SPQR

I'm more concerned about completely unveiled racism.
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060824/NEWS01/608240332/1002/NEWS

whatup Nat. I noticed that a lot of the people who signed that were from Iowa and Texas and had last names like "Hicks."

Cheers,
Em

Peter - it's Louisiana. What do you expect?

Ouch. Just for old times sake, should I ponder these people's political affiliation, or just drop it and play nice?

So, to demonstrate how this is "thinly velied racism," can you tell me exactly which race of people is excluded from US citizenship eligibility?

Peter;

from the connection of the trheat and the repercussion, it would seem that these people hope to keep bilingual people at some sort of odds with the silent majority. So it probably isn't racism per se...more like reverse intellectualism.

As a bilingual, perhaps tri-lingual person, I guess I am not even eligible to sign the petition.

P.S. the trilingual refers to sign language, as I had a lot of deaf friends. I wonder how these folks feel about having a mandatory sign language translator being made available for deaf folks in public schools and universities.

Good point, Steve. I'll agree with the next person who I hear rant about how everything must be bilingual now. I'll join in and share my outrage at state-sponsored signers at public events. Outrageous!
No language in America but English! In fact, no English not spelled or spoken out of keeping with Webster's 1828 edition!

How is it that the discussion of requiring bilingual staff at hospitals, etc., serves as a preface to a petition to require U.S. citizenship to receive social benefits? Aren't those two different issues? I think the basic non-sequitur involved there is what is making it so difficult for me to respond with a singular thought. But, very basically, my thoughts are: 1 if anyone is "entitled" to social benefits (which I usually don't agree with to begin with), then indeed it should be U.S. citizens alone - and possibly refugees, but certainly not illegal aliens; and 2 there is and should be NO official language of the U.S. I don't think there should be any law requiring any facility to staff bilingual individuals, and neither should there be any law requiring that English exclusively be spoken in a given situation. If a hospital finds they can't function without bilingual staff, then that will affect their hiring practice, without any need for governmental intervention.

Well, taking a slant different from my normal one, after 10 years living in South Florida, I believe it is darn near impossible to get a customer service (clerk, wait staff, bartender) job there without speaking Spanish amd English.

Famously, my wife and I were dealing with the tile guy at the Home Depot in Florida City when he told the shocking tale of a co-worker who had written "No speakee spanee" on his orange vest. His (hispanic) boss fired him.

Personally, my response to this has been to learn Spanish, but there are a lot of racist ridiculous messages going out all over this country. And just because I can't resist, I'll say it again. Scratch a Republican, find a racist.

Democrat = compassionate, republican = racist.

Glad we cleared that up.

You know, my best friend in high school was a black guy named Saleem. At the time, he was a liberal, but between conversations I used to have with him, and some he had with other people in college, he ended up changing his political affiliation. Now he's Governor Pataki's spokesman. Perhaps you'd like to scratch him and tell him he's a racist.

Peter: we used to say "Charity" for the Government's lending a hand. That denies the concept of entitlement. Would you be OK with the Gvernment providing Charity when needed? I aappreciate your clarifying the non-sequitar nature that makes it hard to concisely respond.

However...

My consistency monitor just beeped. I am getting a reading of non-sequitar in the fact that a black guy named Saleem became a Republican. Oh! Are you taking a leap, and saying Blacks named Saleem cannot be racist? Help me with that.

And in line with the post’s title…there might be a teeny weeny bit of paternalisticly veiled racism peeking out here. Peter: could you tell us why he was liberal in High School, and what major point turned him around? If you say that because he was black and named Saleem, it had to do with his being liberal….so help me!

Jeff: there is a joke there about scratching the itch to scratch a Republican, but it evades me. The corollary is to shout “racist” in a room (even a blog or chat room) full of Republicans, and you get interesting reactions: from “ I am not a racist: they ARE inferior, and I can prove it” to “ I am not a racist: I just want fairness for the rich white guys too” to the more compassionate, but still…well, still of a latent racism not understood by the perp…” I am not a racist: some of my best friends…”

I just read an interesting “ass Backwards” solution to the Iran problem…the racist element is the segue here. On the Dilbert Blog, of all places. I would be interested in Nat’s, Jeff’s and Peter’s thoughts on the thought exercise he offers.

It's his posting of Aug 25, and this one response to the first reactions shows where the racism has come in to our thinking in the M E

"The biggest objection people are raising is the fact that many Iranians really do want to eliminate Israel and all other infidels too, including the United States.

I don’t dispute that assertion. But for the sake of this thought experiment, let’s put it in perspective.

1. A lot of Americans want to eliminate all Muslims too, just to eliminate any perceived threats. It just isn’t practical. Few people express that view publicly because our culture discourages such talk. But if Americans could magically snap their fingers and make all Muslims disappear, you’d hear a lot of finger snapping. However, we’re practical people, so not even the worst racist Muslim-hater accepts the elimination of Muslims as a reasonable objective.

2. I’m guessing that a lot of Israelis want to eliminate Islam too. It just isn’t practical, and their government doesn’t promote the idea. It would be suicide to talk about it too much.

