Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Good Riddance: Jesse Helms to retire

By Wicket in Op-Ed
Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 07:06:04 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

It was announced yesterday that Senator Jesse Helms, a Republican from North Carolina, will retire after his terms ends. I say good riddance. I am actually pretty disgusted how the media is portraying him, as a kindly old man (he's nearly 80), finally hanging up after 30 years of service in the United States Senate. For those of you who are not aware of who he is, or what he's done in his lifetime, let me give you a little refresher.


During the 1960's, Helms did on air commentary for WRAL-TV in North Carolina, discussing the issues at the moment. He was (and still is) a staunch segregationist and regularly attacked the ongoing Civil Rights Movement in the US. He often referred to the University of North Carolina (UNC) the "University of Negroes and Communists". He helped a known racist win nomination to the Senate by using the campaign slogan "White People Wake Up" through widely distributed fliers and signs.

Helms won the election to the US Senate in 1972, and has been there ever since. Some of the "highlights" of his time in the Senate can be found here.

Helms ran against a black man in 1990 and only won by running very racist ads right before the election. His ad showed a pair of white hands crumpling a job rejection letter. The voice-over proclaimed: "You needed the job, you were the best qualified. But they gave it to a minority because of racial quotas. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is."

From that website - In addition to these tactics that relied on misleading statements and occasional blatant untruths, Helms also tried to discourage blacks from voting in the 1990 race. 125,000 North Carolina voters, almost all black, were sent postcards that said they might not be eligible to vote and, if they tried, they might be prosecuted for vote fraud.

The Justice Department investigated several complaints relating to the matter of the postcards being sent out and found the Helms campaign at fault. The Helms campaign, the North Carolina Republican Party, and four campaign-consulting and marketing firms were charged with violating the Voting Rights act. According to the complaint, the decision to mail the postcards was done after it was shown that Gantt had a small lead and that black voting registration was increasing at a rate faster than whites, at a rate of 10.6% to 5.3%. In addition, 97 % of the postcards were targeted at blacks and 44,000 of the cards were sent out exclusively to black voters in certain areas. The other 81,000 were sent to registered voters in primarily black precincts.

While the Helms campaign signed an agreement of guilt, they never acknowledged they were responsible for the mailings and claimed they signed it because they didn't have enough money to go to court against it (which is unlikely, as Helms is one of the biggest fundraisers around). The Helms campaign and the rest were not particularly harmed by the decision and told, essentially, not to do it again.

He constantly opposed creating a National Holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., calling him a communist sympathizer, and his role in the Civil Rights Movement did not win him any support from Helms. He also vigorously opposed creating a museum for African history, saying that if one minority gets one, all minorities will want one.

Once while on Larry King Live, a caller called in and said "And Mr. Helms, I know this might not be politically correct to say this thing, but I just think you should get a Nobel Peace Prize for everything you've done to help keep down the niggers." Helms thanked him for this "compliment".

He also vigorously opposed gay rights. He refused to allow money to go to families that lost a member to AIDS, because its their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" that is responsible for the disease. He suggested that people with AIDS be quarantined.

Helms tried to stop the bill the Ryan White Care Act (a young AIDS victim who caught AIDS through a blood transfusion as a little boy) which provides care and treatment for AIDS victims. He added an amendment to the bill (which was rightfully moved later) that would deny the fund from "promoting homosexuality". His theory was that the money could only be used to instruct a heterosexual man on how to properly use a condom, but not a gay man. He also attempted to prevent schools from counseling gay students.

He once said of gays "These people are intellectually dishonest in just everything they say or do. They start by pretending that it is just another form of love. It's sickening" and called them "weak, morally sick wretches". He opposed a woman's nomination to the Department of Housing and Urban Development saying "I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine." When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, he was one of only three Senators to vote against her saying she was "likely to uphold the homosexual agenda."

There have been many more similar incidents such as these. I am all for freedom of speech, if he wants to hate, he is free too, but he is a person that makes laws for everyone and has always allowed his personal prejudices to influence this. I'm ashamed that it's the year 2001 and a person such as him is representing a portion of our country. The press is treating him as some sort of martyr, playing down his extremely racist, prejudice side, and that is just wrong. I say good riddance, this country is supposedly about freedom, not just for hetereosexual white males.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Jesse Helms will be remembered as:
o A bigot 42%
o A great leader 13%
o That old guy 12%
o A great example of ignorance 32%

Votes: 83
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Senator Jesse Helms, a Republican from North Carolina, will retire after his terms ends
o During the 1960's, Helms did on air commentary for WRAL-TV in North Carolina, discussing the issues at the moment.
o here
o Also by Wicket


Display: Sort:
Good Riddance: Jesse Helms to retire | 136 comments (111 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
Ya know... (4.64 / 14) (#1)
by DesiredUsername on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 12:43:20 PM EST

...I hate Helms just as much as the next freedom- and equality-loving American, but you DO have to say one thing for him--he was honest. He had strong personal beliefs (that were apparently in tune with his electorate, I might note) and he voted them. Imagine RMS was a powerful US Senator (pause for jaws to be picked up). A lot of stupid software-related stuff would be cleared up in ways most of us (software peons) would love. And a LOT more people would hate him as a communist.

Play 囲碁
True Irony (3.75 / 4) (#2)
by Sikpup on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 12:47:54 PM EST

Honest politians actually seem to be bad. Jimmy Carter was probably the most honest person to be President, certainly in the last century. He was also one of the worst. Not all the bad things that happened during his administration were his fault, but enough were. Now that Helms is going, if Strom would retire or drop, the Senate should improve dramatically. Just my opinion, not trying to start a flame-fest, although maybe too late...

[ Parent ]
Looks like you got your wish... (3.00 / 4) (#8)
by K5er 16877 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:02:42 PM EST

Strom Thurmand is going to retire after this term. It's about two thirds of the way down in this article.

[ Parent ]
Maybe I posted to the wrong article (2.57 / 7) (#3)
by Sikpup on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 12:50:19 PM EST

Originally posted about the Alabama Governor:

(paraphrased for this item)

1. Helms is SO narrow minded...he peeks through keyholes with both eyes. (rimshot)

2. Further proof of the results of inbreeding. When was the last time Helms's family tree forked?

3. Once again proof of the need for retro-active abortions.



From someone who lived in NC.... (4.50 / 14) (#5)
by yankeehack on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 12:56:13 PM EST

First, I hate to be nit-picky (especially to you, Wicket) but this was an OP-ED more than a news piece. I certainly don't mind opinion, but it needs to be labeled. And, you need to date that "N__" quote since Jesse has admitted to being a segregationist in his earlier days.

I'm ashamed that it's the year 2001 and a person such as him is representing a portion of our country. The press is treating him as some sort of martyr, playing down his extremely racist, prejudice side, and that is just wrong.

Here's my account of the 1996 senatorial race in NC (especially since I voted in it). The Democrats brought in Gantt again for a replay, trying to play the difficulties of the race issue, since there are a sizeable number of Blacks who do live in North Carolina. Unfortunately, Gantt, a Charlotte politician wasn't the strongest candidate and Helms won by a sizeable margin despite what occurred in 1990.

Now, say what you might about Jesse, but you need to remember that Jesse or any other member of Congress is accountable only to his constituents and not someone living in Boston, Massachusetts. And, I will throw in that rural NC is, still to this day, conservative in politics and religion--and this goes for Blacks as well as Whites. (I have some personal anecdotes about this...) Now, like any good Congressperson, Jesse brings home the bacon or should I say, pork. His consituent services are strong. He has proven himself an able advocate of the textile and agriculture industries, especially, tobacco. (Don't let me get into the tobacco debate, I've met those farmers.) His state has several military bases that produce thousands (and I mean tens of thousands) of jobs. Because of Jesse's seniority, those bases sure as hell ain't going nowhere and federal money flows into NC.

In other words, to the average North Carolinian, who cares that Jesse ruffles a few feathers in Washington DC, including the current President. He does what he is supposed to do for the citizens of NC.

Perhaps what we really need is a new feminism...It will focus on something that liberal feminism has failed to do--instill a sense of dignity, honor and s

Tobacco Support (4.00 / 4) (#26)
by Wah on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 03:14:05 PM EST

(Don't let me get into the tobacco debate, I've met those farmers.)

I've met people who grow pot for a living. Living in constant fear of the War on Drugs spilling into their living rooms for growing a plant that makes people feel good. What's the difference? Helms has supported consistently the second most dangerous drug in our country, most likely kept pressure on the FDA to keeps it's hands off, and you think that's a good thing because you know people who grow drugs? I can see why he'd be against pot though, it was made illegal because of the influence it was having on our good white children, brought into the country by those damned Mexicans, and smoked by Negroes, of all people.
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]

Wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by beergut on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:51:55 PM EST

Pot was outlawed by the government because of the effect it was having or could have had on alcoholic beverage producers, and because those federal agents who were hired on for prohibition needed something to keep them busy. Not to mention the harm that hemp could have done DuPont and other synthetic fiber manufacturers as they were just getting started.

Don't be confused by the rhetoric. Look at the facts. For the same reason that tobacco was not outlawed (money, in the main,) pot was.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Got a cite? (1.00 / 1) (#91)
by onyxruby on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 01:24:23 AM EST

Got a cite for that? One that isn't in High Times? You talk facts, please present these facts of yours.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

No cite at this time, (none / 0) (#99)
by beergut on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 05:07:42 AM EST

Not that I'm willing to look up at this late hour, when I am tired, at least.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

tobacco? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:30:18 PM EST

(Don't let me get into the tobacco debate, I've met those farmers.)

What does this mean exactly? The farmers are nice people so they should be allowed to go on producing a substance that addicts and kills millions of people? Or what?
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
North Carolina culture (none / 0) (#110)
by yankeehack on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 04:04:52 PM EST

Well, for starters, if you had any knowledge about the Southeastern US, you'd know that Tobacco growing has been occurring since the Jamestown settlement. Yes, that long. What I was referring to, was that tobacco is not only big business, (where do you think all of that money for Duke University came from or how did Winston-Salem get its name) but in North Carolina/Virginia/Tennesee, growing tobacco is a cultural institution.

The rights (or growing allotments, I think they're called shares) from the US gov't are passed down from one generation to the next. In many families, these shares are held onto as if they are gold. Per acre, I believe tobacco is the best money maker for small farmers. Also, another fact is that most of the tobacco growing farms are in fact small (it takes a bit of work to produce), which lends itself to that whole yeoman farmer ethic (this also makes for a lot of farmers to vote for pro-tobacco candidates). To give you some perspective, tobacco growing is so pervasive in that area that the local news stations report on the yearly tobacco auctions, even the news station that Jesse Helms announced his retirement on! In addition, many, many people who were raised in this area recall summers of harvesting tobacco (even Al Gore harvested tobacco when he was young).


Perhaps what we really need is a new feminism...It will focus on something that liberal feminism has failed to do--instill a sense of dignity, honor and s
[ Parent ]

Yes, those are the real reasons Jesse won in 96 (none / 0) (#104)
by fullcity on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 11:01:52 AM EST

Thanks, yankeehack--I think you've done a better job of explaining why Jesse kept getting reelected than the article did.

Jesse is an overt racist and homophobe. But that's not why people vote for him. They elect him because he delivers the goods. He has always had a level of support of about 55%. Because of that, Gantt didn't really have a chance against him in 1996.

I moved to North Carolina in 1994 as a graduate student. At some point in 1995, Jesse made a statement to the effect of "People with AIDS deserve it." The very next day I registered to vote.

Also, regarding media coverage of Jesse's announcement: NPR dwelt heavily on racist, segregationist, and homophobic remarks he's made in the past. The BBC gave a little time to that stuff but concentrated more on his isolationism: how he used an innovative procedural technique to stop the US paying its dues to the United Nations. The BBC reporter seemed indignant at this, on behalf of Europe, I suppose.

I sure haven't seen any US media lay into him for being an isolationist!


Civilization is fun! Anyway, it keeps me busy!!
[ Parent ]

Helms is a bright and shinny example... (3.22 / 9) (#7)
by Lord13 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:01:29 PM EST

of everything that is disgustingly corrupt and downright evil in the American government. The definition of a government fat cat that is an embarrassment to every American. I could not be happier this man will finally be out of office.

This guy was one of the main reasons I decided not to move down to the research triangle for a geek job. For the life of me I could not understand how he kept being reelected. I could not live in a state where the people support this type of person.

Growing half a tree, water it everyday.
please. (3.33 / 3) (#14)
by rebelcool on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:22:19 PM EST

Helms speaks little for the entire government. Look at where he's from. Is it any surprise he kept getting re-elected?

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Er... (3.76 / 17) (#11)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:13:19 PM EST

So let me get this straight. This guy has views you disagree with. Hell, views I disagree with too. That much I understand. However, it is clear that he could have been reelected over and over again until he was dead or deathly ill - because his constituents like him! You see, they're a bunch of right wing hicks!

All this talk of "only winning because he ran racist ads" and so on obscures a fact - racist campaigning will only help you win if the voters are racist! (It obscures another fact, too, which is that opposing quotas is not "racist" in any way, shape or form, but that's another argument for another time, and is not to say that Helms isn't a racist himself.)

Apparently, the modern liberal democrat in the US thinks the will of the people is a great thing, as long as that will happens to be liberal. Sorry, but not everyone in the US agrees with you, or me, or anyone else. That's life. People you despise are going to have elected offices. Get over it; gloating is really, really pathetic.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Perhaps (3.40 / 5) (#15)
by Wicket on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:27:55 PM EST

Get over it; gloating is really, really pathetic. You possibly read a different article from the one I wrote, for I was not gloating. Nor am I a liberal democrat. I don't whether his constituents like him or not, the largest margin he ever won by was 8%. If he wanted to just affect his constituents, then he should have run for the house or state house, being a senator affects the country as a whole. Either way, good riddance. Has anyone ever asked you to possibly find a way to debate without attacking? It seems to be a problem whenever I have come into contact with you.

[ Parent ]
Senate vs other office (3.71 / 7) (#17)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:40:37 PM EST

The whole point of having a national legislature that is elected by locals is that those locals' viewpoints are represented. Yes, this means that viewpoints held by people you despise may be represented - that's life. To claim that he should have "stayed home" just because you disagree with him is no more credible than for his constitutents to claim that Dick Gephardt should have "stayed home" in Missouri; the fact that you probably agree with far more of Gephardt's positions than Helms' is not relevant anymore than the fact that Helms' constituents clearly agree with far more of Helms' positions than Gephardt's. (Yes, fine, he won by fairly narrow margins. So do most politicians in the US. Unless you want to question the whole democratic process, that's just the way it is. In any case, if you think people from Helms' area aren't right wingers in a big way, you are sadly mistaken.)

If we took your attitude to be "reasonable," we might as well just hold USSR style puppet elections for the US Senate; after all, clearly it is not acceptable for anyone you disagree with to actually win!

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Ugh. (3.50 / 4) (#18)
by Wicket on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 01:47:31 PM EST

Stop putting words in my mouth, it doesn't help your argument :)

I never said he should have stayed home. The US was founded on the principle that everyone deserves "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Of course people will disagree, but Helms is a fine example of only wanting liberty for a select few.

How about cutting out some of the rhetoric once in a while? Or are you just always going to be so jaded? :)

[ Parent ]
Well (4.25 / 8) (#21)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 02:16:46 PM EST

We certainly agree that he's a racist bastard. However, outside of California, white people are still a majority, so saying he only wants liberty for a "select few" is somewhat incorrect. The real problem I see, though, is this: when he wasn't dealing with social issues, he actually did a lot of good things, all of which you just flat out ignored. He has blocked the ratification of a great many treaties that would have conflicted with our constitution. He has been important to the military, not just in its stupid ventures, but in what it has done well also. To be sure, he's a pork barrel guy, just like the rest, but he has more of a taste for fiscal responsibility than most of his so-called peers. These are good things.

By the way, if you were an 80 year old white guy in the US, you'd probably be a racist too. It is shocking to realize how far we've come in such a short time, but in the first half of the last century, a white person who wasn't a racist was truly exceptional. When we grew up, it was unreasonable to be racist, but when he grew up, it was unreasonable not to be, and if that isn't an excuse for him, it is at least an explanation. He and his kind are old and dying out rapidly; it is probably best to concentrate on what they did right and did well than to vilify them for what they were taught - and to be sure, they did a lot of things right and a lot of things well. It is painful for me to hear some of the comments from my grandmother, and occasionally even from an uncle - but then you look at the present generation of my family, and there are no racists. The same seems to be true of most people.

By the way, you did in fact say something to the effect of "he should have stayed home." Maybe you didn't mean it, or maybe I mistook it in some other way, but you did say it:)

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Fine then (3.00 / 5) (#25)
by Wah on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 02:58:05 PM EST

He and his kind are old and dying out rapidly; it is probably best to concentrate on what they did right and did well than to vilify them for what they were taught - and to be sure, they did a lot of things right and a lot of things well.

