universities, to disavow racism by giving blacks benefits they haven't earned - from welfare to preferential treatment in hiring and admissions - is hurting the very people it is supposed to be helping. And, according to Steele, the purpose of these benefits is not to help blacks anyway; it is simply to exonerate white institutions from any stigma of racism, even if the result is to destroy black incentives and the need for blacks to make themselves competent and productive members of society.

Steele points out that due to President Johnson's Great Society programs, whose alleged purpose was to provide governmental assistance to poor blacks, the black family has disintegrated, with the black illegitimacy rate now 70% overall (90% in the inner cities) and the majority of African American households run by single mothers. As a result, the boys, having no father present as a role model and disciplinarian, gravitate to youth gangs and street crime, and ultimately wind up in prison. Similarly, granting preferential treatment to black students in university admissions has increased the dropout rate, because the underqualified students can't compete with their better qualified peers. All of this, Steele says, is due to the attempt by white institutions to prove the negative - to prove that they are not racist - which in turn is due to a presumption of "white guilt."

I don't remember saying much except to myself in this thread, and only recall a vaque creepy feeling stealing over me.

Nor do I remember any of your comments, and I did not mean to imply that you in particular were fawning over "Star, the Hater" (what a name!). Nevertheless, you write,

He's an interesting guy, not a standard black stereotype** played large.

Interesting? You're paying him a compliment he doesn't deserve. I don't think he's interesting; I think he's bizarre.

This latest show with the city of NY and tabloids and the NYPD is sad and revealing . . . but only about the limits of intelligence (his).

Are you surprised? I'm not. I would have expected as much; the guy's got a screw loose.

With regard to 'White Guilt,' you call this a stigma and perhaps see it as an active agent, 'forcing' this action or that. This would be a non sequitur.

As I indicated above, I was using the term in Steele's sense only. Do you deny its existence in this sense?

In practice, in many areas, the stigma does not obtain. You, a stranger, unknown to me, are 'forced' into stereotype before I even blink -- mature, groomed, large, light-skinned, verbose.

If you, a stranger, saunter blithely down some darker street, unbeknownst to the locals, you will be instantly assigned a stereotype as well. It is when you blink, and you open your mouth, and you smile into people's eyes and you make friendly noises and respectful assumptions about the strangers . . . that you defeat any stigma hastily attached to you. "Oh, you are Bill Dwyer! Well, come on in and have a soda, brother. Good to see you."

And you should ought remember Bill, that any purported stigma applied to you in a stereotyping reflex -- this stigma is not as easily comparable (or as enduring) as that applied to most black Americans by their less-black brethren.

I am in no way denying this, nor is Steele (who is himself black); all he's doing is attempting to explain the racial dynamic that currently exists as well as its unacknowledged consequences. The sub-title of his book is: "How Blacks & Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era." I would recommend reading it, before making any assumptions about what it is that he's saying. He writes well, and has some original and insightful commentary, both personal and philosophical. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

- Bill

Post 116

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 7:55pm

Thanks for the corrections, William Scott [Dwyer]. I'm familiar with Steele -- his Tuesday, May 2nd article in Wall Street Journal being his latest op-ed.

I don't agree with that attempt to place the blame firmly here and firmly there and firmly firmly firmly with bombs if necessary. All Americans are in the same pot. They owe it to each other to be fair and to settle old debts and damages.

We Canuckistanis are no better, are worse indeed -- since our efforts to kill off White Guilt are accompanied by state dollars to keep it alive (since ours has a Royal legal system, those danged old treaties and understandings with the Crown still have weight). Still, we have fewer racial lynchings and racial ghettos, less of the historic gulf that still exists south of the border.

In any case, I don't share Steele's finger-wagging certitude. I do agree that affirmative action and its variants can stifle and compromise the very folk whose previous subjugation it sought to redress (I'm with Haack on this, across the board).

When America appears belligerent on the world stage, yes, it is White Guilt that makes BushCo then kowtow to ethical norms of the western world and not bomb the everlasting shit out of Iraq. Not.

Steele basically agrees with me that the stigma is the problem of those who wear it, and that it is relatively easy to remove. His prose is purple and engorged with war-longings, but we can take his point, even if it only applies to you lower North Americans:

"If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities.

"Hi, I'm Shelby Steele, on 'White Guilt.' I don't have white guilt. Ha ha."

This is a fact that must be integrated into our public life--absorbed as new history--so that America can once again feel the moral authority to seriously tackle its most profound problems. Then, if we decide to go to war, it can be with enough ferocity to win."

Which tremendous non sequitur basically means to me that Steele wants to bomb the shit of out of Iraq and then bomb the shit out of Iran. Which makes the average Canuckistani discount Shelby Steele's nominal race and think him a maniac.

: )

WSS

Post 117

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:00pm

"All Americans are in the same pot. They owe it to each other to be fair and to settle old debts and damages. "

Fair, yes. But ALL Americans responsible for old debts and damages? Uh, no.
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 5/13, 8:03pm)

Post 118

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 8:42pm

True - only those who incur the debt are responsible for it.....

Post 119

Saturday, May 13, 2006 - 9:54pm