The key difference is that many of us Westerners believe that Iranians are nut-jobs who will someday destroy their entire country to accomplish their objective of killing all the people in Israel. "

I didn't say that black guys named Saleem can't be racists. I'm saying that I know he's not one, and he is a Republican, and I would like to know in what way Jeff would like to accuse him of being one.
Technically, I'm exempt from the charge, as I'm not a Republican but a Conservative.
The problem with your list of "reactions" to the accusation of racism, is there's no way for a person to "prove" that they're not a racist once the accusation is leveled. The fact that I'm a multilingual individual who grew up in the ghetto with more black, latin, and asian than white friends, just can't make up for the fact that I'm white, college educated, and politically conservative, which by definition makes me a racist, at least if you scratch me.

Peter

Racism has been a cancer on America since it's birth. The resurgence of the Republican Party since the 60's has been due to Democrats pushing civil rights. LBJ sain "We've lost the south for a generation" but I think he was off by 2 generations. There are very few Democrats calling for 12 million illegal immigrants to be deported. I have a very difficult time thinking that in spite of them being "illegals" it is mostly ignorance and hatred of the unknown that they fear.

It's telling that in Nat's original posting, somehow the "immigrant" was in cahoots with the "powers that be" because she know of plans for "fixing" the department that it's own employees did not.

It seems to me that this problem came up in our country about one hundred years ago with the immigration boom (Nat, help me with the dates). At the same time, I believe I remember reading a lot in my history textbook about people reacting in a lot of the same ways to those immigrants too.
It was struck home to me last March when we visited Ellis Island (thank you Jeff and Liz!) that so many Americans living today are the direct descendants (second or third generation that is..) of those immigrants passing under Lady Liberty's nose. I would argue that our country grew in such expansive ways simply because of our huge new labor force. Granted, those immigrants were "legal" in the sense that they were registered with the government, but their living conditions and pay were about the same as the current immigrants'.
I couldn't agree more that there is a lot of 'thinly veiled' racism going on, but I do think it would be a mistake to simply say it's all Republicans and no Democrats.
On a more personaly note, I would encourage everyone reading this to take into account how the immigrants must feel about all this. During the past three months, I've lived in a foreign country, trying to learn the language, the people, and the culture. I've been more successful at the last two. The language is the hardest part. Slovak has seven cases (just like German), and word order really has no importance. My point is that I can order food and carry a simple conversation. I can only imagine how many people here think, "He's been here three months, why doesn't he learn any Slovak?" Well, because it's hard!
There's a Slovak tongue twister that goes like this: Strc prst skrz krk. It means, "To stick your finger in your neck." (All the 'r's are rolled and the 'c' in the first word is a 'ch') See what I mean?
So, be easy on non-english speakers. I know I sure apppreciate when signs are in two languages, one of which is English, and when someone speaks English that I didn't expect to, I think they're the nicest person in the world!
So in all, I don't think it's bad that we have so many 'illegals' moving in, nor do I think that it is bad to have signs in both English and Spanish (remember, English isn't the first language of this country). I think a great bumper sticker would be "Speak Cherokee or get out."
Any way, that's my two bits.

Caujte!

bo

Peter;

your growing up in a ghetto explains a lot of your lucidity on these issues. I do not mean to just call you names, but to ask you to reconsider the axiomatic tenets of the conservative movement in the US. We really do not realize how culturally influenced we are with many things, and just because it feels axiomatic does not mean it is right.

So, Saleem is not a racist...what did his name and color have to do with the discussion? I HAVE CONSIDERED MYSELF fairly non prejudiced, but have a friend, who happens to be black, and who grew up in the country club suburbs of Hartford. A favorite pastime of his is to educate whites who don´t think they are racist, by asking questions like that one. The real grilling starts upon one´s respònse to that one.

We hold to our axioms even as we try to be open and fair...but do not see the trees for the forest, much less their roots.

Bo! Welcome to the rest of the world! So many missionaries hit another culture, and instead of embracing it, hold it up to the American way, and try to create an island of red white and blue.

As for language preference...it is historically not an issue of who came first, but who is in control. Here in Guatemala, we are just starting to see signs in MAYAN after decades of english/spanish. Telling.

CULTURAL qUESTION: A PERSON WHO SPEAKS 3 LANGUAGES IS CALLED TRILINGUAL...A PERSON WHO SPEAKS 2 IS BILINGUAL. WHAT DO YOU CALL A PERSON WHO SPEAKS ONE LANGUAGE?

pardon the roughness...this is being written on a spanish keyboard.

I don't know if your comment about my ghetto-explained lucidity makes any sense, but if it does, I don't understand it. What is your point?
What I can tell you is that in my family we did not buy into the cultural axioms around us. It would have been easier, and more like everyone else, for us to have spent our time complaining about our poverty, buying lottery tickets, blaming others, and staying in that situation. Instead, my father worked very hard to provide us a better way of life, and we all graduated from high school, unlike a number of those we grew up with. What "feels axiomatic" in that environment is pretty much the opposite of what our perspective was. The fact is that in this country, barring very unusual circumstances, if you spend your time working instead of complaining, you will not remain in total poverty your whole life. It's rare to be a Conservative in the ghetto, but in my opinion, it makes sense, because welfare is not the way out. Hard work is the way out.