I disagree. Sure he did some things you thought were great (surprising that you'd be a pork barrel lover), but that doesn't come close to excusing his wrongs. Let it be a quick lesson to all the other people who are racist and proud of it, it's nothing to be proud of. If you want to submit an article about how he was a great guy representing the views of racist idiots to the end, go for it. I mean come on, this is a pure example of someone in a democracy using a few percentage points to put down a large minority. If this is the stuff he has said publicly, I can only grimace to think of how he talks with his friends. Honesty is great, but honesty and ingorance are a dangerous combination. When did the ideal of politicians change from learned leaders to hapless followers? (Godwins Law to cut off your response...so Hitler was great because the Germans wanted to kill the jews? What a great leader!)
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]

heh (3.00 / 4) (#28)
by Wicket on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 03:25:31 PM EST

The real problem I see, though, is this: when he wasn't dealing with social issues, he actually did a lot of good things, all of which you just flat out ignored. In case you haven't already noticed, that wasn't the point of my article. If you want to discuss those things, write an article about it then.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of examples (4.25 / 4) (#22)
by DesiredUsername on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 02:22:39 PM EST

"...Helms is a fine example of only wanting liberty for a select few."

For instance, I'm sure that many times he espoused the view that people with minority or unpopular viewpoints should not be allowed to vote or represent the country. Unlike your statements.

The problem here is that you are thinking of Helms as a disease. He's not, he's a symptom. If you want people like Helms out of office, don't do it via the fascist method of declaring his views as "out of bounds". Do it via the progressive method of educating and enlightening his electorate. It takes longer, but it upholds the (declared) liberal agenda of treating people like humans. You may even be educated and enlightened yourself.

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
America, land of the confused (2.87 / 8) (#23)
by eLuddite on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 02:48:43 PM EST

Yes, this means that viewpoints held by people you despise may be represented

You are silly. Despicable viewpoints are despicable viewpoints whether they have representation or not. A truly functional democracy would not have suffered Helms for as long as the US did because a functional democracy doesnt tyrranize its minorities by threatening and harassing them against voting. Since Jesse Helms was against universal sufferage and various civil liberties in spirit as well as action, he should have long ago been disqualified from political office. Freedom of Speech is not the sine qua non of Democracy, particularly not when it's confused with the the freedom for politicians to foment hatred and political inequality by acting in legally obectionable ways.

Sheesh. Your defense of Helms is "well, there's lots of racists and they deserve representation"!? The fuck they do. Just ask South Africans if you're unclear on the concept.

Unless you want to question the whole democratic process,

A democratic process usually includes a measure of law, and since Helms appears to have had a history of breaking the law, he should have been escorted from the Senate and into a cushy job spewing nonsense on dittohead talk radio. If not prison.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Nah (4.00 / 7) (#30)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 03:51:06 PM EST

Your whole post can be summed up as "people I disagree with vehemently enough should not be allowed to succeed in life." Sure, most of us think racism is despicable. You know what? Most of us think spending tax money on crosses in jars of piss is despicable too, but somehow, I don't see you railing against that. Your attempt to cloak yourself in this mantle of mass-appeal supported righteousness is weak; you aren't for what people think - you're for what you wish they thought, and you're willing to compromise any and all principles of a free society to get it.

And yes, if the majority of people in an area are racists, then while it is not true that government should ever discriminate on the basis of race, it is reasonable to expect that those people are going to elect a racist. Why you would expect otherwise is beyond comprehension. Similarly, even though I do not believe the government should spend a single penny on any form of socialism, it would be ridiculous for me to claim that New York residents should not elect a liberal - that's what New York residents ARE, in the main - liberals!

Your attempt to step outside the process and judge things "from above" as ethical or unethical, and allow or prohibit them on that basis - is absurd. The whole purpose of democracy is and has been to eliminate that sort of heavy handed "we're right, and we're going to make you agree!" methodology from government, regardless of whether done by conservatives or liberals, authoritarians or anarchists, or whatever. You have no special insight not available to ordinary people. If racism is wrong, let people decide this - persuade them, if you will - but do not claim that because you believe racism is wrong(as I do, just to shut up the inevitable stupid replies,) it is proper to forcibly remove racists from any participation in the political process.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
nice speech; cutting to the chase ... (2.66 / 3) (#34)
by eLuddite on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:20:26 PM EST

The whole purpose of democracy is and has been to eliminate that sort of heavy handed "we're right, and we're going to make you agree!" methodology from government,

Yes, but you cannot defend Helms by simply reciting his disagreement with Democracy. I would have thought that obvious.

Furthermore, rights talk is a lot incoherent platitudes whose actual exercise must always degenerate into a selective enforcement of biases; you cannot guarantee someone's absolute right to do X without violating someone else's right to do X or Y. Hence the purpose of law which, apparently, Helms disagreed with as well. All of this amounts to a dysfunctional democracy, not a defense of Helms on democratic grounds.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Not quite what I said... (3.66 / 3) (#38)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:33:12 PM EST

Yes, but you cannot defend Helms by simply reciting his disagreement with Democracy.
You said that because you find some of his positions to be reprehensible he should not be the elected representative of people who agree with him. That is absurd. His disagreement with "Democracy," by which I am not certain whether you mean the concept, the practice, or the political party, is not relevant and was never a part of my argument.
Furthermore, rights talk is a lot incoherent platitudes whose actual exercise must always degenerate into a selective enforcement of biases; you cannot guarantee someone's absolute right to do X without violating someone else's right to do X or Y.
I don't recall any talk of rights in this thread. However, since you specifically mention it, this so-called selective enforcement of biases is precisely what negative rights theory addresses. Your willingness to ignore proper solutions to dilemmas in order to claim entire fields of thought to be unworkable is truly appalling.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
no, you have this democracy thing ass backwards (3.75 / 4) (#40)
by eLuddite on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:59:40 PM EST

You said that because you find some of his positions to be reprehensible he should not be the elected representative of people who agree with him.

No, not "positions", blatantly anti-democratic and illegal positions. This is not difficult: democracies require processes (eg, the judicial interpretation of civil rights laws) and elected politicians who do not go out of their way to disenfranchise their minorities and violate the law. According to your logic, America can "democratically" vote itself into a fascist tyranny. It can only do that if it ignores democratic principles, not abides by them.

I don't recall any talk of rights in this thread.

That's strange, I could have sworn you were defending the right of people elect reprehensible, undemocratic representation.

this so-called selective enforcement of biases is precisely what negative rights theory addresses

No, it most certainly does not. Furthermore, for all your fine talk of negative rights, you seem to forget that the firmament of your incoherent rights theory is the right to property, a positive right.

Your willingness to ignore proper solutions to dilemmas in order to claim entire fields of thought to be unworkable is truly appalling.

You are a babbling, pious buffoon who consistently confuses your own inability to reconcile other people's ideas with your world view as their fault instead of yours. This is common to ignoramuses.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Thought crimes and other silly leftist ideas... (3.25 / 4) (#41)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:20:23 PM EST

No, not "positions", blatantly anti-democratic and illegal positions.
The fact that you even believe there should BE such a thing as an "illegal position" is ridiculous. Illegal action, certainly, but when you start criminalizing beliefs, you've given up all pretense of any kind of democracy.
According to your logic, America can "democratically" vote itself into a fascist tyranny.
One of the risks of letting people choose is that they can choose whatever they like. Rights theory can provide some limits on that, but you don't actually acknowledge this fact, so it isn't going to help YOUR position any.
That's strange, I could have sworn you were defending the right of people elect reprehensible, undemocratic representation.
The laws of the land do in fact grant them the legal right to do just that, regardless of any ethical theory of rights. However, I have nothing but contempt for the suggestion that an elected official is "undemocratic" simply because he isn't a leftist...

Your link regarding negative rights is to a guy who obviously doesn't understand them. As such, I'm just going to dismiss it with this remark: the inability to punch me in the nose is not a constraint on your liberty; the very suggestion that it is implies that you do not understand what liberty is or why it is valuable. There is a paragraph in there that attempts to answer this criticism, but after untwisting some of the most horrid text ever set to print, we find that he's making a chicken and egg argument that implies merely that he does not understand the notion of mutual support; he seems to imply that liberty is unworkable in a "normative" sense due to some misguided epistemological foundationalism. "Misguided" being the key word.
Furthermore, for all your fine talk of negative rights, you seem to forget that the firmament of your incoherent rights theory is the right to property, a positive right.
Property rights can be expressed negatively. If you mean that the very idea of having property is a "positive right," rather than the idea of defense of property, then in a sense you're right, but without property, you could not live very long. (Sure, you could live without any, but you wouldn't survive if nobody had any; human existence depends on the acquisition and disposal of various forms of property.) Property is a natural requirement of human life, and does not require further justification.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
thought crimes is what happens between your ears (3.60 / 5) (#49)
by eLuddite on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:58:48 PM EST

and not something that I've offered in this thread for your continued reading incomprehension. You arent actually reading anything, are you? You are just holding a typical trhurler internal monologue.

The fact that you even believe there should BE such a thing as an "illegal position" is ridiculous, Illegal action, certainly,

Then we are in agreement that you have no argument since the issue is not what Helms thought, but rather what Helms did in office. Politicians do the things they think. That is their purpose. That no one took him to task and to court is testament to your illusion that a failure of Democracy is Democracy itself. Furthermore, he was at least once found guilty of election laws when he attempted to disenfranchise the black vote.

One of the risks of letting people choose is that they can choose whatever they like. Rights theory can provide some limits on that, but you don't actually acknowledge this fact, so it isn't going to help YOUR position any.

Yes I *did* acknowledge that. I specifically told you the purpose of law was to adjudicate between rights, not offer platitudes on Kuro5hin.

However, I have nothing but contempt for the suggestion that an elected official is "undemocratic" simply because he isn't a leftist...

I dont care if he's left, right, top or bottom. If I wanted you to write my posts, I would have asked you.

Your link regarding negative rights is to a guy who obviously doesn't understand them.

Another convenient renunciation of logic whenever it disagrees with you., one of many in your prolific and illustrious career. No evidence is safe from trhurler.

the inability to punch me in the nose is not a constraint on your liberty; the very suggestion that it is implies that you do not understand what liberty is or why it is valuable.

No, you dont seem to understand the difference between a logically choherent theory of rights and a useful theory of rights. Similiarly, you dont understand why positive rights may likewise be useful. Again, the distinction between positive and negative rights is false to anyone who isnt a libertarian religionist.

Property rights can be expressed negatively.

The hell they can. Property is an acquisition that requires a balance of force for its protection. Your right to property is a limitation on my liberty to walk where I wish.

Property is a natural requirement of human life, and does not require further justification.

That's like saying without the earth you cannot live very long. Private property certainly does require justification, but no logical justification can be forthcoming unless you think yourself in position to logically deny the existence of all sorts of human cultures and societies. I pity the libertarian who goes to Eskimo heaven and thinks himself in libertarian hell.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Wow (1.00 / 1) (#53)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 06:20:26 PM EST

Your insults are almost up to par. Keep it up, and you may someday equal what I used to dish out on Usenet as a matter of daily habit.

Now, as for your arguments, they're pretty sad. Helms was never found guilty of anything; if he had been, he'd not presently be in office. The fact that everyone believes he did it and the fact that there was something akin to a no contest plea on the part of some of his campaign staff are not sufficient for the US to determine that "he did it." Were he some leftist freak like Klinton, you'd be adamant about that, but since he isn't, you go around saying "he is guilty!"
Another convenient renunciation of logic whenever it disagrees with you
I immediately followed the claim I made with my reasoning. Your inability to read before replying is your own problem.
No, you dont seem to understand the difference between a logically choherent theory of rights and a useful theory of rights.
The present theories(ie, the ones you like) are obviously not useful; rights are being eroded every day all over the world, and soon nobody will have any left, except in theory. As it happens, they are also not logically coherent. I think there is a connection there.
Similiarly, you dont understand why positive rights may likewise be useful.
"Useful" in the sense that they allow you to fuck over one person for someone else's benefit, maybe. Most human values(you call them "positive rights" for some stupid reason,) are earned - they do not exist in nature. To make their availability mandatory is to insist that someone earn them FOR you. This is known as "slavery."
no logical justification can be forthcoming unless you think yourself in position to logically deny the existence of all sorts of human cultures and societies.
Show me a society without property. Hint: eskimos are not such a society. Neither were "native" Americans. Neither have been any of the various Marxesque utopias of the last century, nor any of the African tribal cultures or Australian aborigines and so on. Property is a constant among all humans throughout all time. Land as property is not, but this is only true in places where populations are relatively sparse(ie, where land is plentiful and not scarce, and therefore is not an economic good of any interest.) Everywhere there are people, there is property.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
please. I wasnt insulting, I was observant (3.66 / 3) (#65)
by eLuddite on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 08:45:35 PM EST

First, I notice that you've stopped arguing your thought police strawman in favor of a making a hollow point over official, personal, admitted guilt. His campaign *was* found guilty, but not he. Excellent. (And thoroughly consistent with your various other delusions.)

Further, by ignoring the substantive point about Helm's anti-democratic actions in his capacity as a politician following through on his undemocratic ideals, you have conceded the point which I summarized when I wrote, "that no one took him to task and to court is testament to your illusion that a failure of Democracy is Democracy itself." In other words, you have failed to defend Helms according to the very principles of democracy I quoted you on. Feel free to reread the thread if you doubt your memory or understanding, and further admit Nazi leaders were only following party "thoughts", just as Helms was following his own, in office. Helms may not have been as effective as he would have liked, but that wasnt for lack of his persistence. Let's not give him credit for his failures.

Everything else is off topic but what the heck, here goes nothing one last time.

Property is a constant among all humans throughout all time. Land as property is not,

Thank you for the admission. Did you originally think I was talking about underwear?

I immediately followed the claim I made with my reasoning.

No you did not. You said "the inability to punch me in the nose is not a constraint on your liberty", which does not resemble an argument and says nothing about your dual claim for the coherence of libertarian rights and the unsupportability of positive rights. I cant punch you in the nose, you cant poke me in the stomach, he cant piss on her flowers; all agreeable positions to libertarians and communists alike. So what?

In short, you argued nothing, being content to dismiss an excellent, thoughtful, accurate link.

Moreover, in that same quote about noses, you smuggle your usual libertarian assumption that liberty is defined exclusively as the absence of initiation of force. In other words, Helms rejection and persistent opposition of black peoples' right to integrate is not be an initiation of force and therefore not a violation of their liberty. However, should black people democratically impose their desire to attend white schools, that will be an initiation of force because they would necessarily be violating Helm's segregationist school property.

but this is only true in places where populations are relatively sparse(ie, where land is plentiful and not scarce,

This is part and parcel of your natural theory of economics, right? Then why isnt it true for the US, which can otherwise fit its entire population comfortably in the state of Texas, houses, cars and 2.1 kids per family? Is there a magic population to acreage ratio that must be satisfied before your "natural" law kicks into effect? How come it doesnt apply to Cuba, which is better off today than any other former US satellite?

and therefore is not an economic good of any interest.) Everywhere there are people, there is property.

Communal ownership and/or stewardship in the means of production is the rule, not the exception. You will simply have to accept that the liberal tradition is the briefest interval in the history of Mankind. I should also point out that same tradition likewise rejects libertarian fundamentalism in property as in everything else. Libertopian property and law continues to be a figment of your imagination. As for the Eskimo and other Amerindian peoples, you are predictably wrong despite pretending to be otherwise. The Eskimo in particular have incredibly complex property relations.

Fact is, property relations are in no way "logical", absolute, libertarian or natural, they are social constructs which vary wildly across time and space. If you think you can make your case by simply prescribing a form of economic morality, you have the following think coming to you. Please memorize the following, once and for all:

The values of libertarianism do not have any rational basis and are internally inconsistent. Libertarianism is an ahistorical system of *belief*. Without trying to convert you, your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive; all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. Everything useful said by libertarians is said better by non libertarians in their footnotes.

The present theories(ie, the ones you like) are obviously not useful;

They are recognized everywhere in the world starting with your Constitution precisely because they are useful. Or is a demonstration of reality from the Amish to the Zulu "not useful"?

rights are being eroded every day all over the world, and soon nobody will have any left, except in theory.

Actually, what you meant to say in your libertarian capacity is that positive rights are being granted. You will have to defend that bit of paranoia from people who think the opposite and who point out evidence of increasing coroporate rights over people. As long as corporations dont punch anyone in the nose, right?

As it happens, they are also not logically coherent. I think there is a connection there.

As I said, "rights talk is a lot incoherent platitudes whose actual exercise must always degenerate into a selective enforcement of biases; you cannot guarantee someone's absolute right to do X without violating someone else's right to do X or Y. Hence the purpose of law ..."

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

If by "observant" you mean "silly&q (none / 0) (#132)
by trhurler on Mon Aug 27, 2001 at 12:37:57 PM EST

His campaign *was* found guilty, but not he.
Actually, campaign staffers of all manner of politicians are found guilty of various crimes all the time in the US without it ever really being suggested the politicians themselves were involved. However, unless I'm confusing cases, which is possible, this one wasn't even a conviction - it was at most a no contest plea, which doesn't necessarily mean you did whatever they say you did.
In other words, you have failed to defend Helms according to the very principles of democracy I quoted you on.
You don't appear to understand my position. As far as I'm concerned, he might be opposed in principle to democracy - but that doesn't matter. He was elected. That matters. You cannot have democracy "as long as it does what you like." That's not what the word means.
Thank you for the admission. Did you originally think I was talking about underwear?
Care to cite an example of land not being property in any actual civilization, as opposed to a few tribes living in a vast open space? Modern populations cannot exist peacefully for long without private landholdings, and the violence that would ensue would bring private landholdings, even if only for a few wealthy people. Unless you can show some reason to believe that this basic and obvious economic fact(it is known as "scarcity," in case you need to look it up,) is in fact a myth, you're blowing smoke up my ass. Cut that out.
I cant punch you in the nose, you cant poke me in the stomach, he cant piss on her flowers; all agreeable positions to libertarians and communists alike.
Actually, communists have talked a lot of good talk, but when push comes to shove, they're more than willing to shoot you in the head rather than have a disagreeable voice in the crowd. You might have noticed this trend, if you paid any attention. (Not just statist communism, either - this is a trend present in the little communes people form, too, though usually it takes the form of exile, since the regular government tends to frown on executions by communes.)
In other words, Helms rejection and persistent opposition of black peoples' right to integrate is not be an initiation of force and therefore not a violation of their liberty.
Can you name anything Helms actually did that hurt black people, or are you just pissed that he used some tasteless campaign ads? He opposes quotas, but then, so does every reasonable human being, whether black or white or whatever; blacks more than whites, if they're sane - after all, how can you have any sense of self worth knowing that you got the job, not because you're any good, but because you're a black guy?
However, should black people democratically impose their desire to attend white schools, that will be an initiation of force because they would necessarily be violating Helm's segregationist school property.
Helms doesn't own any public schools, you numbnut. How you manage to twist perfectly simple arguments into this caricature of reason is beyond me. Are you a BSE test case, by any chance?
Then why isnt it true for the US, which can otherwise fit its entire population comfortably in the state of Texas, houses, cars and 2.1 kids per family?
It could not fit them there. Not all acrage is equal. Some land is unlivable, and besides, there is the issue of water supplies, waste disposal, and so on. As population density rises, cost per person of a safe community drops up to a point, but then it starts rising - fast. Cities are more expensive in large part because of their desirable land, but also due to the fact that it actually costs more to maintain a city per person than it does a small town. The mere fact that you could build all those houses doesn't mean the result would be livable.

In the US, you find what you'd expect - out in rural areas, property lines are often vague, people don't care as much unless a problem arises(save a few nuts, but that's beside the point,) and so on. In denser areas, people are MUCH pickier about their property lines, trespassing, and so on. Why? Because it matters more to lose a foot off your yard in suburbia than a foot off your thousand acres in the middle of nowhere.

But hey, go on denying reality. It amuses me.
How come it doesnt apply to Cuba, which is better off today than any other former US satellite?
That's like saying the US is better off than any other former British "satellite." The truth is, depending on what you measure, Cuba is either a paradise or the worst hellhole on earth, and you choose the numbers that you prefer.
Communal ownership and/or stewardship in the means of production is the rule, not the exception.
Where can I find it successfully and sustainably being applied? Cuba doesn't count; without the support of the former USSR, it would be nothing but a crackpot with a beard and some starving peasants, and the USSR only helped because Cuba is so tiny it was easy for even their inefficient economy to do so - scale was all that counted. Already, some Cubans have been grumbling that facilities are deteriorating without USSR support. So where, anyway?
You will simply have to accept that the liberal tradition is the briefest interval in the history of Mankind.
Only by virtue of being the most recent.
Actually, what you meant to say in your libertarian capacity is that positive rights are being granted.
Wrong. I meant, quite precisely, to say that rights are being eroded. Privacy, free speech, free assembly(we basically lost this one a long time ago, but they're still clamping down on it,) and so on are disappearing. Meanwhile, poor people are being given food stamps to sell to their neighbors to buy booze. "Positive rights" indeed. You are delusional.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
You are both buffoons. (2.66 / 3) (#42)
by beergut on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:21:27 PM EST

This nation is not a democracy. It is a republic.

This means that people, from the various districts in which they live, elect other people to represent them.

Since Helms' constituents have the right to vote, and since he was a candidate, his constituents did have the right to elect him to be their representative. And they did. Don't forget that.

You may disagree with his positions, and slander him as a gun-totin', rebel-flag-wavin', wife-beatin', nigger-whuppin', gay-bashin' closet-queer who wants to pave ANWR, but that does not affect the rights of his constituents to elect, or not elect him.

What laws has Helms not supported that you would rather he supported?

Point out evidence that he conspired to withhold the franchise from his constituents.

Provide evidence that he is a racist.

Provide evidence that he is against the idea of homosexuals having the same rights as the rest of the citizens of the United States.

I dare you.

Note, this doesn't mean that I agree with his politics (as it happens, I agree with some of the stands he's taken,) nor that I disagree with his politics (and, yes, I have disagreed with some of the stands he's taken.)

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

semantics (none / 0) (#51)
by strlen on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 06:00:59 PM EST

no, i don't want to argue with you about helms, just the republic not democracy principle. namely the fact that republic implies a democracy, and republic is the only practical way of implementing a democracy. greece was a direct democracy in places like athens, but it didn't hold up much longer. rome, however, for a large part (and during the time it invaded greece) was a republic, and has held up for much longer. hence the ideal of republican democracy (in forms of a either a presidential republic, parliemantary democracy or a constitutional monarchy) is the optimal kind of government. it's just incorrect to say that we aren't a republic, or that we aren't a democracy.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
not so fast (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by mami on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:59:59 PM EST

the whole point of having a national legislature that is elected by locals is that those locals' viewpoints are represented. Yes, this means that viewpoints held by people you despise may be represented - that's life.

First of all a Senator doesn't represent his constituency's viewpoints proportionally. To say that the majority of NC's population represent the viewpoints of Helms is simply not true. Only (if I understand it correctly) a congressman represents the viewpoints of his constituency in his district proportionally. ( I still don't understand why people can muck with those congressional districts physical borders and change them all the time).

Secondly, there are some human rights, which should be applied to all citizens of the United States uniformly and equally. I don't think that because the freedom of speech allows anyone to campaign on issues, which clearly are based on the desire to prevent some of those human rights to be applied equally to all U.S. citizens regard less of their sex or race, that would mean it would be right to campaign like that, if the proposed policies violate the constitutional law's intent itself.

What's discrimination anyhow ? I discriminate any minute in my life. I would vote for legislation which discriminates on people's disposition, let's say, I would vote for making it illegal to not provide wheelchair access ramps to all public buildings. That's a law based on discriminating on people's physical disabilities. I would vote for legislation to prevent the census counting its citizens with regards to their ethnic or racial affiliation. I am against it, because it supports the opportunity to introduce legislation on the basis of racial affiliation too easily later on, which I think is thoughtless.

On the other hand, I would vote for legislation, which helps to overcome a disadvantage the Afro-Americans experienced, which was generated by applying human rights not uniformly and equally to them in the past. So, I would not mind to discriminate on the basis of race for that specific purpose. I would also not mind to discriminate on the basis of sex and vote for legislation, which would help women to overcome lack of opportunity to education during their childbearing years, because they have to concentrate their strength on their kids during that time.

I think we introduce hundreds of laws, which are based on some sort of discrimination of sex, race, age and physical and/or mental health status of a person. There is nothing wrong with that in my mind. It merely shows people are using their brains.

What you seem to suggest is that, if the majority of a population is voting for laws which clearly violate human rights of some groups in the population on the basis of their race, that this is the sacred right for the population in a democracy to do. I don't think so. You have to accept the will of the majority in a democratic vote even if you dispise or disagree with the majority's view points, but you don't have to accept the majority trying to trample equal human rights for everyone with their feet. If a population is corrupted by its own emotions of racist feelings against one group of its citizens and votes policies into place, which violate your own constitution's human rights agenda for all its citizens, then something is wrong. Either the constitution has flaws or the politicians have been corrupted by their own constituency ( that possibility also being a flaw in your constitutional or electoral laws).

Hope I didn't get "everything" wrong this time. Please correct me if I obviously misunderstand something here.

[ Parent ]

Hmm... (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by trhurler on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 06:08:23 PM EST

My disagreement with you comes mainly in the matter of action vs belief. Helms believes a lot of reprehensible things. He may also have made some claims he doesn't actually believe just to get votes. However, with one exception that was never proven, nobody has shown that he in fact ever tried actively to deprive anyone of any rights. Without that, there's simply no argument to be made here; the guy is free to believe whatever he likes, and people are free to elect him; if he does something improper and someone demonstrates this fact, then and only then is there a problem bigger than a difference of opinion.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
A few things... (4.50 / 2) (#59)
by beergut on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:28:27 PM EST

First of all a Senator doesn't represent his constituency's viewpoints proportionally.

In what way? He is 1/2 of the Senatorial representation for the State of North Carolina. In that state, Senators are duly elected by the people. That is to say, he got at least 50%+1 of the votes for that position in the years in which his seat was open for contest. And he has done so consistently since his first election to the Senate in 1972.

To say that the majority of NC's population represent the viewpoints of Helms is simply not true.

But it is. If he didn't, they wouldn't have elected him. Okay, I'll cede that his stand on issues and his ability to bring home the bacon may have more to do with whether or not he has gotten elected in the past. And while I see nothing wrong with the former (I believe the citizens of North Carolina have the right to vote into office whomever they wish, so long as it was done legally,) I am disgusted by the latter.

Only (if I understand it correctly) a congressman represents the viewpoints of his constituency in his district proportionally.

In the case of Helms, his "district" happens to be the State of North Carolina.

( I still don't understand why people can muck with those congressional districts physical borders and change them all the time).

That was set up, wisely, by the founding fathers in our Constitution. It only happens after a census (potentially every ten years,) and then only to adjust the boundaries of the congressional districts to ensure that representation is proportional. If Helms' district's boundaries had changed, I'd think South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and Tennessee would have something to say about it.

But, as an example of the need for redistricting and adjusting the boundaries of the congressional districts, I'll point out the town in which I live, St. Louis.

The City of St. Louis has, in the last ten years, lost an additional 50,000 people (now about 350,000 down from a high of about 850,000 in the early 1950s.) It would not be proportionally representative, then, for the people who remain in the city to have their own congressman, while the surrounding areas (with many more people than the city) to have to share a congressman. Therefore, the boundaries shift, and those who remain in the city share a congressman with someone in a nearby area. Congressional districts are contiguous, so in the case of St. Louis, they make a geographically larger district to capture the right number of people to balance the representation.

Secondly, there are some human rights, which should be applied to all citizens of the United States uniformly and equally.

Agreed. They include, but are not limited to, those rights established by the first ten or so Amendments to our Constitution.

I don't think that because the freedom of speech allows anyone to campaign on issues, which clearly are based on the desire to prevent some of those human rights to be applied equally to all U.S. citizens regard less of their sex or race, that would mean it would be right to campaign like that,

Morally and ethically, I would agree with you. It's dirty politics, and shameful to state such opinions. It shows you to be nothing but a bigot, and out of touch with reality.

But... (you knew there had to be one, right?)

if the proposed policies violate the constitutional law's intent itself.

The Constitutional protection of free speech is meant to protect those who would voice stupid opinions. Speech which gives voice to an existing majority opinion needs no protection. It is precisely the sort of speech which causes controversy that the explicit Constitutional protection is meant for.

I can say that I think all niggers are subhuman troglodite bottom-feeding scum. The government can do nothing to me for expressing this opinion. This opinion would not be well-received by most in the U.S. nowadays (though there are some who would agree, indubitably.) There can be no laws made which would punish me for having, or expressing this sentiment.

That says nothing about an employer, however.

Were I to say such a foul thing while I was at work, my employer could fire me and there's not a lot I could do about it. Were I to say such a thing while I was walking through the park, not on company time, and I was fired for it, I might have a better case.

What's discrimination anyhow ?

Choice.

I discriminate any minute in my life.

A very astute observation. One which I wish a lot more liberals and leftists would make. Discrimination is a word which has seen so much overuse that it has become quite trite.

I would vote for legislation which discriminates on people's disposition,

Depending on your meaning, we may have some rather shaky agreement. Or vehement disagreement.

let's say, I would vote for making it illegal to not provide wheelchair access ramps to all public buildings. That's a law based on discriminating on people's physical disabilities.

So long as we're talking about government buildings, I would agree. If we're talking about private businesses, then I would not concur.

I would vote for legislation to prevent the census counting its citizens with regards to their ethnic or racial affiliation. I am against it, because it supports the opportunity to introduce legislation on the basis of racial affiliation too easily later on, which I think is thoughtless.

Holy schnikees! We agree! Whoa. I'd better sit down. Wait, I'm already sitting down. I'm still staggered. :-)

On the other hand, I would vote for legislation, which helps to overcome a disadvantage the Afro-Americans experienced, which was generated by applying human rights not uniformly and equally to them in the past.

And we disagree here. I wholeheartedly agree with, and support, the idea of blind justice. Ideally, we are equal in the eyes of the law. But, when you trample the rights of one group to benefit another, no matter your intentions, you are still trampling the rights of one group. That is patently wrong, no matter the history of the groups involved.

Government is not supposed to be a great force for equalization and retribution. Its purpose is to be a defender of our individual liberties, grease the skids for relations between the states, and to give voice to our concerns as a people in the community of nations.

None of those goals is met, or even assisted by, racial quotas (also known as "Affirmative Action".)

So, I would not mind to discriminate on the basis of race for that specific purpose.

Why? To what end? And more importantly, when would your discrimination end? That's the slippery slope you find yourself on. At what point has one group been punished enough to suit the tastes of the other group? If affirmative action actually did anything but foster resentment and promote hostility between groups of people, I might give it a closer inspection. As it is, it does only those things well.

I would also not mind to discriminate on the basis of sex and vote for legislation, which would help women to overcome lack of opportunity to education during their childbearing years, because they have to concentrate their strength on their kids during that time.

Again, to what end? Women do not have to have children, instead focusing on their careers. If a woman chooses a career over children, then that is a choice that she has made, and she needs no "help". If she chooses a family over a career, then that is a choice that she has made, and she needs no "help", instead finding a different reward.

Truly, if someone lays out of the work force for a few years because she was caring for her kids, she will not be as good an employee when first she returns to the work force because her skills may be a bit rusty. Fine. A year or two getting back into the groove, making sure you have your feces coagulated, and you're off to the races again. This is not a permanent condition, though you will lose out on a few years of earnings. It is a choice that you've made, as a woman, to have children.

If your kid is sickly, and you miss a lot of work because of it, then it is not up to your employer to compensate you. He is not getting the full value for the money he expends to hire you, if that is the case. Be glad to have a job at all, if you consistently miss work. Do not look for raises, promotions, and kudos, because you probably won't find any. You had the child, you made the choice, it is your task to deal with it.

I think we introduce hundreds of laws, which are based on some sort of discrimination of sex, race, age and physical and/or mental health status of a person. There is nothing wrong with that in my mind. It merely shows people are using their brains.

There are a very few instances of this sort of law about which I will agree with you. For the most part, though, these sorts of laws are not illustrative of people using their brains. They are illustrative of people acting solely on emotion, without ever even engaging their brains to consider the reasons for, and more importantly the ramifications of, a new law.

People seem to think we can simply legislate away the common cold, but they're wrong.

What you seem to suggest is that, if the majority of a population is voting for laws which clearly violate human rights of some groups in the population on the basis of their race, that this is the sacred right for the population in a democracy to do.

In a pure democracy, it is indeed their right. Luckily, we have a republic in this country, so the whims of a media-frothed populace are somewhat subdued while a more deliberative process takes place. Granted, this process isn't half as deliberative as it should be, and doesn't take into account really important things (like, "If this law were misapplied, could abuse result?",) and is far too easily swayed by monied interests (businesses and others.)

I don't think so. You have to accept the will of the majority in a democratic vote even if you dispise or disagree with the majority's view points, but you don't have to accept the majority trying to trample equal human rights for everyone with their feet.

That's the idea behind the first ten Amendments. You're catching on. :-)

If a population is corrupted by its own emotions of racist feelings against one group of its citizens and votes policies into place, which violate your own constitution's human rights agenda for all its citizens, then something is wrong.

Correct. Just remember, though, that discrimination, racism, hatred, and all those other nasty emotion-based things cut more than one way. Lots of black folks hate whitey, and would use the power and the guns of da gubmint to suppress and oppress him. At least as many whites would do the same to blacks.

Either the constitution has flaws or the politicians have been corrupted by their own constituency ( that possibility also being a flaw in your constitutional or electoral laws).