Now the "axioms" - if that's what you want to call them - by which I have always tried to live are the principles of the Gospel. It is not because they are axiomatic that they are right, but I have held to them, again, in an environment to which they are often foreign. How many people in my high school were sexually abstinent, or free from marijuana? Maybe 10 people. The pressure to give in to those vices is incredible. But by God's grace some of us did not yield to that culture. My point is that in a lot of ways "my" culture is not that of the people I grew up around, and that individuals can have their own, independent perspective on things, despite whatever cultural influences there are around them.

Now about Saleem... his name is his name. If his name was Justin, I would've said his name was Justin.

His color only has to do with the discussion inasmuch as he is one of many black Republicans, and I do consider that fact to be a counter-example to the claim that all Republicans are racists. I mean, presumably there's a certain "racist" perspective Jeff had in mind - a certain group that Jeff thinks Republicans hold as superior - rather than various Republicans holding competing racistic claims of superiority. Presumably that would be the idea that whites are superior, considering the fact that most Republicans are white. So unless Jeff wants to claim that all black Republicans consider themselves inferior to whites, it seems reasonable to offer black Republicans as a counter-example against his claim.

Actually, for crying out loud, Jeff's comment just doesn't make any freaking sense! Yet again, it's the incredible logical deficiency of it that makes it so hard for me to reply! I mean, what kind of bigot just "can't resist" labeling 50 million people as racists??

As far as the language issue goes, like I said, there is no official language in the U.S., and there shouldn't be one established. I think people have the right to conduct their business in whatever language(s) they find most profitable for them.

When it comes to immigration, that is a separate issue. The desire to restrict any activity to its legal form is not inherently racist. The difficulties that immigrants have to endure do not legitimize a negligent system of border control that puts the nation in danger. Immigrants who are genuinely interested in this country and in doing well here submit to a lengthy (and beaurocratic, and therefore long and frustrating) legal process of immigration and naturalization. Most of them do learn English as well, because it's a good idea if you're trying to get along in this country. After going to all this trouble, they in fact do not approve of the actions and outspoken ideology of the other immigrants, who came illegally. And nobody likes being seen as part of a category or race rather than as an individual. Are legal immigrant Mexicans (or Cubans, many of whom are of the same ethnic descent as Mexicans) demonstrating "thinly veiled racism" against Mexicans by saying that illegal immigrants don't speak for them and their interests? It seems to me a little more evidently racistic to claim that all Mexicans must be in favor of the same policies...

How is it a cultural question to ask what you call a person who speaks only one language?

OK, I have to go home now.

Peter,

The "cultural question" is actually just a joke... the punchline is: an American!

it's funny, since being here in Slovakia, I'm not even sure i speak one language... most of my students understand English grammar better than I do!

Steve, i know what you mean about holding our 'home culture' up against whatever culture we're in now... i try and resist it as much as i can, especially when it leads to frustration at any lack of Oreos, adequate healthcare systems, non-bike theft, or very dodgy internet connection.
but things are actually great here, and we're not very homesick at all. God is good!

bo

Oh yeah. I've heard that joke before. Dumb.

Glad to hear that, BO! From my observation, the initial attitude never changes much. I have a lot of hope for you and Brynne ( and not just because of her pedigree!)

lighten up, Peter! I mean that sincerely.

My comment about your growing up was meant as a compliment.

Because I appreciate your thought processing, I want to continue the line of reasoning ( or non...I think Jeff is using his rapier wit and hyberbolating, and would ultimately agree that there are a few Republicans that do not have a confederate flag in their attic. I think, through having gotten to know you on this comment section, that you are honest, and sincere, and kind hearted. I also surmise from some of your responses that there are issues that you respond to emotionally, rather than rationally. Your responding directly to Jeff's hyperbole makes your sincerity seem instead like he has touched a nerve.)...any way, Back to reason.

Re racism:

Have you heard of an inferiortity complex? An Uncle Tom? Culturally and historically there have been people considered racist against their own race. This does not make Saleem a racist, but he is not excluded simply because he is black

Re Legal VS Illegal immigration:

Funny you should mention Cubans. Touching dry land, they legally start the process for citizenship, to become an American. Touching a bridge that touches dry land works, touching a bridge that has been severed gets them a ride back to Havana. Talk about a mixed up set of laws. Fleeing to the states form Castro's oppressive regime is legal. Fleeing Guatemala from Rios Montt's oppressive regime ( who killed as many or more Guatemalans that Castro killed Cubans) is not legal. Why? How does your axiomatic foundation in the gospel apply here? Justice and immmigration in the states have not mixed well. My understanding of the immigration policies are limited, but from my perspective, from where I sit, the richer Guatemalans have a good chance in the process of visiting, and becomeing residents in the states. The poorer, ( like those described in the Statue of Liberty) do not have a cockroach in a chicken coop's chance. Yet they and their children are dying. There is some good literature that says much of the conditions have been overtly and latently caused by American policies and American heavy handed (LEGAL) business dealings with former crooks...er politicians. So they head to the US, where they WILL find work, and can save enough for a piece of land, or a car, or a small business when they come back to Guatemala. They love Americans, and Love the U.S. Not because they think there is welfore for the signing up, but because they can WORK here...just as you said, and really make something happen for them and their families. Way back when on thei blog, I said that things are legal without being Just, and Just, without being Legal. The hard part for people who want to live by the Gospel, is that collision.

Poverty In America:

I moved from the states because I wanted to work simply with poor people. And we agree, that there is no reason to be poor in the states...except...

You are right, it is an attitude

I think the first page of "The Grapes of Wrath" is one of the best essays on the lie of axioms like "any boy can become president" and that trying hard will produce success. At every step, you are competing with all the other people who want exactly what you want, and the number of people who will succeed in that competition is not based on merit, but on available product, job, or house...whichever the competition was for. That is why scarcity is said to create value. I say that desire and scarcity do. So if 100 people want a spot at a school, and there are 100 openings, no problem. Or if only one person applied for that one job, everything is Jake. BUT when you start competing for scarce things, and have the experience that something other than merit is the determinate, you might get a bit angry, jaded, and at least discouraged. When that has occured culturally for many generations, that can entrench a very negative mindset. When someone says: "hey, that is not just!!" and the response is "Quit complaining, and start working" ... It is very hard to not have an attitude of despair, and maybe even rebellion. Do you think that Gangsta Rap, for example, is popular because there are so many cry babies who are afraid to work? I think it is a symptom of the culture moving into new freedoms, where there is finally enough self concience to be angry, instead of complacent. It is sad that the anger didn't come out back when the racism in America was much more overt, but if it had, it would have been quickly silenced.

Q. What do you call a slave with a sense of Justice?
A. Corpse.

But if the "haves" continue to respond to the "have nots"'s desires ( that become demands when the desirous feel safe enough) with fear and misunderstanding, and property laws and legalities that anyone can see (except axiomatic "haves")are not based on justice, then there will be trouble, as the "have nots" grow in strength. Many of my Black friends say that Dr MLK was killed whe he started meddling in economics. There was a huge advance thanks to King, and Johnson, and the Kennedy's, and social services changed the lives of many marginal people in the U.S. But much of that has gone back since. Maybe an analogy might be to say that the wealthy in the states are in college. The rest of the world is just discovering school. The lower classes here are in school, but they do not have a lot of hope of getting to college, no matter how hard they work. There are limited spots, and a lot of folks with cultural, and economic, and yes, racial advantages ahead of them. Trying to legislate that fairness is extremely difficult, and is an easy target for the "haves" to say "see? Hah!" But the fact of the inequity remains.

I spent time in my wayward youth in the ghettos. I was very successful in all my illicit dealings...I want to say that some of that for sure was due to my way of speaking, and my looks and my name. My black friends have said ALL of it was due to those things...they opened the doors and ears for people to even consider any talent I had. It was not a fair or level playing field. If I say it was, I am blind, and will probably be bigoted in my deductions about my relative success, compared to the latino, or black competitors.

I remember the guy that pulled a white truck driver out of harm's way during the riots in LA more than a decade ago. When he was interviewed, his speech was charming, because he was predetermined to be a hero. BUT that speech had not served him well, and when they said "what can a grateful community do for a hero such as yourself?" he responded with not much grammar, and a lot of humility, and said: "if anyone out there would give me a job, I would be grateful. I am a good driver, and I wark hard" I remeber thinking that no one who talks like and looks like me would ever have said that.

By the way, from my read, those Marijuana smokers and loose folks in your high school would have gotten just as close to Jesus as any Preacher or abstainer. The Gospel says : you are worse than you thought, but loved more than you could have hoped for. Jesus constantly challenged the religious who did not understand how bad they were, because they thought themselves good, because they were legal.

oops...I guess it did...can you erase one, Nat? I swear I logged on today ( Tuesday, did not see it, and so pasted it again...grrr)

anyway, I came back because I went from here to Larry Jame's urban daily Blog, and He just happened to have a case in point.: you can go to his site to see the stream from which this cup of cold water was taken,m but it bears pasting here:

"Steve Blow writes a regular column for The Dallas Morning News. He is always worth reading.

On Sunday, September 3, 2006, Steve described his ongoing encounters with a homeless woman who normally "camps" for the day in the park just outside his office where he can observe her from one of his windows.

Take a look at his essay, "She's ill and alone, but someone's daughter," at:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/ localnews/columnists/sblow/stories/DN-blow_03met.ART.North.Edition1.3e0eb82.html.

Steve's piece begs the question, who is really insane here? This poor woman who faces the harshness of the streets all alone? Or, the rest of us who allow our city, our state and our nation to tolerate this sort of systemic, abject neglect?

In my view, the woman may be mentally ill. The rest of us don't enjoy the luxury of that sort of justification for our behavior.

Since the early 1980s, mental health funding and thus, services have been shrinking in Texas, as well as across the nation. The movement to "de-institutionalize" most mental health treatment services has much to commend it, at least in terms of theory about treating the mentally ill in a humane manner. The problem is, legislators and other policy makers took advantage of the change in treatment philosophy to slash funding again and again and again.

Presently, funding for treatment, medication and case management has dried up to a meager trickle.

Here, as elsewhere in our society, the poor suffer because we have decided to elect and to support policy makers who continue to deny needed benefits and care to the mentally ill.

This is the issue. This is the point. This is why the woman Steve describes continues to suffer all alone. And yes, as Steve reminds us, she is someone's daughter.

Does anyone care enough to work for change? I wonder if anyone is asking the candidates for Texas Governor what their positions are on care for the mentally ill? How about legislative change that would bring new funding?

This is not just politics. This is all about morality, values and the quality of life we decide to create in our community.