Maybe. I rather doubt a politician can be corrupted by his constituency, though. Rather, his constituency may be duped by a media blitz carefully crafted, artfully supported, and generously funded by people who are following their own interests in so doing.

The solution? Take away the largest part of the power and money of the central government. Devolve power to the states, where the people have more direct access to, and control of, their politicians. Return our government to the way it was designed.

There are a few flaws with the Constitution, I'll admit. But, those flaws exist where the rights of the people are not more explicitly and adamantly protected.

For instance, an Amendment I'd like to see passed would require congressmen who propose and sponsor a bill to reference the part of the Constitution which would grant the government the power and authority to enact and enforce that legislation. I'd also like a system whereby any legislator or President who voted for or signed a bill into law which is later found to be at odds with the Constitution are punished severely (as in, all your property is forfeit, and you will spend the next twenty years or so in the pokey.)

Hope I didn't get "everything" wrong this time. Please correct me if I obviously misunderstand something here.

I hope that I have done so in a tasteful, clear, and concise manner.

Au revoir.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Au revoir ? - If you insist (none / 0) (#88)
by mami on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 12:41:17 AM EST

Hope I didn't get "everything" wrong this time. Please correct me if I obviously misunderstand something here.
I hope that I have done so in a tasteful, clear, and concise manner.
Of course, very tasteful, clear and concise, just not very logic to me. Thanks for your long feedback though.

A senator does not represent the viewpoints of his constituency proportionally, because a Senator from NC represents a different number of citizens than a Senator from Montana or Delaware. As a senator influences federal legislation, therefore his proportional representation should reflect proportionality vis a vis the whole population of the United States, not just his state. If you base your argument in a fashion like "I am right, because the constitution says so", then we better stop the discussion. Because the constitution says what it creators wanted it to say or not to say, not more and not less. It's a mere legal construct of laws, which I can criticize. Your founding fathers might be very wise, but they were no gods and their laws are not written in stone. You are not a slave vis a vis of your founding fathers. You are allowed to accept their mistakes and make up for them. I don't discuss with people who think that because the constitution says so, that's the end of discussion. For me it's the beginning of the discussion actually. So, to be frank, I don't like your arguments much. They always end with saying something is right because the constitution says so. Fine. I even don't believe in the bible, so guess how little respect I have for a legal construct which doesn't seem to work the way I think it should.

With regards to redrawing the boundaries of congressional districts, I thank you for your information, as it confirmed my belief that the changes in boundaries reflect a necessity to adapt population growth or loss to construct districts with equal number of citizens to make a congressman's election to represent proportionally his constituency vis a vis the whole U.S. population.

What I tried to refer to was the redistricting of the boundaries with the intent to construct congressional districts to reflect a majority of citizens affiliated with a specific race. Such kind of manoeuvres reflect the intent to help a minority to get a candidate of "their own" elected.

I do understand the need for that "help" in this country. But I detest that there is a need for that in the first place. Why is it that only a black person is able to represent black's interests and why is it that people believe only women can represent women's interest. If one accepts that as a given, it's already a sign of having given up on any "blind justice" to be possible.

With regards to women's choice not to have kids, I can only say that your opinion reflects some very low respect about the woman's natural biological role and that role's importance for society. If you think that the need for reproduction is in any way comparable to the need to "make a career" or is of similar importance, you make a big mistake. If all women would choose not to reproduce, it would be a desaster for mankind. If all women would choose not to make a career it wouldn't have much effect on mankind at all. Most of the women in this world don't make a carreer but they make a living for survival. So, the whole issue is fuzzied up from your side anyhow.

Feminists have done a lot to promote rights for women with regards to getting access to pursue careers similar to men, feminists have failed completely to promote the idea that reproduction and raising kids have an equally important value for society and therefore needs to be protected as well. The U.S. is amazingly backwards in this regards. There is no such thing as a choice between either kids with no career or no kids but a career. I would never accept that men impose on me to choose between those two options exclusively.

Well, I am tired. Your arguments about "blind justice" is fine, but only if current laws would be "racially blind" as well. And they are not. So let's talk about blind justice after we have "colorblind" legal procedures implemented, not before.

BTW, why are you adamantly affiliated with one way of thinking and are incapable of considering a logic argument ? If I see you, trhurler and eLuddite argueing, it makes me very tired. Good Night.

[ Parent ]

Got paged, waiting, decided to reply. (5.00 / 3) (#98)
by beergut on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 05:05:07 AM EST

A senator does not represent the viewpoints of his constituency proportionally, because a Senator from NC represents a different number of citizens than a Senator from Montana or Delaware.

But a Senator does represent his constituency, which are the people of his state. Those are the people who elected him, and it is those people to whom he should be beholden. He is there in the Senate to make sure that the interests of his state, and its people, are represented.

The way the bicameral legislature was originally set up, and how it was intended to work, was that the members of the House of Representatives were to be the people's "direct" representatives in Congress, while the senators were there to look after the interests of their states. Senators were originally elected by their state legislatures, and were more or less there to represent and protect the interests of their state governments more directly than those of the people of their states.

As a senator influences federal legislation, therefore his proportional representation should reflect proportionality vis a vis the whole population of the United States, not just his state.

Were that the case, he would cease to be a Senator, and instead become a Representative (i.e., a member of the House of Representatives.) Their functions are different, and the two houses of the legislature function differently. There really is (or was) a reason for their having been set up that way. They are there to make sure that the more populous states don't just run the show without the less populous states having a real say in matters.

If you base your argument in a fashion like "I am right, because the constitution says so", then we better stop the discussion.

Well, like it or not, that is the way the government works (or doesn't work,) because that is what the Constitution says, and those were the concerns that the Constitution addressed when it was written. There is method to the madness. It's been watered down and rendered pretty much ineffective over the course of the last two-hundred odd years, but that's how it was set up.

Because the constitution says what it creators wanted it to say or not to say, not more and not less.

The Constitution very plainly lays out the structure of the government. It's not just random chance that the legislature is bicameral, and that the government is laid out in three distinct branches. Don't believe me? Take a look at the way the House of Representatives and the Senate are defined in that document.

It's a mere legal construct of laws, which I can criticize.

Criticize all you want. It's a free country. You have that right (well, at least here you do.)

Your founding fathers might be very wise, but they were no gods and their laws are not written in stone.

Yes, they were very wise. They founded a nation based upon a few precepts, and I won't bother enumerating them here, since you probably don't give a damn anyway. They had just fought a war for Independence, and were bound and determined to construct a government which would secure to the citizens of the nation it served the liberties they viewed as sacrosanct. They did a pretty good job, though there are a few things they could have done better.

They were not gods, this is true. They were men. But, given the historical period in which they lived, and their involvement in events of that period, they were qualified and entrusted to create this nation and draft a framework for its governance.

And obviously their words were not written in stone. They were written on paper. Stone would have been too unwieldy.

You are not a slave vis a vis of your founding fathers.

Correct, to a point. In relation to the nation my founding fathers wrought, and the liberties they strove to secure to me and the rest of this nation's citizenry, I might be considered a slave. But, it is true that I am not shackled by them, and not so unthinking as to consider them beyond question. There are some very real problems with the document they drafted, but they were wise enough to provide a process by which that document could be altered, and the nature of governance altered by that process of amendment.

They realized that the document they wrote would not suffice for the centuries and (God willing) eons to come. They realized there would be some adjustment necessary. That's the reason they put in the Amendment process.

You are allowed to accept their mistakes and make up for them.

I don't have a problem with altering the governance of this nation, so long as it is done properly. If we passed a Constitutional Amendment that said "The government shall broadcast pornography on VHF channel 2 at 8:00AM every Sunday," then I would probably support it, because the Amendment was made in the proper fashion. That would be an exceedingly stupid amendment to our government's framework, but it would have been done properly. I might not like it, and would certainly criticize it as a waste of time, but I would defend it if asked to do so.

However, if Congress decides that it wants to spend my money to do this without a Constitutional Amendment granting the government the power to specifically do that, I would not support it. It would truly be a waste of time and money, then.

I consider the farcical issue of government-funded pornography to be on the same level as, say, government-funded welfare.

I don't discuss with people who think that because the constitution says so, that's the end of discussion.

When talking about the basic structure of the government, and proportional representation therein, the Constitution IS the final word. Without question. Wish it to be otherwise, but until the document is itself amended, it will not be otherwise. Personally, I think the Constitution didn't go far enough when setting out rules for the selection of Senators. I think it should probably have been a Constitutional mandate that state legislatures selected the Senators (rather than by direct, popular election.)

For me it's the beginning of the discussion actually.

Fine. But unless you can sponsor and complete an Amendment which fundamentally rearranges the government, Senators will still represent their states, rather than a proportional chunk of the nation's populace.

So, to be frank, I don't like your arguments much. They always end with saying something is right because the constitution says so.

Well, take the time to read the document, and pay special attention to Article V (the Amendment process,) as those are the guidelines you will need to follow to change the way things work. The Constitution is flexible that way. I'd rather we amended the Constitution when we want to fundamentally reorganize our system of governance instead of skirting it like we do. Hell, our representatives hardly even pay lip service to that document any more.

Fine. I even don't believe in the bible, so guess how little respect I have for a legal construct which doesn't seem to work the way I think it should.

Fine. But foolish. The Constitution was written by real people, whose histories and actions may be researched, and whose views on issues may be known by reading their other writings and personal correspondence. Think about the reasons the document was written the way it was written, and why things are organized the way that they are organized. I'll be the first to say the thing isn't perfect, but it's not too shabby for a bunch of dead white guys.

Also, while you can see the physical manifestation of the words in that document glittering before you like a giant cesspool, in the form of the government of the United States, there is no physical manifestation of God you can point to and say, "God." Belief in the teachings and events in the Bible as evidence for the existence of God, who has no physical manifestation, is clearly not even in the same league of credulity as believing that a government based upon the words contained in that document we so lovingly refer to as the Constitution exists.

One has a physical manifestation (and infestation,) and the other does not.

Or, perhaps you'd like to try a different analogy.

At any rate, whether or not the government is organized in the way in which you think it should be organized is irrelevant. It is basically organized the way the founding fathers thought it should be organized. They wrote it down, and that has provided the framework for the leviathanic government that annoys us all so much.

With regards to redrawing the boundaries of congressional districts, I thank you for your information, as it confirmed my belief that the changes in boundaries reflect a necessity to adapt population growth or loss to construct districts with equal number of citizens to make a congressman's election to represent proportionally his constituency vis a vis the whole U.S. population.

My pleasure. The House of Representatives works that way. The Senate is not the House of Representatives. It has its own section in Article I, and is meant to perform a different task than the House of Representatives.

What I tried to refer to was the redistricting of the boundaries with the intent to construct congressional districts to reflect a majority of citizens affiliated with a specific race. Such kind of manoeuvres reflect the intent to help a minority to get a candidate of "their own" elected.

That is an unfortunate twist of jurisprudence. What is, in my opinion, a horrible decision by the Supreme Court. That practice was started not so long ago, and the Supreme Court ruled it acceptable. So, instead of having essentially colorblind, fair representation in logically-drawn districts, we have a bunch of simpering, whining, race-baiting and gerrymandering so blacks and other minorities can have "equal representation."

I, personally, would vote for a black man to represent me if he and I thought the same way about the issues. I don't see color as a benefit or detriment, and don't base my decisions upon that.

Would that others, especially blacks, would think likewise.

I do understand the need for that "help" in this country. But I detest that there is a need for that in the first place.

There is no need for it, and it only serves to divide us further. As I said, I don't care about color. Only ideology. Though Alan Keyes' ideas about some things were distressing, I would have certainly voted for him before I would have even considered voting for Al Gore. Most white people that I know feel the same way (regarding importance of skin color, not about Keyes specifically.) Most blacks I know think only a black person can represent their interests, even when they agree ideologically with a white guy.

All this racial division and strife should have died down by now, but the media and characters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton keep the issue alive. Not because it does anything good for black folks, who are rapidly entering the middle class and drawing close to parity economically with their white peers, but because it empowers them politically and gives them an issue with which to bludgeon others.

Yes, racism exists. But, it's not being put to bed by guys like Jackson and Sharpton and Farakhan. Those guys are as bad as David Duke and Tom Metzger, in that they play upon the fears of an ignorant minority to lend credence and volume to their pabulum.

Why is it that only a black person is able to represent black's interests and why is it that people believe only women can represent women's interest. If one accepts that as a given, it's already a sign of having given up on any "blind justice" to be possible.

Do you hear angels singing? We agree again.

With regards to women's choice not to have kids, I can only say that your opinion reflects some very low respect about the woman's natural biological role and that role's importance for society.

Indeed, you are wrong. I have the utmost respect for women and their biology and the role they play in the sustenance and success of the human race.

But, I realize that some people want to have their cake and eat it, too. It's just not possible. Either you forego involvement in your family for the single-minded pursuit of a career, or you loosen your grip on a career a bit so that you can be involved with, and enjoy, your family.

The same thing goes for men, though women here tend to be more nurturing than men (as I suspect it is in most of the rest of the world.) Women generally are more involved with the domestic part of child-rearing, while men are generally more involved with provision. When a happy balance between these goals can be found, a family works very well.

Slavish devotion to a career, spending long hours in the office, necessarily lessens the time one can spend with his or her family, and consequently the amount of satisfaction and other intangible, infungible rewards one derives from it. I'm not opposed to being "Mr. Mom", staying home and taking care of (and educating) the kids if that's how things work out best.

Likewise, time spent away from work, caring for the kids, is time not spent pursuing one's career. You look for intangible rewards from nurturing your kids, and you're likely to find them. Satisfaction in one's family is, to me, more important than financial success and satisfaction in one's career. But, others' priorities differ.

Some women disagree with me, and have a nanny watch the rugrats while they and their husbands work. Not a great way to raise good kids, but whatever works.

If you think that the need for reproduction is in any way comparable to the need to "make a career" or is of similar importance, you make a big mistake.

Why? Is it not true that you can choose whether or not to reproduce? And is it not true that you can choose whether or not to pursue a career?

Is it not also true that it is impossible to be in two places at once, and that time spent at work generally means time spent away from the kids, and vice versa?

Is it not also true that in order for you to propel yourself forward in your career, you will need to devote some time to it? So, if you have kids, and therefore less time to devote to developing your career, is it not only logical that you won't advance in your career as quickly as you might if you did not have kids?

And, is it not also true that in order for you to raise a stable, well-adjusted, well-balanced family, you will need to devote some time to it? And if you have a career, and therefore less time for a family, does it not also make sense that you might miss out on something in your family life?

I advocate finding a balance. Don't expect to be a CEO of a company if you have kids and are devoted enough to them that you are unwilling to put in the grueling hours necessary to that end. Also, don't expect to have good, well-adjusted, well-mannered, intelligent, respectful kids if you don't spend any time with them.

If all women would choose not to reproduce, it would be a desaster for mankind.

Indeed. A hell of a lot less fun, too.

If all women would choose not to make a career it wouldn't have much effect on mankind at all.

Agreed. The world would still chug along if women didn't work. If men didn't work, and stayed home with the kids, I suspect that women would probably take up the slack.

Currently, women require men for reproduction (at least, by conventional means.) It's a good tradeoff. If men decided not to reproduce (not bloody likely,) it would be equally disastrous for humanity.

Most of the women in this world don't make a carreer but they make a living for survival.

Yeah. In the balance, if you are married, a lot of the time it doesn't make any economic sense for the woman to work. Figure money spent on gas, food, and babysitting, and some women are lucky to pull down $50 per week in discretionary funds. Of course, if "keeping up with the Jones'" is your game, you'll probably not be satisfied no matter how much money you make.

So, the whole issue is fuzzied up from your side anyhow.

Not as much as you might like to pretend. I happen to be a realist, though, and know that it is at least difficult to work and care properly for children simultaneously. Childcare by itself is a full-time job. Stack serious pursuit of a career atop that (especially with young children, and with older children, too, if you decide to do the right thing for them and teach them at home,) and you have a recipe for a very frazzled parent.

Feminists have done a lot to promote rights for women with regards to getting access to pursue careers similar to men, feminists have failed completely to promote the idea that reproduction and raising kids have an equally important value for society and therefore needs to be protected as well.

Correct. Fortunately, though, lots of young women in this generation are waking up to this realization. When feminism is about equal rights, and equal pay for equal labor, I'm all for it. When it degenerates into man-hating and blaming white male oppressors for all the evils that have ever happened since the dawn of time, I stop listening.

The U.S. is amazingly backwards in this regards.

How is Europe any better? If the answer involves some kind of socialistic government program claptrap, then I won't accept it as better. If it's societal, or due to different attitudes, I'm listening.

There is no such thing as a choice between either kids with no career or no kids but a career. I would never accept that men impose on me to choose between those two options exclusively.

Nor would anyone expect you to do so. Just realize that there is a tradeoff, and work to find the balance that's right for you.