It is not enough to know about a problem. The real test of a people is always discovered in the action they decide to take or to avoid."

Bubba, can you repost that link? It is broken.

The only place I can find overt and unapologetic racism in the political world today is the anti-semitism spouted by the folks at Move-On.org, an organization that Jeff financially supports.

Gee, Jim, that was about the most baseless piece of crap ever scribbled on this site. If I went to a right wing web site, and spouted racist nonsense, what would that have to do with the members of the site? It's not like it's anything official when some anonymous person posts anything anywhere.

Please don't be ridiculous.

BTW have you ever gone to moveon.org or just read that troll's site?

And Nat, you should be ashamed of yourself for hosting a site where baseless pieces of crap are prevalent!!!

er...jim..."the only place with overt and unapologetic racism"? you are clearly limited in your POV. Then there is the subtle and yet not too apologetic racism, which continues to flourish.

Jeff:

for a refreshing and much more consistent Xian view, Google "Larry James Urban Daily"... computers are not agreeing with me today

The reason I can't link to the posts directly is because MoveOn, in the interest of free and open discussion, does not allow anyone to search their discussion pages. However, the racism of MoveOn members is widely documented here, and here. In fact, the Anti-Defamation League wrote a letter to the MoveOn Director about the MoveOn forums attracting the kind of people who use the phrases "Zionazis" and "media owning Jewish pigs". This is not a wacko right wing web site: this is an organization you support with your own money, which makes you more party to their racism than any of the people you've accused.

So if I wrote horrible things on this blog, could we blame Nat for being a racist/whatever?

Here's the quote you forgot to read:

But in a statement posted on the MoveOn site Saturday, Pariser condemned the anti-Semitic rants.

"Once in a while - as in any public forum - inappropriate material is posted," he wrote. "Recently, a few of the thousands of comments that are posted every week contained anti-Semitic language.

"The comments that were posted were abhorrent. We were dismayed to see them, and removed them as soon as they came to our attention 17 days ago."

He added that most of the comments were not made by MoveOn members and suggested it could be an effort by conservatives to "target" the group, and said any effort to tie the rants to MoveOn was "wrong."

So the OFFICIAL MoveOn opinion is very different from the mindless crap dribbled onto it by some mindless right wing thug.

Jim- what part of "open forum" don't you understand?

So what I'm hearing is that it is the conservatives fault that anti-semetic garbage ended up on a liberal discussion forum (to which 80% of readers agreed). OK, I'll buy that. If that is the case, I propose that it isn't Republicans who are racist, but the Democrats pretending to be Republicans who are trying to paint the Republicans as racists. Or I suppose you could continue to cling to your "guilt by association" nonsense. But I'll cling to my new adage: Scratch a liberal, find an anti-Semite.

What part of "most of the comments were not made by MoveOn members" don't you understand? Are you telling me that if a spray paint swastikas on a synagogue, and they condemn the action, which was not performed by their members, that the are anti-semites?

Logically that is so bankrupt as to defy understanding.

So you would only align yourself with MoveOn in its official capacity then? Like when it officially released a TV commercial that was condemned by the Anti Defamation League? Or when it couldn't tell the difference between American and British soldiers (and then bravely Photoshopped their ignorance to cover their tracks)? It is because of these proud moments that you would stand up tall and say "I support this organization!"

Or is it because they did so much good in electing President Kerry?

Louis Farrakhan complained about a number of racist inferences in some publications the other day.

I appreciate the ADL and their right to say what they want to say. But they are a particular, biased viewpoint who also have a political agenda, an overwhelmingly focused agenda, and are concerned about the leftists tendency to disenfranchise from israel. It seems that straight forwardly they have chosen to miss the point of moveons reference of hitler and bush. which was not trying to exalt adolf, but put GW down. to cite their response is a bit shrill.

Jim- you certainly can mischaracterize with the best of them. I read your post and the message was that I gave money to an organization that paid for and wrote an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. That is what you say in your post, right? So if what actaully happened is that they opened a free-for-all and asked for ideas for commercials. Literally thousands of them came in. When they found the Bush/Hitler ad, they removed it and apologized.

How is that official? Here, we'll use your logic.

A. Death to the Jews,

B. Nat removes this vile sentiment,

C. Therefore Nat, Covenant College, it's alumnis and students are anti-semites, because this is on their site, and was not removed prior to posting.

How is this logis different from yours?

The question is "how is this logic different than yours, Jeff?" You label good people as racists based on nothing more than arrogent 4th grader psychobabble. Your logic goes:

1. Some Republicans are racists.

2. 99% of Republicans abhore those people and publically denouce them.

3. Therefore all Republicans are racists.

But back to the main point. It's OK. I understand. Some people feel the need to give money to organizations so in love with hating America that they have to fake photographs to support their claims. Far be it for me to judge.

And some people need to justify the hate of those on their side by calling the ADL a biased political organization with an agenda. I'll conceed that. The ADL has a political agenda of (gasp) opposing anti-Semitism. And some people in the Democratic party disagree with that. That's OK. It's not like they're running for president as a Democrat (Al Sharpton) or speaking at Democratic rallies and meeting with Democratic statesmen (Cindy Sheehan). Anti-Semites are loud and proud in the Democratic party. Align yourselves with them if you want to.

Jim, in my America any crazy can say anything they want. There's a first amendment. When I was a boy, people would say "I disagree vehemently with what you say, but I'd fight to the death for your right to say it." Yes, the occasional wingnut can make an ignorant statement anywhere in an open forum. It's democratic. If you want to hear real crazy talk, come to New England and attend a town meeting. And bring your aluminum foil hat.

It's called democracy. It's messy, as Rumsfeld famously said. But it's one thing to tolerate a wide range of opinions, and another to base the platforms of a major political party on racist ideals, including, but not limited to:

School vouchers (keep the good kids out of nigra schools)
Immigration reform (send back them beaners)
Overturn Affirmative Action (stop oppressing powerless, politically weak white males)

And so on. Playing to the vast American (white) South with their rebel battle flags (on a state flag for God's sake) celebrating "white heritage". I can see celebrating Scottish roots, or French or Irish, but all that "white" means is "not a nigra". There is no such thing as "white heritage" other than "no nigras here".

If you were the least bit intellectually curious or honest, this would be glaringly obvious.

Poor Jeff. You are a horse with blinders on, unable to understand anyone who isn't like you. You are a god unto yourself, puffed up with pride and willing to rain down judgement on those who would oppose you.

I do love how you refuse to address why you support an organization that has to provide fake evidence to back up their hate-filled promotions. I guess your eyes must skip over that part as a psychological defense against actually having to come to grips with the fact that you support people and politicians who hate Jews, hate Christians and hate black people who fall out of line with your ideology. Nope, no "thinnly veiled racism" for these people. They prefer the full-blown kind. As I said before, feel free to stand with these people if you want to. But I may judge a man by the company he keeps, and your company is putrid.

Jim; using shrill terms like hate and putrid kind of undermine your stance.

and, is this an attempt at irony?:

"You are a horse with blinders on, unable to understand anyone who isn't like you. You are a god unto yourself, puffed up with pride and willing to rain down judgement on those who would oppose you. "

as you rain down judgement on one of those who seems to oppose you?

Jim

You aren't worthy of the discussion.

Death is yellow. Life is red. The tide is velvet. Jim makes sense.

I take it from your reaction, steve, that you don't feel that people who hate Jews, Christians and independent black thinkers are putrid and hateful. Oh well, to each his own. Just wander over to DailyKos, the most popular liberal blog in the world, and search for the word "Christian". If, after that, you think that "hate" is an inappropriate word, than your definition is so narrow that you live in a happy world where no one hates anyone at all. Whis means that you have nothing to complain about. Good luck with that!

Sorry I hurt your feelings Jeff. Hate to see you take your marbles and go home just because you can't face the music. I'll try not to attack MoveOn and liberals in general in a way that is quite so factual next time. (And if you have problems with the facts, feel free to visit any of the links I helpfully provided. Ah, but that would indicate some form of intellectual curiosity on your part, so I guess I can't hope for too much.)

Try this on for sense, Jeff: Point blank, yes or no.

Given that you have financially supported MoveOn, does the indisputable fact that MoveOn consciously and deliberately faked photographic evidence in an official capacity (see my link above) make you regret that decision? Why or why not?

I do not regret any donations to MoveOn.org. Who exactly gives a rat's ass that somebody used the wrong photo? I certainly don't. Somehow the use of which photo agency or photoshop job was done makes a difference? I don't get it.

Attacking an independant country that never threatened us? Stupid.

Retouching photos that have no meaning other than window dressing? Irrelevant.

Somebody mistook British soldiers for American an that makes them terrorist supporting America haters, but mistaking Saddam and Iraq for Al-Queda supporters is somehow a great idea?

Ridiculous.

Jim

Read "The Messiah of Morris Avenue" . You'll be as surprised as a lot of your coreligionists to find yourself neck deep in flaming tar when you pass over. Then read the red parts of the New Testament.

"But I supported tax cuts for the rich, Jesus! What's the problem? You hated the sleazy and the poor and the weak too, didn't you? The poor made their own problems didn't they? Hello?"

Awesome. So we now have you on record as saying that it doesn't matter that MoveOn lied to make themselves look slightly less clueless. I agree, honesty has always been over-rated. What really matters is that we attacked an independent country that never threatened us.

Well, except for attempting to use anti-aircraft missiles to shoot down our planes, planning to assassinate a former president, and whose leader says, "Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future." (That quote is from 1996, when His Glorious Highness Bill Clinton was in charge.) So, I suppose in the strictest technical definition of the word "threat", we did attack a country that threatened us, which would make your statement untrue. But, hey, honesty has always been over-rated.

Oh, as a side note, the no-fly zones? Established to try to keep Hussein from slaughtering more Kurds. (See this graph to see the consequences of leaving Saddam in power.)I guess your deep concern about using government to help the poor doesn't extend to helping the poor Kurds, who were being murdered by the thousands when Saddam was in charge. Oh well, they were just Kurds after all. I mean, it's not like they were important, right?

Jim,

I don't honestly know you, or know much about you, but I think I can judge from your posts that you claim to be a Christian. If you're not, I apologize for my assumption, its just that you take an unusual interest in the well being of Christians and the Church in some of your previous posts for someone who's not a Christian.

If I am correct, I really think you ought to check the tone of your posts. They really come across as very angry and sarcastic, and frankly don't do much to show the primacy of worshipping God in your life (which is our primary purpose, afterall).