Well, I am tired. Your arguments about "blind justice" is fine, but only if current laws would be "racially blind" as well. And they are not.

Au contraire. The laws are colorblind. There are no longer any laws which say that something is okay for one race, but not for another (unless you want to get "Affirmative Action" involved here.)

It's the enforcement of the laws which seems to have a problem.

I lay the problem in equal parts at the feet of government, minorities, and whites. If government would get out of the picture, minorities and whites could probably figure out the rest on their own. The changes that have taken place so far have not been revolutionary, but rather evolutionary, and we're not done yet. Blacks are now entering the middle (and higher) classes in increasing numbers, and as they do so, they are becoming more and more accepted, and the issue of skin color less and less noticed.

What I find sad, though, is the insistence of some blacks that those who work hard and succeed are somehow "selling out" their race, when there could be nothing further from the truth. To my mind, blacks should see these folks as shining beacons of what's possible with effort, education, and determination. Instead, they are reviled and derided by the black community for not being "black enough."

When blacks tone down the rhetoric, and begin noticing that hard work, education, determination, ambition, and talent can get them somewhere, and stop stigmatizing those blacks who have already seen the light, they will find more legal and societal parity with their white peers.

And whites should help them by not giving a damn for color, instead judging people on their merit. This man has some pretty interesting things to say.

So let's talk about blind justice after we have "colorblind" legal procedures implemented, not before.

The two go hand in hand. And can only become reality when more blacks accept the mantle of responsibility for their own actions that they must bear (this is happening in increasing numbers) and stop alienating those who have bridged the gap and succeeded despite societal problems (this is a tougher nut to crack,) and when more whites get a fucking clue (this, also, is happening.) It won't happen overnight, but then the Jews didn't bounce out of the ghettos overnight in the early part of the last century, either.

BTW, why are you adamantly affiliated with one way of thinking and are incapable of considering a logic argument ?

I'm not. It's just that the views that I have expressed are the only ones which make sense to me, when I examine them rationally. Leftists, at least the ones with whom I've had contact, have not yet presented me with a reasonable package of arguments that I cannot shoot holes in.

I won't say Libertarianism is perfect, but it makes more sense, to me, than Communism or even Socialism. It makes the individual the axis of liberty, rather than making the State the arbitor of liberty, and places the responsibility for the individual's well-being upon the individual rather than upon his neighbors, who also have to look out for themselves. It gives the individual choice as to whether or not he wants to help his fellow man (and lots do, me included,) rather than pointing a gun at his head and forcing him to part with his hard-earned wages to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate those who refuse to care for themselves.

If I see you, trhurler and eLuddite argueing, it makes me very tired.

Me, too, sometimes. But, I post in the hopes that reasonable arguments can possibly illuminate my positions to someone who might be reading, so that they can see and consider the depths of the philosophy behind them, rather than just dismissing it out of hand because "it's not the way things are done right now." Philosophy isn't my strong suit - for that, ask trhurler, as he spends most of his free time with his nose in a philosophy book, seemingly. Rather, I live by the Golden Rule, and that also is incompatible with leftist ideology and wholly compatible with a more libertarian bent.

Good Night.

Bonne nuit, madamoiselle. (I think?)

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

Thanks for your efforts (3.00 / 1) (#102)
by mami on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 10:56:44 AM EST

I will try to read through it, but don't expect me to comment on it any more. No offense, it's just too much. Sorry and thanks again. Your verbosity is a bit scary.

Oops, I just read this sentence:

At any rate, whether or not the government is organized in the way in which you think it should be organized is irrelevant.

What ????? - Pheww !!!

[ Parent ]

Heheh... (none / 0) (#106)
by beergut on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 11:18:20 AM EST

You didn't read the rest of it, which plainly stated that there is an amendment procedure established within the Constitution, and that is the procedure which should be followed if you want to change the nature of the government.

It's there. It's possible. Use it.

i don't see any nanorobots or jet engines or laser holography or orbiting death satellites.
i just see some orangutan throwing code-feces at a computer screen.

-- indubitable
[ Parent ]

No offense (none / 0) (#107)
by Wah on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 12:39:59 PM EST

but I've got books to read that are shorter than that last comment. Sometimes saying less is saying more, if only because people will read it.
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]
Apologies (none / 0) (#113)
by mami on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 08:36:15 PM EST

Ok, I have things to do at times other than reading K5. But I now managed to read your comment down to the second last paragraph and admit I didn't expect most of what you wrote in the second half of the comment.

I am sorry to have been rude in my first reaction. I am actually interested in reading a lot more about constitutional law and compare it with constitutional law in my home country. I even shelled out some money for some books today. May be I get to read them some day soon.

Other than that I actually am not that fast to be able to comment on most of the topics you include. I think as I have raised my kid and had one time in my life a career, I know what I am talking about managing both. I had also the pleasure to do so in several countries and there is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. is the worst country for women to raise kids and work at the same time. Sorry.

As you are a died in the wool anti-liberal and anti-social everything (at least it sounds like it), I am not going to discuss this with you. Laws and attitude toward women is different here and I don't like them much.

Considering the Amendment Process be sure I like to study that and actually wouldn't mind to become an activist to make certain changes to the U.S. constitution, if I were a citizen of this country. And from what I read in your comments you would certainly disagree with me. So, I really don't like to argue with you about it, because I can't do so in a professional manner.

With regards to your judgement of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes I won't comment aside from saying that people with their personality you will find among whites, pinks and lilas. I would not know why I am more opposed to them among the black minority than I would be opposed against similar demagogues among whites.

May be I read your comment a couple of more times and add something later. You certainly provided some food for thought. Again, sorry for having answered spontaneously a bit offensive at first.

[ Parent ]
Helms not alone (4.55 / 9) (#20)
by golek on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 02:07:34 PM EST

Helms is a relic, but to single him out for supporting segregation in the 60's and 70's is a bit unfair. With the exception of Jimmy Carter, any white southern politician of Helm's generation was likely a supporter of school segregation during the civil rights movement. At the time they were all Democrats and while some, like Helms and Thurmond changed parties, there are plenty still around who didn't; Robert Byrd and Zell Miller for example. All have moderated their views since those days, some more than others. Many on the left try to hold out Helms as some sort of symbol of the modern conservative movement, something he is most definitely not, just as Maxine Waters does not embody the modern liberal movement.

Not Quite... (4.60 / 5) (#24)
by Electric Angst on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 02:49:11 PM EST

Lyndon B. Johnson, southern politician of Helm's era, hardcore anti-segregationalist, crooked enough to know where all the bodies were buried, straight-arrow enough to be willing to go out with a shovel if it would pass something he believed in...
--
I fly the UN Flag.
[ Parent ]
Racism? (2.50 / 26) (#29)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 03:39:09 PM EST

During the 1960's...

What happened over thirty years ago is not relevant to today's society - what was socially accepted then is not today; It is like comparing apples to oranges. Helms ran against a black man in 1990 and only won by running very racist ads right before the election. His ad showed a pair of white hands crumpling a job rejection letter. The voice-over proclaimed: "You needed the job, you were the best qualified. But they gave it to a minority because of racial quotas. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is."

Well, sounds racist to me. I mean, isn't racism 'discrimination on the basis of skin color', essentially? I'd say racial quotas then are discriminatory. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter who does it, it is no matter what. Sounds anti-racist, if you ask me.

(which is unlikely, as Helms is one of the biggest fundraisers around).

Discrimination lawsuits are one of the highest costing legal battles one can fight, right behind intellectual property suits and murder, IMO. This sounds like an unsubstantiated claim - 'one of the biggest'... compared to? Numbers, please?

He also vigorously opposed creating a museum for African history, saying that if one minority gets one, all minorities will want one.

And why shouldn't white people also get a museum. Or native americans, or women, or really every group - I mean, that would only be fair, right? Oh. I see - only some... priveledged groups get museums.

"And Mr. Helms, I know this might not be politically correct to say this thing, but I just think you should get a Nobel Peace Prize for everything you've done to help keep down the niggers." Helms thanked him for this "compliment".

And what would you do if a constituent called up and said they supported you (but for the wrong reasons) - kick the gift horse in the mouth? Comeon.

He refused to allow money to go to families that lost a member to AIDS, because its their "deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct" that is responsible for the disease. He suggested that people with AIDS be quarantined.

Heterosexuals are getting AIDS just as much as gay people, I fail to see how this is 'gay-targeted' - that is a ten year old fact, and does not reflect today's world. In addition, the CDC has declared AIDS/HIV to be an epidemic. Quarantine may be one of the few remaining options to us - along with intensifying public campaigning to practice safer sex, something which has had only a marginal impact over the years. Sounds rational to me.

These people are intellectually dishonest in just everything they say or do...

A suspect statement, but there's no conclusive scientific proof either for or against homosexuality being a 'lifestyle choice'. In light of that, the statement 'intellectually dishonest' might be valid - nobody can claim one way or another why homosexuality occurs.

"I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine."

Well, that certainly qualifies as sex-discrimination. It may have been a personal dislike of the person, however, and a desire to slander them, instead of an across-the-board condemnation of lesbians.

He added an amendment to the bill (which was rightfully moved later) that would deny the fund from "promoting homosexuality".

Discrimination laws in the United States say that the state cannot discriminate on the basis of 'sexual orientation'. Promoting homosexuality would certainly violate federal law... I see nothing wrong with that clause being there (or not)... if nothing else, it removes some ambiguity - some people might (wrongly) assume that the US government was promoting homosexuality, in violation of anti-discrimination laws, otherwise.

His theory was that the money could only be used to instruct a heterosexual man on how to properly use a condom, but not a gay man.

Got a cite to backup that claim?

He also attempted to prevent schools from counseling gay students.

Again, can we get a citation? It seems you link to 3 articles, two of which are personal homepages, and the other - CNN, which mentions none of this. How much of your submission is based on fact, and how much on your own guesses about the position of Helms?

I'm ashamed that it's the year 2001 and a person such as him is representing a portion of our country.

In one breath, you claim that you are "all for freedom of speech", but then condemn someone that freely expresses their viewpoint. You and I may not agree with racism, or discimination, but it is the right of EVERYONE to excercise their rights, no matter how abhorrent their speech may be to us. "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular."

The press is treating him as some sort of martyr, playing down his extremely racist, prejudice side, and that is just wrong.

And who the fuck are you to say it's "wrong"? Foisting your beliefs onto someone else is much more dangerous and insidious than racism or sexism on their own.

Conclusion - this submission is based on exaggeration, opinion, and lacks any way to substantiate it's many claims. Additionally, the author fails to define 'racism', and its meaning appears to shift throughout the article. Lastly, the author clearly does not like the person being 'interviewed' in the submission, and this bias has clearly distorted what few facts may be present.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

um, ok (3.75 / 4) (#35)
by delmoi on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:21:05 PM EST

Heterosexuals are getting AIDS just as much as gay people, I fail to see how this is 'gay-targeted' - that is a ten year old fact, and does not reflect today's world.

First of all, Hetrosexuals are not getting Aids at the same rate as Homosexuals in the country, and they never have been.

Secondly, wether or not it's gay bashing is irrelevent. The fact is he just insulted everyone with aids for their "lifestyle" (Gay, unprotected sex. Regular unprotected sex, sharing needles, etc).
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
Center for Disease control: Wrong. (4.33 / 3) (#58)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:22:40 PM EST

First of all, Hetrosexuals are not getting Aids at the same rate as Homosexuals in the country, and they never have been.

"In 1999, 46% of reported HIV infections among adolescent males aged 13-19 and 51% of cases among men aged 20-24 were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact." [Source: CDC report on AIDS/HIV]

Tell me, who's the other half of men who are being infected having sex with?




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

false logic... (none / 0) (#92)
by mmcc on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 02:18:44 AM EST

What you're implying would be true is having sex were the only way to catch AIDS, and it isn't.



[ Parent ]

not so fast, incubating jessie (2.66 / 3) (#95)
by eLuddite on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 03:06:14 AM EST

You are trying to compare Delmoi's rate of infection in the homosexual community with the incidence of homosexual infection in the general population. It will now occur to you that rate does not compare with incidence and that heterosexual men outnumber homosexual men by several factors. I dont know if Delmoi is right, but I do know you didnt prove him wrong.

Tell me, who's the other half of men who are being infected having sex with?

Ah, this would be where you commit your usual Ad Incorrigiblywrongprick fallacy, I believe.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

a wee bit o' statistics (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by norge on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 05:27:04 PM EST

To expound a little bit on what eLuddite pointed out I'd like to analyze the statistics a little bit:

Assumptions:
* The statistics Signal 11 gave are close enough to correct to say that 50% of reported HIV infections among men are attributed to homosexual sex without too much round-off error.
* The portion of men who are gay is g.
* The size of the total population is p.
* The total number of reported infections is n.
* All gay men are infected by having gay sex and all heterosexual men are infected by having straight sex.

From these assumptions we can deduce:
n/2 gay men are infected and the total number of gay men is g*p.
n/2 straight men are infected and the total number of straight men is (1-g)*p.
The portion of all gay men who are infected is (n/2)/(g*p).
The portion of all straight men who are infected is (n/2)/((1-g)*p).
The ratio of the portion of the gay population that is infected to the portion of the straight population that is infected is (n/2)/(g*p):(n/2)/((1-g)*p), or 1-g:g. So if the portion of men who are gay is, say, .1, then the ratio of the portion of gay men infected to the portion of straight men infected is 9:1.

I hope this little exercise has convinced anyone who was sceptical that HIV infection remains overwhelmingly a bigger problem among homosexual men than heterosexual men. I tend to believe the people who say that the portion of straight men and women who are infected has been rising over the last few years, which makes it even more remarkable how concentrated HIV infection was in the gay community in the 80's.

I'll leave it to the more sociologically oriented to sort out what all this means (and what bearing it might have on Jesse Helms). I hope that this post has cleared up some statistical confusion out there. Goodness know we have enough of it.

Benjamin


[ Parent ]
Just a thought... (none / 0) (#133)
by eightball on Mon Aug 27, 2001 at 03:10:18 PM EST

Signal 11 did not mention rate, he only said 'as much as' which could be taken as gross numbers rather than a proportional comparison. I realize ambiguity is not really a defense, but shouldn't we ask for clarification rather than make assumptions about what the reader thinks it means? (btw, you can do both at once if you really want, as in "If you mean to suggest the rate is the same, then @(*%&#(@(*%$#(...")

I would suggest it is as much of a heterosexual problem as there are about as many heterosexual patients as homosexual patients. As far as caregiving, it would seem to be a 50/50 split. So as far as they are concerned, it isn't a 'homosexual' disease or a 'heterosexual' disease.

[ Parent ]
interesting (none / 0) (#79)
by Delirium on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:35:18 PM EST

First of all, Hetrosexuals are not getting Aids at the same rate as Homosexuals in the country, and they never have been.

Oddly, the pro-gay groups on my campus often run ads claiming the exact opposite - that AIDS is not a "gay disease" and that the majority of new AIDS cases are in heterosexuals. As that isn't my field I can't say who is correct, but it's interesting that here Jesse Helms is being considered anti-gay for his comments on AIDS, while the gay groups themselves claim AIDS should not be uniquely or primarily associated with their sexual orientation.

[ Parent ]

*sigh* (3.66 / 9) (#36)
by Wicket on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:22:37 PM EST

What happened over thirty years ago is not relevant to today's society

This is easy for you to say, being a white male.

I'd say racial quotas then are discriminatory.

And I'd say I'd agree with you. The ad was obviously playing off race issues. BUT, you didn't even bring up the fact that his office was found at fault for sending post cards to black voters telling them they are unable to vote in the election, and if they do, they will be found guilty of voter fraud. Racism is racism is racism.

And why shouldn't white people also get a museum. Or native americans, or women, or really every group - I mean, that would only be fair, right? Oh. I see - only some... priveledged groups get museums.

HA! Try going into any museum in the US and see if White people aren't somehow represented. What a joke.

And what would you do if a constituent called up and said they supported you (but for the wrong reasons) - kick the gift horse in the mouth? Comeon.

He was thanked for keeping the niggers down. I can most certainly hold this against him.

Heterosexuals are getting AIDS just as much as gay people, I fail to see how this is 'gay-targeted' - that is a ten year old fact...

He was blaming it on one group for spreading it, not acknowledging that this disease does not discriminate, which I'm sure he must also hold against it :)

A suspect statement, but there's no conclusive scientific proof either for or against homosexuality being a 'lifestyle choice'. In light of that, the statement 'intellectually dishonest' might be valid - nobody can claim one way or another why homosexuality occurs.

But he has already CLAIMED one way or another and has tried constantly to deny gays equal rights. If no one can decide it, why can he? Either way, he was trying to deny a group of people rights that they are supposedly guaranteed in this "free" country.

"I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine."

Well, that certainly qualifies as sex-discrimination. It may have been a personal dislike of the person, however, and a desire to slander them, instead of an across-the-board condemnation of lesbians.