I was reading in James (your namesake) yesterday, and I came across a verse in chapter three, well, actually just the entire chapter. But one verse that particularly stood out to me, speaking about the tongue, "With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not be so" (vs. 9 and 10). When we curse someone in God's image (everyone, that is, including Jeff, Saddam, or any other human), we are in effect cursing God Himself because we are His creation, which He called "very good."

Regardless of whether or not what you say is true, you should deliver it in such a way that doesn't resort to anger or sarcasm to make your point more effective. On a merely practical standpoint, this only makes your position look weaker, and invites other people to respond in kind.

I'm also interested in how you came across this site. Earlier you brought up this discussion by saying that Jeff had financially supported Moveon.org, but according to my memory, he hadn't posted that in a very long time (forgive me if that isn't true, I'm not as a regular reader of this blog...). You also mentioned a suggestion of going to DailyKos and typing in "Christian" as a response.

My question is this: Do you purposefully search the internet for these discussions? And if so, why?

If you've got an ideological axe to grind, your obvious anger and venting are only making it duller. In truth, only a true grasp of humility and understanding will sway a person, not vicious diatribes.

If I'm wrong about all of the above, if I'm wrong on all my premises, and wrong about my assumptions, please forgive me. My point is only to try and direct this discussion into more friendly territory.

I honestly would have e-mailed all this to you, in private, but I wasn't sure if the e-mail you have listed would work; www.lastick.com is a furniture website, and I wasn't sure if it'd be appropriate to e-mail you at work.

Humbly,

Bo

PS~ Feel free to e-mail me at the address listed if you'd like!

Wow, Bo. A grown up on this site.

HI everybody;

I have been distracted by my car being stolen and then the red tape involved when it was found and (soon to be) returned to me by the police. (possibly a first in Gatemalan history, and even made the paper) And then the administering of an international organization wihtout good phone service and practically no web. Then there's the housefull of very special kids ( always wanting my attention, for some reason!)

and so I missed responding to your question, "Jim", and at this point, feel it might be superfluous. ...but even as I want to defer to Bo's questions, and hope you both consider them, and then answer from your heart, I want to clarify the points of my last comment.

1) I was reffering to Jeff, when I said you rained down judgement on those... I know Jeff, and will vouch safe that he does not, and never has categorically "hate Jews, Christians and independent black thinkers are putrid and hateful." He has hated and disliked many people, but always on individual, merit based grounds. In that, I suppose he is like Republican ideology, but not rhetoric.

2) I have to say that I live in a country that makes a bit of a mockery of your reasons for invading Iraq. Are you aware of how many thousands of innocents have been killed and tortured in this tiny isthmus by order of the U.S. Government in the last century? I will stack that number up against Saddam, not to make him seem good, but to open your eyes to the causes of the world's perception of America's morale fiber that was indicated at the U.N. just yesterday.

2) b. And demonizing your enemy did not originate with President Whatiwhosit Al Whosiwhatsit, either.

3) regardless of the fauxpaux wiht the picture, I fail to see how wanting the troops to be safe indicates a hatred of the U.S. It seems to me that that is an indication of concern, which seems related to love, not hatred. You might even say ( I think this paraphrases Jesus' harsh words) that God hates many human actions. Why? Because he loves humans.

I received an altered version of the OP's e-mail receipt, focused solely on Social Security...nice to alter a petition that others have signed after they've signed.

Anyway, the e-mail I received this morning says:

"Social Security Petition
It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If they give benefits to "illegal" aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave us that have paid into Social Security all our working lives?

The Senate voted this week to allow "illegal" aliens access to Social Security benefits(remember, these are people that have never paid into it). Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to receive social services. If you do not wish to sign the petition yourself, please forward on to anyone you think might be interested.

PETITION FOR: President Bush

Mr. President:

The petition below is a protest against the recent vote of the senate which was to allow illegal aliens access to our social security! We demand that you and all congressional representatives require citizenship for anyone to be eligible for social services in the United States

Instructions to sign are at the bottom.

1. Mary Takami , Calif., etc., etc."
SNIP

I was fortunate enough to have been forwarded this e-mail with many of the previous recipients' e-mail addresses stil intact in the header, so I sent the following reply to them:

"I was born in the USA, I'm white, male, over 40, Christian and Caucasian, all probably subconscious attributes of the targeted audience of the original poster of this petition.

The reason I wanted to respond to this petition right away is, although I realize there are illegal immigrant issues in this country that need to be addressed, the claims brought up in this particular petition are completely false, and, I believe, based on a racial/ethnic bias in order to incite those that don't know any better.

In order for a citizen or legal resident to collect any social security benefits, that person needs to:
have been employed within the United States and had SSI deductions made from paychecks already
have contributed directly to SSI if self-employed and deductions have not been pre-applied
be a surviving dependant/beneficiary of a worker who has eligible benefits
These benefits don't have anything to do with immigrant status, and any potential "illegal" alien that could collect any Social Security benefits would have already contributed the same way, through paycheck deduction, as any other worker in the USA, illegal or not. Anybody collecting SS benefits would indeed have "paid into it", so the entire premise of this petition is a lie.

The vast majority of illegal aliens in this country are employed and receive regular paychecks, from which all federal, state and local taxes and SS/Disability premiums are deducted...hence, they've always been "paying into it" without getting anything back, such as tax refunds or SS/Disability benefits that the rest of this country's workers receive. Although I agree that persons in this country that are not here legally should not be employed legally, they certainly have a right to benefits that they have manditorily paid for.

I normally don't respond to posts like this, but my background in ethics education and discrimination topics has made my conscience do so. Nothing personal, of course.

Russell Sullivan, American Citizen"

(To some of you): Short-sighted idiots. Rights to illegals is INSANITY. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM. It has to do with PROTECTING THE VERY SOVEREIGNTY OF AMERICA!! Do you forget they are BREAKING the law?? And they should be REWARDED for that??

***Illegals *OUTNUMBER* LEGAL aliens** in this country now. They are growing in this nation FIVE TIMES FASTER than the AMERICAN POPULATION!!!! FIVE TIMES FASTER!! They have MORE RIGHTS that REAL AMERICANS. This is an act of war upon this nation. If this does not scare Americans, then there is something WRONG with you. Their goal is to take over in this "silent" manner. Proof of that is them TRYING TO MAKE SPANISH THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE of NUMEROUS border states and cites!! Our border states are being completely taken over by them!! They are running Americans OUT of these cities and the officials are LETTING THEM because all them are Mexican, VOTED IN BY Mexicans!! An American cannot show their face in these cities from which they have been rut out without getting mugged, shot or killed. They BURN the American flag IN THESE U.S. CITIES ON OUR OWN SOIL, while waiving the flag of MEXICO!!! They come into our cities, run out Americans, and start crack houses, prostitution, chop-shops, countless gangs, etc., etc. And NO, the majority of them DO NOT HAVE REAL JOBS. Illegals CANNOT BE TRACED!! The women come over here with their "anchor babies" with the sole responsibility of giving birth and multiplying like bacteria to fulfill their goal.

If groups of Americans tried to go to Mexico and commit these atrocities, WE'D BE SHOT AND RIGHTLY SO and THAT is what WE should do to THEM!!

Again, this is all out act of war ON AMERICA and if we do not defend ourselves and our soil, this nation WILL BECOME the New, "New" Mexico!! This is an invasion. Americans will become the minority and we will have FEWER rights that we do now compared to their already-better-rights than Americans!! Americans will eventually be run out of their homes by FORCE.

MORE POWER and resources to the heroes like the Minute Man groups, THEY SEE THE DANGER and they KNOW what is happening. ALL OF YOU SOON WILL, but by then it will be TOO LATE. Those of you Americans in CA, AR, TX, NM, etc., better keep your weapons, get more, and stand ready. You WILL NEED THEM soon.

If you want to call that "racism", FINE. I call it common sense.....perhaps not so common.

10 years from now you'll all think back on this while sitting in your run-down impoverished concentration camp type SHACKS.

Haha...
That's pretty funny. You know, for a second I thought you were quoting some early 1900's newspaper editorial bemoaning the fact that all the Irish and Poles were going to take over the country. But then I realized that you weren't quoting anything at all, just the usual reactionary's pap of, "What is the world coming to?"

What if all the "Mexicans" (I put that in quotes to note that not all 'illegals' are Mexican) did band together, seize power through the channels of a democratic government, then through votes of the people, actually get some sort of majority in the congress and voted to annex the US with Mexico? What would that be called? Oh yeah, we all remember high school American Government... it's called democracy. That's how it works. So what if that did happen? Can you think of anything worse?

Well, I can. I can think of an America that ignores th poem on the Statue of Liberty's arm. One in which the people compare non-Americans to "bacteria" to quote you. Really? Bacteria? That's pretty rough, Man the borders. And they should all be shot? By whom? I don't suppose if given the chance, with gun in your hand and a "Mexican" on his knees, that you'd actually have the stones to put a bullet in him. Actually I doubt that very much. But it would be much easier to say you would in an anonymous post on an obscure political blog. No way to trace you, you know?

Really. Try and consider what you're saying. And try and say again without using ALL CAPS to prove all your main points. We aren't stupid. Plus it makes it look like one of those letters you get in the mail telling you you just won ten million dollars:

"YOU TOO, can win TEN MILLION DOLLARS! Think of all the possibilities! Think of all the BULLETS you could buy to shoot the MEXICAN INSURGENTS!" Very nice indeed.

And when making arguments (ones that contain facts, reasoned arguments, non-inflammatory language, and some freaking civility) you should refrain from making generalizations. It only further weakens your argument. Saying things like:

"They come into our cities, run out Americans, and start crack houses, prostitution, chop-shops, countless gangs, etc., etc. And NO, the majority of them DO NOT HAVE REAL JOBS."

are, in fact, generalizations. I'll admit, some of these accusations might be true for some illegal immigrants. But stop to consider that it might be the same for true 'red-blooded' Americans as well.

So basically in closing I'd like to ask you to reread your original post. Slowly. Read every word. Are you proud of what you typed? Do feel remorse at some of the things? How would you feel if I called you bacteria? Just be a little considerate.

Oh, and don't call people short-sighted idiots, it's rude.

There are many 'petitions' circulating on the net now with these very same peoples name on it, for anything from social security benefits being given to illegals, to this one above to Hispanics demanding that all employers in the US hire only bi-lingual speakers (guess which language other than English is being demanded).

These are all spam, just ignore them.