Do you understand how Senate confirmations work even? It's not about a dislike of the person, it's SUPPOSED to be about their record.

He also attempted to prevent schools from counseling gay students.

Again, can we get a citation? It seems you link to 3 articles, two of which are personal homepages, and the other - CNN, which mentions none of this. How much of your submission is based on fact, and how much on your own guesses about the position of Helms?

Alternet.org is not a personal webpage. Perhaps you missed one of the main points of the article on how the major news media is pretty much ignoring his very bigoted side, this too would include cnn.

In one breath, you claim that you are "all for freedom of speech", but then condemn someone that freely expresses their viewpoint. You and I may not agree with racism, or discimination, but it is the right of EVERYONE to excercise their rights, no matter how abhorrent their speech may be to us. "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular."

Helms is a senator of the US, someone who is supposed to make laws and uphold the constituion for EVERYONE, not just who he thinks is entitled to these laws. Helms is perfectly fine to have these views as a private citizen, it's when he becomes a PUBLIC SERVANT, when his antics harm the rights of others is when it crosses the line.

And who the fuck are you to say it's "wrong"? Foisting your beliefs onto someone else is much more dangerous and insidious than racism or sexism on their own.

It was my CONCLUSION. It's what I believe, I'm not telling anyone to believe this, now was I?

Conclusion - this submission is based on exaggeration, opinion, and lacks any way to substantiate it's many claims. Additionally, the author fails to define 'racism', and its meaning appears to shift throughout the article. Lastly, the author clearly does not like the person being 'interviewed' in the submission, and this bias has clearly distorted what few facts may be present.

Conclusion - Signal 11 has and always will be a pompous bastard. If he really needs a definition of racism, well he must really be a product of US public education. Find me one news source that isn't biased.

[ Parent ]

RE: Jesse Helms (2.66 / 3) (#75)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:14:44 PM EST

This is easy for you to say, being a white male.

Ad hominim attack.

you didn't even bring up the fact that his office was found at fault for sending post cards to black voters telling them they are unable to vote in the election, and if they do, they will be found guilty of voter fraud.

Many political campaigns use dirty tricks like this. That doesn't make it racism, in and of itself. The fact that race is involved doesn't mean it is racism, necessarily. However, I agree that it was a pretty dirty trick, and probably racially motivated. I'm not defending Jesse Helms or his supporters, but what I am asking for is an objective analysis. Such things are difficult to accomplish when dealing with such emotionally charged issues.

Alternet.org is not a personal webpage.

You're right. It's a conspiracy theory mill.

...how the major news media is pretty much ignoring his very bigoted side, this too would include cnn.

Right. My conspiracy theory beats your logical argument. Got it.

If no one can decide it, why can he?

I wasn't aware that a single US senator could single-handedly pass laws without approval from other senators, and another body called 'the house'. Was there an amendment to the constitution I haven't heard about?

Helms is perfectly fine to have these views as a private citizen...

... and he was elected for holding those views, in a democratic election. Blame our founding fathers for this travesty.

Do you understand how Senate confirmations work even?

Yup. You bend over, grab your ankles...

It's what I believe, I'm not telling anyone to believe this, now was I?

Quite correct, but that's no substitute for a solid logical argument, supported by unassailable facts.

Signal 11 has and always will be a pompous bastard.

Ad hominim #2.

If he really needs a definition of racism, well he must really be a product of US public education.

Ad hominim #3.

Find me one news source that isn't biased.

What about that alternet.org site you suggested?


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

RE: Jesse Helms (1.00 / 1) (#80)
by Wicket on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:39:29 PM EST

Ad hominim attack.

You don't like it when people use your antics do you?

I'm not defending Jesse Helms or his supporters, but what I am asking for is an objective analysis. Such things are difficult to accomplish when dealing with such emotionally charged issues.

*YOU* are asking for an objective analysis? Once you start playing by this game, then start asking people for this, until then, you know where you can shove it :D

Alternet.org is not a personal webpage.

You're right. It's a conspiracy theory mill.

No more than this website or a certain news network that goes by the name of Fox News.

I wasn't aware that a single US senator could single-handedly pass laws without approval from other senators, and another body called 'the house'. Was there an amendment to the constitution I haven't heard about?

Changing the subject when you've got a position you can't defend? Classic. You said that no one can claim whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyly choice, and I simply pointed out that Helms has done just this. And then went off on a ridiculous tangent.

... and he was elected for holding those views, in a democratic election. Blame our founding fathers for this travesty.

I never said he can't hold these views. I just find them ignorant, and most people in the bible belt would agree :D

Yup. You bend over, grab your ankles...

Hope you learn some stuff in college, let me know when you get your degree, when you won't have to resort to such ridiculous analogies. There is still hope.

Quite correct, but that's no substitute for a solid logical argument, supported by unassailable facts.

You are one to talk, aren't you? What unassaible facts did I leave out? That he's a bigot? Is that really hard to back up?

Ad hominim #2.

Ad hominim #3.

Bojay, you really don't like it when the tables are turned do you?

What about that alternet.org site you suggested?

When did I say it wasn't biased? I didn't. News outlets are biased. You'll learn this obvious fact upon graduation.

[ Parent ]

Hominem (5.00 / 4) (#84)
by Dlugar on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 11:14:36 PM EST

Come on, guys, can't you get your neuter singular accusative third declension nouns right? The word is homo, hominis, which any educated fool knows is third declension, and when accompanied with the preposition ad, thus takes the accusative (or direct object) form--that being hominem. Not, and I repeat, not, hominim.

It's a pity, kids these days can't even get their Latin declensions correct. What's this world coming to!


Dlugar

(er, sorry, it's late.)



[ Parent ]
RE: Jesse Helms (2.33 / 3) (#85)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 11:16:44 PM EST

You don't like it when people use your antics do you?

Cite?

No more than this website or a certain news network that goes by the name of Fox News.

Now that we've ruled out non-major media outlets as a source of reliable information...

You said that no one can claim whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyly choice, and I simply pointed out that Helms has done just this.

Mere statement does not a fact make.

I just find them ignorant, and most people in the bible belt would agree.

Funny, they elected him, too...

Hope you learn some stuff in college, let me know when you get your degree, when you won't have to resort to such ridiculous analogies.

Ad hominim #4

What unassaible facts did I leave out?

Any of them.

Bojay, you really don't like it when the tables are turned do you?

I wasn't aware of any movement of the load-carrying device which would result in a disadvantageous set of circumstances to myself.

When did I say it wasn't biased? I didn't.

You stated that major news outlets were biased, and hence unreliable sources of information, which implied that the non-major media outlet in the article - alternet.org, was non-biased, or less biased. While you did not explicitly state that, your argument obviously depends on that statement.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

assumption (1.00 / 1) (#105)
by Wicket on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 11:09:58 AM EST

When you assume you make an ass out of U and...so on. Anyway.

You stated that major news outlets were biased, and hence unreliable sources of information, which implied that the non-major media outlet in the article - alternet.org, was non-biased, or less biased. While you did not explicitly state that, your argument obviously depends on that statement.

Major news sources with a supposed "liberal bias" have been treating him like a martyr, as I said before. As usual, you have to rely on non-mainstream news sites to report the facts. BIAS does not mean unreliable, but you can't get the full side of the story, which is what I did.

[ Parent ]

Is that you Jesse? (4.50 / 2) (#44)
by professor bikey bike on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:45:11 PM EST

And why shouldn't white people also get a museum. Or native americans, or women, or really every group - I mean, that would only be fair, right? Oh. I see - only some... priveledged groups get museums. Have you ever actually been in a museum? Or read a high school history book?

[ Parent ]
wtf? (3.00 / 6) (#45)
by strlen on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:47:07 PM EST

oh boy, sig11 and those damn minorities opressing his middle class white ass. let's try a few points:

afirmative action. then why does jesse helms especially target this campaign for white americans, showing it as a view point of convience and of-self interested, rather than stating that "afirmative action has dangerous implications, as it legitimizes racial discrimination, given a proper purpose". and why the fuck would i need a lesson on racism from someone who's a racist, mysoginist and a homophobe to start with? i currently have no opinion on affirmative action, but i'm no fan of segregation either and i'd take affirmative action over segreation any time, since the purpose is quite different. also, if you're a moral relativist stating that "it was ok for jesse helms to be a racist", why also won't you be a moral relativist stating "it's ok to discriminate against whites to make up for the effects of past discrimination against blacks". i have no position over moral relativism though, but i'm just trying to make a point.

museums and african americans: ugh, african americans have a distinct culture, and are a significant minority (13%) who influence mainstream culture and politics. wouldn't be a good idea to inform people about them. native american museums? i'm sure there's plenty, i've seen a lot in california. white museums? i'm sure there's amish museums, or german museums or irish museums. whites aren't a fully homogenous culture, you know. women museums? women are not a minority, they're a gender. a white woman has more in common (culturary) with a white man that she does with a native american woman

you evil, you put your ideas on me! great, so now i can't state my opinion, one i've backed up with arguments. you can make another argument and you can state that my argument is wrong.

sometimes you're a good read, sometimes you're good entartainment, but sig11 is always sig11.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Asked and Answered... (3.00 / 2) (#56)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:13:51 PM EST

then why does jesse helms especially target this campaign for white americans, showing it as a view point of convience and of-self interested

Possibly because that's about the only group that isn't getting special priveledges on the basis of their 'minority status' under our politically correct legal system?

i'd take affirmative action over segreation any time, since the purpose is quite different.

No, the purpose is the same - to priviledge one group at the cost of another. Affirmative action is very much like segregation in that it will engender the same feelings of animosity towards the 'preferred' race. And the result will be the same - more violence, less tolerance, and an even messier patchwork of laws to try to hold back the dam of emotions.

african americans have a distinct culture, and are a significant minority (13%) who influence mainstream culture and politics.

Geeks have a distinct culture. It is estimated that there are something like 600,000 in the United States alone, and they too influence mainstream culture and politics. Witness worldwide protests over globalism, the DMCA, intellectual property, 'cybercrime'. I see nobody advocating a museum for them. Why?

...but sig11 is always sig11.

Yes. I suppose he is. *shaking his head* Poor bastard.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

political shmortectness (3.00 / 2) (#62)
by strlen on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 08:20:11 PM EST

black is white, segreation is affirmative action! Actually no, the goal of affirmative action is to get the blacks on the same level as the whites. Goal of segreation was to keep a formerly enslaved community down. May be the means are the same, but the ends are far from it.

Build a geek museum. And what percentage of the populations do the geeks comprise? And is there NAAGP. Does anyone care about geeks? Do any geeks lobby for such a museum? Was there ever a congresional vote on that issue? Are geeks a more or less homogenus group anyways? Not to mention that such a museum already exists.



--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
But do the ends justify the means? (none / 0) (#66)
by Trepalium on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 08:50:41 PM EST

Actually no, the goal of affirmative action is to get the blacks on the same level as the whites. Goal of segreation was to keep a formerly enslaved community down. May be the means are the same, but the ends are far from it.
Do the ends justify the means, especially when we can't even prove that the means will produce the ends? I personally agree with sig11, and have to say no. I'm reminded of something my parents used to tell me all the time -- "Two wrongs don't make a right."

[ Parent ]
The ends and the means (none / 0) (#70)
by strlen on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 09:21:43 PM EST

That's the question. I believe it's an individual thing, there's no single principle for the idea. What ends? What means? This is why I have no position on afirmative action at the time. I am not fully aware of how it is implemented, of the successes it has etc..

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
"successes" (none / 0) (#134)
by Mitheral on Mon Aug 27, 2001 at 07:23:12 PM EST

One of the problems with AA I've observed as a disinterested outsider (Canadian eh?) is that any successes it may have are mostly intangible and the failures are often hugely public and newsworthy. At least that is the feeling I get when watching american news. Maybe this is jesse Helms fault; he sure does get face time in the media. And the failures often really stick in one's mind.

Here's my favourite example:
My spouse is a Certified Athletic Trainer. To become certified you have to complete a practicum consisting of a large number of hours in both contact and non-contact sports[1]. She did her training at the University of the Pacific[UoP] in Stockton California. A good way to get your contact hours is with american football. UoP used to have a decent football program and has good facilities because some NFL club uses the campus for spring training. My wife however got all her football hours in Nevada because UoP cancelled it's football program.

What has this to do with AA? Well AA was a top five contributing factor to football being cancelled. Now I know at lot of you are asking WTF? Here's the chain of events:
1) Football is expensive but brings in a lot of alummni dollars
2) Football is also for all intents and purposes 100% male
3) AA rules enforce equal spending on sports programs for males and females (and other divisions not important for this discussion)
4) No female sports are even close to being as expensive as football

So UoP cancelled football in part to make the bean counters at the AA office happy. I'm not saying it's the only reason but the AA balancing was a big part. The Alummni office was pissed because it was a big source of revenue but UoP did have all that stadium money coming in from the NFL team.

Now as a Canadian this just strikes me as bizarre but it seems to work for you down there.

[1] Some contact sports: Football, baseball, hockey, and wwater polo. Some non contact sports: tennis, rowing, swimming, and diving.

[ Parent ]

I'm gonna have to throw a Bullshit flag on this... (4.00 / 5) (#48)
by Electric Angst on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:55:27 PM EST

What happened over thirty years ago is not relevant to today's society

This statement is patently absurd. Anyone with even the slightest understanding if history knows it.

Sounds anti-racist, if you ask me

It would seem that way, if you accepted what Helms' propoganda said as the gospel truth. Unfortunantly, it's not. It's a very big lie about what affirmative action is and what it does. The fact that he was lying about a program that helps to heal the racial divide, especially in a way that pitted one race against another, was racist.

Look, it's after 5:00 now, and your post is around 95% bullshit. Why do you feel the need to comment on an issue that you obviously have very little knowedge of?


--
I fly the UN Flag.
[ Parent ]
Slightest understanding? (none / 0) (#55)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:07:51 PM EST

Anyone with even the slightest understanding if history knows it.

Fine, I'm reviving disco.

The fact that he was lying about a program that helps to heal the racial divide, especially in a way that pitted one race against another, was racist.

More racism isn't going to 'heal the racial divide'. If the white people in South America were being oppressed by a black minority, it would be just as disgusting a violation of human rights as the converse. The whole restitution business is just another way of perpetuating racism - it will make the people who are forced to pay resentful, who will then discriminate even more.. and what then, shall we keep escalating it? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?

You say 'anyone with even the slightest understanding of history...' but I would ask you to look at your history book and see how the pendulum swings...




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0) (#78)
by Delirium on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:32:45 PM EST

Ignoring for the moment that your post is more ad hominem attack than argument, would you care to explain exactly what Helms was lying about? Was he incorrect in his claim that often a best-qualified white job applicant is passed over in favor of a lesser-qualified minority applicant because the minority fills a quota? And would he be incorrect in referring to this as racial discrimination, since it involves discriminating between job applicants on the basis of their skin color?

[ Parent ]
Fallacy of logic (4.66 / 3) (#81)
by onyxruby on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:43:00 PM EST

Signal11 said
What happened over thirty years ago is not relevant to today's society
Your response is to say that "This statement is patently absurd. Anyone with even the slightest understanding if history knows it.". This is a fallacy of logic.

Society itself was very different thirty years ago. Society is composed of individuals, and individuals change. For Helms to have made such a statement thirty years ago is no more a big deal than anyone else who did at that time. Unless you choose to hold the majority of society (which held similar beliefs at that period of time) to the same standard, you are being hypocritical. Helms is merely a single part of society, I'm sure if he had made such a comment 10 or 20 years ago he would have never been re-elected.

This is like holding statements of what an adult said as a teenager against them when they're fifty. People change, opinions change, it's called progress.

It's a very big lie about what affirmative action is and what it does. The fact that he was lying about a program that helps to heal the racial divide, especially in a way that pitted one race against another, was racist.

Are you ready to compensate my Father for the jobs he was offered over the years, but had the offer withdrawn at the last minute citing "a need to comply with affirmative action"? Denying opportunity based on sex or racism is discrimination. Your logic is like saying that the modern day Romans should be able to burn down Berlin for the sacking of Rome. You do not heal anything with discrimination. I don't buy it.

Electric Angst, since I have seen this kind of thing from you before I think I will go ahead and spell it out so that you can understand it. Discrimination is what happens when we take action or inaction based on someone's race, sex, age, religion, nationality, etc. The reversal of discrimination is tolerance and acceptance. It is no more right to discriminate on sex, race, age, etc, etc, etc in one direction than it is another. Got it?

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

what utter nonsensical piety (3.75 / 4) (#109)
by eLuddite on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 02:19:17 PM EST

Look, if you're going to criticize someone's logic, at least offer an argument in your turn instead of reciting the definition of discrimination as if we didnt know.

What do you mean it is not Right to discriminate? Is the expression

"It is wrong to do X"
mathematically satisfied for X = discrimination, X = lie, X = cheat and X = steal? What other values satisfy this moral equation? Is the equation constrained by any boundary or initial conditions?

Why is it necessarily wrong to do anything? It clearly is not. "It is wrong to kill" is a moral platitude, too, but it turns out that it is actually Right to kill under various circumstances, some of them with popular but not universal support. If you have an ethical argument to make, make it, otherwise admit that action is morally neutral.

In an ideal world populated by insufferably platitudinous USian kurobots, it might be Wrong to do X, but unlike in the real world, it would also be *unnecessary* to do X. Let us agree then that racial equality in the real world is a matter of justice. After all, your moral platitudes amount to advice about what is Right, which is precisely the wisdom behind justice. Since it is a matter of justice, it should not be left up to the individual's discretion; individual discretion is what gave us this racial mess in the first place, as well as a real world requirement for enforceable justice in all our other affairs.

Now AA is a judicial attempt to bring our reality in line with your ideal world. I'm certain everyone thinks the ideal of racial equality is an excellent idea and that white moral people are therefore bending over backwards to accomodate this ideal. Well this is very convenient because it reduces AA to an administrative convenience.

I should think you were grateful.

Still, you might object, it is Wrong to force people to do anything:

"It is Wrong to Force people to do X, for all X."
It would be Right to educate people rather than redress institutional prejudices that prevented minorities from attaining the equality which AA is demonstrably attaining. But there are a few obvious problems with this.

Assuming your anti-discrimination message will be a matter for schooling, you will be Forcing people to take certain classes. But your previous moral platitude was based on a principled objection against Force; now you appear to concede the existence of gray areas as "levels" of Force. This needlessly muddies the debate and shows up your ethics as unprincipled. Whereas before you would have claimed it were Wrong to force people to do anything, now you arent so sure.

Let's make you sure.

To tell you the truth, I dont want my children to waste their precious schooling on something so damn obvious as to bugger belief. I think my child is better served learning the three R's in depth rather than entertaining your needless brainwashing at the behest of an emasculated state that cannot do the Right and obvious thing to begin with.

More importantly, you overestimate the power of Ms Hortense's 8th Grade Civics class. There are simply too many factors in her students' broad socialization and I dont relish the thought of following them around after class in order to reinforce a message that will otherwise be diluted in a thousand different ways. For example, young people havent relented in their drive to take up smoking and tripping despite their school's and Nancy Reagan's best efforts.

Simply put, not only are you Forcing people to take certain classes, you cannot guarantee the lessons will be learnt. Short of a 1984 scenario, education as a psuedo-enforceable principle of justice does not work well enough if at all. I have to remind you that AA actually works while drugs and smoking remain problematic.

If discrimination is Wrong, it must be because it results in inequality, and since we have a state of inequality right now, there must have been discrimination sometime in the past which we are morally obligated to make Right. AA does this and it does it very well.

Parenthetically, if you object to AA on principle rather than on effectiveness, you are saying inequality is not Wrong. At which point your gracious provision of the definition of discrimination is an empty gesture and nobody will care what you think.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Hah... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by John Milton on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:30:28 PM EST

Signal 11 asking an author to back up his opinions with citations. There's an irony here.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Critical analysis? (1.00 / 2) (#76)
by Signal 11 on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:16:34 PM EST

Signal 11 asking an author to back up his opinions with citations. There's an irony here.

Why should I provide any facts to support my position, when the few that are provided do not even begin to support the assertions of the author? Can I not content myself to simply point out the unsubstantiated claims of another?




--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]

Comparing apples to oranges (3.00 / 2) (#69)
by Spatula on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 09:17:11 PM EST

What happened over thirty years ago is not relevant to today's society - what was socially accepted then is not today; It is like comparing apples to oranges.

They're both spherish fruits that grow on trees, have seeds in the center (except for a few types), are edible and have a skin. Other than that, they're not alike at all.

Just FYI.

--
someday I'll find something to put here.
[ Parent ]

questions: (2.00 / 2) (#101)
by chuckles on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 10:16:12 AM EST

1 - what has happened in your life that has made you feel so "oppressed" as a white boy. You sound very angry. 2 - do you really know what it's like to be kept down for 300 years? I'm sorry, but you really need to re-examine this anger, you haven't been oppressed, minorities are not taking jobs away from you, unless you are seriously unskilled. This is just a reactionary response to an inflammatory piece, often what your stuff is. Open mouth, insert foot. 3 - what bug flew up your ass?

[ Parent ]
God DAMN it Siggy! (none / 0) (#136)
by anonymous cowerd on Mon Sep 03, 2001 at 07:59:03 PM EST

What happened over thirty years ago is not relevant to today's society...

I genuinely shudder with horror to read a sentence like that. If it were the tag line of a satire article at the other site it would be barely tolerable, though in dismally bad taste. Presented, as it is here, as a solemn expression of the serious opinion of a reasonably intelligent young man, it truly whelms me beneath despair. Bring me heroin, God help us all, there is no future!

Honest to God you'll never grow up until you realize that what happened thirty years ago is as relevant to the world you live in today as it would be were someone holding a knife against your throat this very instant.

Jesus H. Christ, I'll spell this out for you in short simple words. You know about jobs, right? In most jobs there's this guy called the boss. Now in responsible middle class jobs, taken in aggregate, what is the median age of the boss? Could it be? yes it is! that the boss is typically a person of "middle" age, or even older? In fact, if you glance at, say, the Forbes 500 corporations, you'll find that the vast majority of CEOs, that is to say, the bosses of all bosses, of the world's biggest corporations, are white men of advanced years, who obviously carry with them the baggage of the experiences and prejudices of their youths.

Think upon that fact real hard, Siggy. The guys who run all the companies, the guys who have the final word on who gets hired, who gets promoted, who gets fired, are practically all of them products of the world of thirty years ago. Certainly not even one in a hundred of these men has significantly changed his viewpoint oif the world since he was twenty-five years old; as Schopenhauer noted:

...character, so far as we understand its nature, is above and beyond time, it cannot undergo any change under the influence of life...

Now, perhaps, do you see some possible relevance of thirty years ago to contemporary history?

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

The one thing that really disturbs me about America is that people don't like to read. - Keith Richards
[ Parent ]

Helms from an 'un-american' viewpoint (4.25 / 12) (#31)
by spammacus on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 03:54:40 PM EST

I have never been a fan of Helms. The first I heard of him was during the debating of the Helms-Burton act, which was aimed at punishing countries other than the US (particularly Canada) for trading with Cuba. If I recall correctly, it gave US citizens the right to sue foreign companies in American civil court for doing so.

I don't wish to comment on the Castro regime at this time, but as a Canadian I found the act insulting for two reasons:

1) American courts have no jurisdiction over external corporations operating outside the US. To assume that they do is blatant arrogance.

2) Throughout the proceedings, Helms made a number of appalingly insulting comments directed at Canada, socialism, and apparently everything that is not ridiculously right-wing, or as he might say 'un american'.

Senator Helms has been a voice of paranoia, xenophobia, and blatant McCarthyism. His views have no place in a modern, free society.
-- "Asshole, deconstruct thyself." - Mr. Surly
Re: Helms from an 'un-american' viewpoint (3.00 / 1) (#119)
by iLurk on Sat Aug 25, 2001 at 03:38:39 PM EST

His views have no place in a modern, free society.
While I do not agree with Former Senator Helms on almost any issue, part of living in a "modern, free society" is accepting that the views of everyone has a place in that society.

[ Parent ]
except... (4.00 / 1) (#120)
by spammacus on Sat Aug 25, 2001 at 04:25:47 PM EST

Except where they infringe upon the freedom of others.
-- "Asshole, deconstruct thyself." - Mr. Surly
[ Parent ]
So... (3.00 / 2) (#129)
by BurntHombre on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 11:16:05 PM EST

...your views have no place in a modern, free society either -- since, if you had your way, Jesse Helms and those like him would not have the freedom to express their views.

[ Parent ]
Let him express his views (2.00 / 1) (#130)
by flimflam on Mon Aug 27, 2001 at 10:47:45 AM EST

but let him do it from the retirement home, not from the floor of the US Senate.

-- I am always optimistic, but frankly there is no hope. --Hosni Mubarek
[ Parent ]
Thank you for your permission, but... (3.00 / 1) (#131)
by BurntHombre on Mon Aug 27, 2001 at 11:30:25 AM EST

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your point of view), that decision is up to the residents of North Carolina, and not an individual poster on K5. It's like a big, fun, happy democratic thing, you know?

[ Parent ]
Jesse Helms and women's rights. (3.66 / 12) (#32)
by Apuleius on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 04:05:47 PM EST

One book I suggest you all read is The Longest Debate about the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, because among other things it will help explain a bit on why Jesse is still in office. In case you don't know, the CRA of 1964 was the last in a series of Republican attempts to write a federal over-ride of the state Jim Crow laws. Each of the previous attempts failed because of a filibuster and because the Republicans weren't getting help from the northern liberal Democrats in defeating the filibuster. (Jim Crow was bad, but it wasn't in the northern liberals' back yard, and they had a more locally relevant agenda to push.) The 1964 attempt succeeded because Robert Keneddy struck a deal with the Republicans whereby they would give a civil rights act another try, while the liberal Democrats would put the Great Society agenda on the back burner for one session. So keep in mind that the northern liberals who are now celebrating Helms's departure, back then didn't care that much.

Now for the funny part: after the Repunlicans and Liberals trampled over the Dixiecrat filibuster and the bill was near ready for a vote, Jesse Helms added gender as a prohibited category of discrimination in the bill, thinking it would cause people to retreat from the bill. He was wrong. Not one Republican changed his vote as a result of the amendment. Now that Helms is retiring, the National Organization for Women really, really, should hold a banquet in his honor, and this is why.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Wait a tick... (1.00 / 1) (#43)
by Wicket on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:32:52 PM EST

How did Jesse Helms add anything to the Civil Rights Bill, he wasn't even elected to the Senate until 1972...? Or am I missing something?

[ Parent ]
He was in the house of reps first. (none / 0) (#47)
by Apuleius on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 05:52:14 PM EST

He was a Rep back then.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
You are mistaken (none / 0) (#82)
by Audiophile on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:44:29 PM EST

Jesse Helms was not in the House of Reps.

[ Parent ]
Damn! You're right. (none / 0) (#89)
by Apuleius on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 12:54:08 AM EST

And I'm 800 miles from my copy of THe Longest Debate to see who I'm denying the credit for this stuff. Now I get to wear a paper bag.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
My turn to put on a paper bag. (none / 0) (#90)
by Apuleius on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 12:56:22 AM EST

It was Howard Smith of WV, not Helms, who was not there at thetime. My memory from reading the Longest Debate got garbled. Damn.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
The Dark Matter single.. (2.42 / 14) (#57)
by kitten on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:19:05 PM EST

Big fat fuck from North Carolina state.
He's a worthless piece of shit, he's a paragon of hate.
He's a redneck, fuckface, brain-dead waste of space,
Two-bit, two-timing, motherfucking pool of slime.
Against gay rights, and funding for the arts,
Tried to cancel PBS and tear Big Bird apart.
Cut AIDS funding, corporate welfare for the rich,
He's a shameless money grubber, he's a two dollar bitch.

Why won't Jesse Helms just hurry up and die?

Fundamentalist, fuckwad, dickless prick,
He's ugly as a Morlock, dumb as a brick.
He's a sack of shit, hypocrite, single-minded, fat bigot,
punk bitch, ignorant, ass-munch sycophant.
Life long friend of the deadly cancer sticks,
thinks AIDS is the fault of the people it inflicts.
Racist fuck who supports segregation,
Foe of the people, friend of the corporation.

Why won't Jesse Helms just hurry up and die?

Jesse, you dumbass, racist, cracker motherfucker: Why the fuck won't you just hurry up and die?
And take that punk bitch Strom Thurmond with you.

mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
In other words... (2.85 / 7) (#73)
by OOG THE CAVEMAN on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 09:44:49 PM EST

"Someone disagrees with my views, therefore I shall proceed to attack him with mindless obscenity filled ad hominems and, wish death upon him because he does not share my views." What a lovely, intelligent message. For someone calling another person a "sack of shit, hypocrite, single-minded, fat bigot," you're doing a good job of being one yourself.
OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
[ Parent ]
I think (3.00 / 2) (#74)
by Elendale on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:04:31 PM EST

Wasn't that some not-so-subtle irony?
Hopefully.

-Elendale
---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


[ Parent ]
*rolls eyes* (3.00 / 2) (#83)
by gbd on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 10:50:57 PM EST

Helms hates gays, blacks, and basically anybody who's a non-WASP. The creep deserves everything he gets. In case you've forgotten, there's this little thing called the First Amendment that gives people the right to free speech. Yeah, let's curtail the right of free people to speak out against dangerous lunatics (a right that brave men, including blacks and gays, gave their lives for.)

How typically authoritarian and fundamentalist of you ..

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]

follwing your words (3.00 / 3) (#87)
by OOG THE CAVEMAN on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 11:29:54 PM EST

I'm not trying to stop him from speaking, I'm just pointing out that what he is saying is just rude nonsense which makes him look like an ass. After all, I'm using my right to speak out against dangerous lunatics like him.
OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
[ Parent ]
That's a song (3.33 / 3) (#94)
by strlen on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 02:53:00 AM EST

Actually that's a song by some artist on mp3.com, its great fun to listen to. And why should I be tolerant of someone who's no better than hitler? He's intolerant of blacks, gays, women, AIDS victims, left-wingers, colleges, democrats, civil rights activists, environmentalist.. it could go on for 20 pages. I'm just intolerant of genuine bigots, who have no place in society especially in the government.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Song (1.00 / 1) (#100)
by kitten on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 06:50:56 AM EST

The song is actually done under the name of "MC Stephen Hawking", in which the reknowned physicist assumes his role as a lyrical terrorist.

You can find more songs by him (including "Fuck The Creationists and E = MC Hawking) at mchawking.com

Share and enjoy.
mirrorshades radio - darkwave, synthpop, industrial, futurepop.
[ Parent ]
intolerance (4.50 / 2) (#111)
by OOG THE CAVEMAN on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 04:51:02 PM EST

I'm intolerant of left-wingers who abuse the words "bigot," "ignorance," and "intolerant" to stigmatize anyone they may disagree with. Comparing Helms to Hitler is laughable.
OOG BREAK HEAD WITH OPEN SOURCE CD!!!
[ Parent ]
disagree (3.50 / 2) (#112)
by strlen on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 05:35:54 PM EST

i may disagree with you when it comes to minimum wage laws, others may disagree on affirmative action or on hate crime laws. i don't "disagree" with jesse helms, why can't you see that someone who takes "you've kept niggers down" as a complient is a bigot, plain and simple?

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Its a matter of degree (2.33 / 3) (#96)
by yesterdays children on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 04:15:16 AM EST

There is disagreement with views, and then there are just plain evil people. You'd do the republican party a favor if you'd not support evil people. But then again, your home page speaks for itself.

[ Parent ]
One down... (3.33 / 6) (#61)
by ttfkam on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 07:36:01 PM EST

What about James Strom Thurmond? He's still kicking at 97. Admirable for someone of his age that he is still in the business of "public service," but we forget (some of us never knew) that he has the record for the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history (24 hours, 18 minutes). What was this filibuster about? He spoke against the 1957 civil rights bill.

Yeah, some truly great and venerable leaders. :-/

There are truly some dinosaurs currently walking the earth (and elected to public office).


If I'm made in God's image then God needs to lay off the corn chips and onion dip. Get some exercise, God! - Tatarigami
Heh (2.00 / 2) (#63)
by strlen on Thu Aug 23, 2001 at 08:23:56 PM EST

He also ran against Harry Truman, and he's from the same Jesse Helms faction: The Dixiecrats. He also fathered a whole lot of children after the age of 69.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
Strom's Brain... (3.00 / 1) (#103)
by blixco on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 10:56:50 AM EST

....is actually a 30 somethine personal assistant who is, on his own, a remarkable fellow. Pretty much decides how Thurmond should vote. Hey, at 98 years old, I'll need to be told how to breathe.

Nonetheless, he's not much of a threat anymore. Doesn't make him likeable, mind you. Once he dies (sometime in the next six months), we'll see a mild shift in the political spectrum as a democrat takes his seat. Unless his 30 something assistant runs for his chair, since he's been the brains behind it for the last eight years.

What's with these old fuckers? It's not normal for cigar smoking meat eating stressed out american men to last past 80.
-------------------------------------------
The root of the problem has been isolated.
[ Parent ]

Well, racial quotas is NOT a good thing. (4.50 / 2) (#108)
by arcade on Fri Aug 24, 2001 at 12:44:47 PM EST

Helms ran against a black man in 1990 and only won by running very racist ads right before the election. His ad showed a pair of white hands crumpling a job rejection letter. The voice-over proclaimed: "You needed the job, you were the best qualified. But they gave it to a minority because of racial quotas. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is.

First, I do not know US politics, I've never seen that ad in question - and I don't know who Harvey Gantt is.

However, I have to agree that racial quotas is a bad thing. So is quotas based on gender. The ones that is chosen for a job should _always_ be the best qualified ones. ONLY if there are two _equaly qualified_ persons should there ever be thoughts about using 'racial quotas'.

I've heard about laws, I think they are here in norway, that says that if a person of a gender which is markantly less represented in the job is _qualified_ - then that person should get the job EVEN if there are _better qualified_ people applying.

Personally I think such laws suck. Badly.



--
arcade
WTF? (2.50 / 6) (#118)
by gtx on Sat Aug 25, 2001 at 03:13:41 PM EST

Helms ran against a black man in 1990 and only won by running very racist ads right before the election. His ad showed a pair of white hands crumpling a job rejection letter. The voice-over proclaimed: "You needed the job, you were the best qualified. But they gave it to a minority because of racial quotas. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is."

WTF? those ads weren't racist! racial quotas are racist! i love this new politically correct rhetoric that putting an under-qualified white person into a job is racism, but putting an under-qualified minority into a job is fairness. the truth is that racial quotas are wrong, and they only help perpetuate the hostility between whites and minorities. however, since the popular new liberal outlook on things is to make everything as fair as possible using only the most whacked out hippy logic available, we still have racial quotas and affirmative action crap.

he Helms campaign, the North Carolina Republican Party, and four campaign-consulting and marketing firms were charged with violating the Voting Rights act. According to the complaint, the decision to mail the postcards was done after it was shown that Gantt had a small lead and that black voting registration was increasing at a rate faster than whites, at a rate of 10.6% to 5.3%. In addition, 97 % of the postcards were targeted at blacks and 44,000 of the cards were sent out exclusively to black voters in certain areas. The other 81,000 were sent to registered voters in primarily black precincts.

So by your logic, we should be expected to give jobs to underqualified people based solely on their race, but it is immoral to send people postcards because of their race?

He also vigorously opposed creating a museum for African history, saying that if one minority gets one, all minorities will want one.

so? if i asked for a museum for white history, do you think i'd get it? no, i'd be labelled a racist. in fact, i'd be willing to bet that you would directly oppose such a museum.

I say good riddance, this country is supposedly about freedom, not just for hetereosexual white males.

the way you put it, the majority white males don't deserve freedom. we have to give up our jobs to underqualified minorites just so our companies get government kickbacks. we are forced to embrace minority culture, but if we try to focus on our own, we're labelled racist. we don't have white history museums, or the miss white america contest, or white history month or holidays for "great white leaders." there is no "white starz " movie channel, or a "white entertainment television" network. our people are punished by the minorities for being successful -- and the liberals and the radical leftists couldn't be any happier. now, i can very well accept and embrace minority culture. i love african culture, and i have no problems with homosexuality or homosexuals or any other race or group. what i do have a problem with are the militant members of said groups that spout these great sounding ideals of unity and togetherness, when all they really are looking for is acceptance of their own group, at the expense of all others. personally, i think that black history month is as fundamentally wrong as white history month. i think that "white entertainment television" would be as fundamentally wrong as "black entertainment television" is today. i notice that when i look at the magazine rack at the store, i see many strictly 'black' magazines, but i see no strictly 'white' magazines. i wouldn't want there to be a strictly 'white' magazine, because that would be just as fundamentally wrong, as well as severely racist, as the strictly 'black' magazines are today.

so before you go spouting your morals in our direction, why don't you check yours out? i've got no problem with minorities, why do you have to have a problem with the majority?


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
postcards (4.00 / 2) (#121)
by blackwizard on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 01:35:24 AM EST

So by your logic, we should be expected to give jobs to underqualified people based solely on their race, but it is immoral to send people postcards because of their race?

I think you have some exellent points. I didn't have to bother to reply to this article because pretty much everything I wanted to say, you already said. =) (and more)

I know you're just pointing out the gaping flaw in the poster's logic here, but I think this is one point that was right -- you don't send postcards to a minority to spook them into thinking they might be arrested and jailed if they try to vote. The affirmative action ad didn't bother me -- I can't see how that's racist -- but this campaign technique really does make me angry. I hope anyone who received that postcard went and voted against the guy just for that. Of course, his staff probably made it look like an official government mailing.. that is some underhanded, fucked-up shit.

[ Parent ]

yup (none / 0) (#123)
by gtx on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 10:30:12 AM EST

this was more of a 'gaping hole in logic' point, and had the original poster not said that helms's ads against racial quotas were racist, this never would have been mentioned :)


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
[ Parent ]
they are not "underqualified", you git (2.33 / 3) (#122)
by eLuddite on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 10:04:58 AM EST

that is just you filtering out anything that doesnt conform to pathological exceptions in order to give your strawman some substance. You have three problems to overcome: (1) why was AA instituted if not to address a problem which didnt take care of itself? (2) Why has AA been successful? (3) Where is your evidence to support this myth of underqualified people succeeding where they should not?

You are spinning well known lies into mojo whoring rhetoric, unsubstantiated palaver and moonshine. I am sorry but your rhetoric would be more accurate if you included the truthful claim that white males have had affirmative action since the Constitution and are now crying because they are being forced to share their privileged position in society.

The myths and you repeat without substance about AA obscure the very real, very pressing social and philosophical goals of AA policy. These myths abound in an abyss of absurdity and misinformation. The belief that government forces companies to hire unqualified and inferior employees -- while white males are denied jobs -- is overwhelmingly false.

Do you even have anything other than the most tendentious understanding of AA? I think not. The nature of AA is reformative by method and is based on principles of fairness and promotion whose objective is unrepentant equality.

"Affirmative action consists of actions taken to increase the numbers of an underrepresented demographic group in an organization. Affirmative action plans are not permitted to involve strict quotas or to force the organization to hire or promote unqualified employees. But, they may involve consideration of demographic status in making government decisions. Discrimination in employment decisions is assessed by comparing the selection ratios for different demographic groups. In such analysis, the comparison group consists only of those actual or potential applicants who are qualified for the position." Bennet-Alexander
But there is an additional problem with slinging the word "underqualified" around -- namely, the assumption that you are in a position to recognize qualification and measure it absolutely. One of the things that AA does is alert people to previously unobserved, unexplored and unappreciated abilities in the very people it targets. What you mean by "unqualified" is often "what I dont understand", or "what some white guy who didnt get the job told me in a pathetic defense of his noncompetitive abilities". By making business organizations ponder their standards and the effects of their management policies, affirmative action has promoted equal opportunity and has had the same effect as if they paid for effective consultation services instead of having received it free from the State. Unless you equip organizations with correct information intelligently presented and argued, organizations will not make pro-active and insightful decisions.

Well, they might, but you will not like the result, you silly whiner.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

right. mojo whoring... (2.00 / 4) (#124)
by gtx on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 11:29:15 AM EST

...because i really do care about my status around elite fucks like you.

(1) why was AA instituted if not to address a problem which didnt take care of itself?

why are all stupid government programs instituted? because the government believes that it has the right to meddle in the affairs of private lives and businesses. they saw a problem which didn't need any government intervention whatsoever, decided to intervene in an effort to please those who believed they had been victimized by the white man, and effectively made it the government's business to see who you're hiring. the fact still remains that racial quotas and your bullshit affirmative action do nothing more than perpetuate the divide and hostility between minorities and the majority. prove otherwise. once people begin to be hired on basis of race to match some halfway-arbitrary percentage, you have officially become a racist. if two equally capable people apply for a job, and you pick one based on race alone, you are a racist - whether you pick the white one or the majority. this is just fact.

(2) Why has AA been successful?

how has AA been successful, given that so many people are against it?

(3) Where is your evidence to support this myth of underqualified people succeeding where they should not?

um, have you ever been in the workplace before?

The myths and you repeat without substance about AA obscure the very real, very pressing social and philosophical goals of AA policy.

no, that's not true. AA is racism, plain and simple. i don't care if the conceivers of such legislation had the best of intentions and high moral goals. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. the whole system is flawed, plain and simple based on the fact that it turns racial preference into official company policy.

These myths abound in an abyss of absurdity and misinformation.

no, people who support AA, namely liberals, exist in a universe of absurdity and misinformation. how can legislation like this even be considered? why don't people break out into laughter when AA is brought up? because there are actually people like you that think it is a good idea. that's why i weep for the state of the union today.

You are spinning well known lies into mojo whoring rhetoric, unsubstantiated palaver and moonshine. I am sorry but your rhetoric would be more accurate if you included the truthful claim that white males have had affirmative action since the Constitution and are now crying because they are being forced to share their privileged position in society.

that is complete and total bullshit on so many different levels, but being the liberal that you are i wouldn't expect you to understand. for the first part, there are no white males that have been alive since the constitution that can relate to the 'evil white male majority' figure that the pro-AA types try to make us out to be. furthermore, the only mojo-whoring rhetoric being spun around here is that of yourself. you obviously think that your opinion is much more important than anybody else, and that is why you post so many long, drawn out, ill-conceived, halfway understandable posts that don't make one iota of good sense around here.

The nature of AA is reformative by method and is based on principles of fairness and promotion whose objective is unrepentant equality.

what needs reformed? do we really need state mandated racism? how do you get equality if you favor everybody but the majority? where is the legislation that helps white males get jobs?

One of the things that AA does is alert people to previously unobserved, unexplored and unappreciated abilities in the very people it targets.

right. and who does this for white people again? which legislation is alerting people to previously unobserved unexplored and unappreciated abilities in the white people of the nation?

What you mean by "unqualified" is often "what I dont understand", or "what some white guy who didnt get the job told me in a pathetic defense of his noncompetitive abilities".

yeah. give me some evidence on that one.

By making business organizations ponder their standards and the effects of their management policies, affirmative action has promoted equal opportunity and has had the same effect as if they paid for effective consultation services instead of having received it free from the State.

please stop making this shit up. you're getting ridiculous.

Unless you equip organizations with correct information intelligently presented and argued, organizations will not make pro-active and insightful decisions.

i couldn't agree any more. that is exactly why i'm against affirmative action. affirmative action is meant to get minorities into places where they are not. race has nothing to do with competence, so rigging of the job market to boost diversity does nothing to improve competence in the workforce. therefore, any pro-active or insightful decisions would be against affirmative action. unless, of course, you mean 'pro-active and insightful' in the liberal sense, which means 'deliberate stripping of the rights of the private citizen' in which case, you'd be mistaken anyway.

Well, they might, but you will not like the result, you silly whiner.

the bad thing about liberals is that their bleeding hearts never seem to be fatal.


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
[ Parent ]
yawn (2.33 / 3) (#125)
by eLuddite on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 12:02:41 PM EST

because the government believes that it has the right to meddle in the affairs of private lives and businesses

The Government? Is this the monolithic boogeyman of your imagination or is it the set of public processes responding to public input? Why do you have this urgent requirement to disenfranchise the public whenever it doesnt suit your agenda?

they saw a problem which didn't need any government intervention whatsoever

Oh, right. Silly me. Before AA, minorities were being hired left, right and center. AA is a figment of liberal imagination.

the fact still remains that racial quotas and your bullshit affirmative action do nothing more than perpetuate the divide and hostility between minorities and the majority.

No, they successfully promote equality according to demographics. Do you have a similiar problem with Federal and State grants, subsidies and programs going to depressed areas? I mean, how dare Buttfuckville USA get favorable treatment over Los Angeles. If AA perpetuates hostilities, maybe you are just a racist.

how has AA been successful, given that so many people are against it?

Because success isnt measured by the attitudes of ignorant racists and the people who believe their lies? Look, if you dont know what effect AA has had, maybe you should consider learning something about it. What you actually know you've summed up this way:

His ad showed a pair of white hands crumpling a job rejection letter. The voice-over proclaimed: "You needed the job, you were the best qualified. But they gave it to a minority because of racial quotas. Is that really fair? Harvey Gantt says it is."
WTF? those ads weren't racist!

In other words, you know nothing, can prove nothing, and I am wasting my time with you.

that is complete and total bullshit on so many different levels

Too many levels to argue, apparently.

you post so many long, drawn out, ill-conceived, halfway understandable posts that don't make one iota of good sense around here.

I'm sure Sanskrit wont make an iota of good sense to you, either. Being a well rounded idiot means not allowing AA to monopolize one's ignorance.

<*snip*>

Enough of this childish defensive posturing. Do you have an argument to make or are you content to string a series of ignorant assertions into speeches? I called you on your "unqualified" bullshit by pointing out that your opinion is based on the most fundamental misunderstanding of AA possible. Namely, AA does *not* reward unqualified people. You are now restating your unmodified opinion with the same disregard for evidence and knowledge, spiced up with a smattering liberal bashing for good measure. I dont remember claiming a moral high ground for liberals in the AA "debate".

rigging of the job market to boost diversity does nothing to improve competence in the workforce

It's like arguing with a child. It's not necessarily meant to improve competence in the workforce -- although it does as a side effect. Look, I have no interest in repeating myself . Learn to read.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

tsk tsk (2.50 / 2) (#126)
by gtx on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 01:27:52 PM EST

i was going to just ignore this post for the ill-concieved, incoherent scrawling of logical contradictions that it is, however i couldn't help but address two points:

maybe you are just a racist.

maybe you're just an idiot. you're the one supporting state mandated racism, and i'm the racist?

I called you on your "unqualified" bullshit...

you didn't call me on anything. congratulations, you've succeeded in missing a very basic point. if two people apply for a job, and the hiring process takes both qualifications and race into consideration, as opposed to just strictly qualifications (the way it should be, and the way it would be if it weren't for AA) then any time the race factor comes into consideration and the more qualified majority is hired, you have successfully gotten a person hired who was underqualified in relation to the other. i never said unqualified, so you didn't call me on shit. i said underqualified, and that is the truth. as soon as both race and qualifications are taken into considerations, then qualifications will invariably become less important.


--------
i don't have anything clever to write here.
[ Parent ]
fine. You win and deserve to mope and whine (2.33 / 3) (#127)
by eLuddite on Sun Aug 26, 2001 at 03:59:04 PM EST

God forbid you should be part of the solution instead of the problem.

if two people apply for a job, and the hiring process takes both qualifications and race into consideration, as opposed to just strictly qualifications

Pay attention: they are both qualified. AA is not an issue unless both candidates are qualified. If both candidates are qualified for a position, then they obviously are equally qualified to do the work demanded of that position. At that point, "discrimination in employment decisions is assessed by comparing the selection ratios for different demographic groups." That way, whites are not chosen based on their skin color much as they have been throughout American history, and black people are give the chance to raise themselves out of their historically imposed, artificially depressed demographic.

Do you understand now? If not, scroll up and reread the business law quotation I was nice enough to provide, remembering that law has the property of being well defined. According to the definition of AA, "Affirmative action plans are not permitted to involve strict quotas or to force the organization to hire or promote unqualified employees."

if two people apply for a job, and the hiring process takes both qualifications and race into consideration, as opposed to just strictly qualifications

Now that you understand the issue a little better, examine the logic implicit in your statement above. What do you suggest recruiters do -- flip a coin? Since both candidates are qualified, why not do the right thing and redress a little social inequity in the bargain? Stop framing the issue according to imaginary, self-perpetuating racial insults and resentment. That's precisely the problem to begin with.

i never said unqualified, so you didn't call me on shit.

Ahem. Second sentence: "i love this new politically correct rhetoric that putting an under-qualified white person into a job is racism, but putting an under-qualified minority into a job is fairness." You then repeat variations of the same lie several times before your post comes to a merciful end. Not only are you a misinformed old lady wringing her hands, you are also a liar.

i said underqualified, and that is the truth

Oh, grow up. It's the same difference and, no, it is not the truth. AA is a well defined and regulated policy, not an ad hoc initiative implemented according to managerial indiscretion. I have no doubt that the human element introduces a few pathological cases, just as I have no doubt that the human element introduces the likes of a lying fucking racist called Helms into Democratic government.

Finally, although you are quick to make specious moral judgements against AA, you have yet to make an ethical argument against AA. Racial inequality in the US is rather complex and it deserves a rather more serious treatment than your facile "thou shalt not discriminate" homily. It's a bit too late for that, dont you think? I do, and I cite your incomprehension of AA as proof that AA is required to overcome racial propaganda.

I really dont know how to make my elementary point any clearer. If you are unable to admit that you were appealing to peoples' emotions by repeating unsubstantiated myth and lies, it isnt worth my time to pile up additional evidence in order for you to promptly ignore it. And with that, this thread comes to an end for me.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Whoa. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
by Lord Kano on Wed Aug 29, 2001 at 04:18:52 PM EST

It's good to have some sort of the clue of what you speak of before spouting out a ton of bullshit. You've obviously never seen the ads aimed at Gnatt, they WERE racist. Helms was race baiting, he made the false assumption that becuase his opponent was black he automatically supported racial quotas. I saw the ads being from that area and it was pretty fucked up. If you never saw them, then shut the fuck up.

[ Parent ]
Good Riddance: Jesse Helms to retire | 136 comments (111 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!