That sounds great, but there's just no way.

It was always the case that racial justice needed to involve personal responsibility as much as outside assistance to black communities.

How, though, would the balance between these two approaches change just because a black candidate has been elected president?

If the focus should be solely on the individual now, then that should have been the case before, shouldn't it? If the solution also required our society to turn its attention to addressing old injustices, as well as individual efforts, then how could the election change that, either?

I do remember how Jesse Jackson, on a supposed closed mike, said he wanted to cut Obama's balls off because he"s "Talked down to the Black Man"".

In a segment of the population who still saw their black skin as holy, can we really expect any change a against the "cRap culture" out there? Until the problem of racism within the Black-American culture is fixed, race hustlers will always have something to peddle.

I hope Williams is right. But I think he's wrong. The problems are now structural within American black culture, and all the black officeholders in the world won't fix it. (See: Detroit, Washington DC, East St. Louis, etc.)

Wishful thinking. Al & company haven't lost their cred. They never had any cred with rational people anyway. Their target audience is the portion of the black population that truly and honestly believes that Ronald Reagan ordered the CIA to invent AIDS & crack cocaine in a secret government lab. There are millions of such people, and Sharpton, Jackson, & Wright have gotten very rich & famous from hustling them.

How will that hopelessly deluded black woman on YouTube react when her house gets foreclosed because the Obamessiah won't pay her mortgage?

I think it pretty well shuts down the argument that blacks can't achieve no matter what they do because the system is stacked against them. Not that Sharpton and his ilk won't still try, but it doesn't ring as true anymore. As Jackson's commentary suggests, they will probably shift to peddling a sort of "Uncle Tom" complaint - "sure, you can get ahead, but only if you act like whitey" kind of deal, which supposedly puts down "black culture". They'll try to make it a black identity issue. Yet, that isn't as easy to sell or embrace.

Obama's election is progress, but things will only dramatically improve when the black middle class speaks out against the false notion that these social problems represent "black culture". They do not. They are merely problems created by poverty and prejudice, and it's clear that blacks now have the opportunity, if they choose, to leave that behind and build a culture of high achievement.

ls - given that blacks voted monolithically for Obama, what do you think is the likelihood that middle-class blacks are going to do anything?

Nothing has changed, nothing will change. The elevation of a black man to the most powerful position in the world doesn't mean shit.

The only thing that will end the racial divide is when those who have claimed the mantle of victim decide that they are no longer willing to farm out responsibility for their success.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

My sentiments lie with the bulk of the previous commenters. I'm hopeful but not optimistic.

Furthermore if the tax cuts for those not paying taxes (ie. spreading the wealth to 95% of Americans) goes through, then won't that mean even more of a dependency on Big Brother?

Well, I probably can't change your mind, Brian. And you may be right. But, I think it's somewhat similar to the feminist movement's "victimhood". Yes, you still have some of that today, but it is nothing like the rabid feminist rhetoric of the 60s & 70s. In fact, today, you have many more young women who consider themselves "post-feminist" or even anti-feminist, and that's without having a female president and still having pay inequalities.

Yet, so much progress has been made (and many men, probably you included, would argue the tide has changed dramatically in our favor) that there just isn't the same sort ANGER behind it. American women today, in general, do not feel the oppression of any glass ceilings, so the feminist movement has been diminished into a more passive and less relevant state. That's what this writer believes will happen with Sharpton and Jackson too, and I also can't see how they can possibly hold onto the same relevancy now.

Sure, certain people will always cling to victimhood - no matter how much progress is made, they'll refuse to see it. And you'll still have that among some blacks - but I think Obama's election really takes a lot of the wind out of their sails.

Sometimes, things never change...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

Victimhood or just Leeching, I can't tell.

What pay inequalities lovelysoul?

Lujlp, the salary inequities between men and women that some studies suggest still exist. I tend to suspect that a lot of that can be explained by women taking more time off for childrearing, not broad-based gender bias. Do you question those statistics too?

Actually, LS, those "studies" are all piss-poor. Many of them do indeed fail to control for time away.

But, other than chosen profession (and yes, there is a group of feminists out there who feel that choice of profession oughtn't have any bearing on earning potential, which is dumb, but there it is) the single biggest reason that women don't earn what men do in a given field" they don't ask for it.

The only studies I've seen that controlled for biases showed that in the "hard sciences" (think engineering), women tended to be less willing to negotiate for higher salaries than men did. Beyond that, they make the same (controlling for time off) as their male peers.

So, yes I question the statistics you mention. Specifically because they fail to control for the single biggest factor in wage variance - women tend to take time off to have children, and are less willing to work 60-80 hour weeks when they are in their 20s. Because the ones that keep the same work habits as their male peers advance at the same rate.

The pay disparity for women thing has been pretty thoroughly debunked. It boils mostly down to women taking time off to have kids, and that's what they are scrapping over now. The complainers don't think they should have to take a pay cut to take time off to have kids, since they are "raising the future." Sometimes they even throw in the line about their kids paying into Social Security. These factions are generally looking for government-mandated corporate-sponsored daycare and preschool programs, so they can have their kids and not miss out on any earning potential. There's not any serious, worthwhile debate going on here.

The liberal fanatics are undermined by the realization that occurs to many of those within their own ranks, that having kids or not is a choice, and WHEN to have them is also a choice, and that it's okay to sacrifice some earnings to fulfill their desire to have children, just like they did five years ago when they took time off from work to travel in Europe. If anything, these ecology-friendly liberals feel guilty about even having kids at all, since they worry about the impact on the environment. How does the liberal feminist reconcile her desire to be paid to have kids, with the guilty feeling that she should be paying everyone else?

Rational people of both genders have always understood that the economic impact of making a lifestyle change should be borne by the person making that lifestyle change.

Pirate Jo, true sentiments, and well written.

Rational people of both genders have always understood that the economic impact of making a lifestyle change should be borne by the person making that lifestyle change.

It is the hallmark of liberalism that its followers are decidedly not rational.

Which would explain a great many things.

brian -

You are really a very silly man. And fucking mindlessly irrational yourself.

It is the hallmark of liberalism that its followers are decidedly not rational.

No, it is the hallmark of all ideologues, right, left or other, that their blind followers are decidedly irrational. And it is a hallmark of all ideologues that they must demonize all apposing ideas and the people who perpetuate them - regardless of the truth of claims made against them.

Irrational? Sweeping generalizations like yours are irrational.

So, because I didn't insult enough people I'm silly and irrational?

No. How about this. You're an over-emotional drama queen looking for conflict where none exists.

Your turn.

No brian, because you make a sweeping generalization that insults a great many people you are silly and irrational. There are a great many liberals who are quite rational and intelligent, just as there are a great many conservatives who are as well. OTOH, there are also a great many irrational liberals and conservatives out there.

And this is not just based on this comment. You have an irrational attitude when it comes to anything remotely liberal or even just not conservative enough for you. You also irrationally support a great many conservative and (mostly) pseudo-conservative positions (corporate welfare for one).

And this is not just based on this comment. You have an irrational attitude when it comes to anything remotely liberal or even just not conservative enough for you.

I've not heard one rational liberal position yet. They are all based upon appeals to emotion which is the very opposite of reason. And just because there are irrational people of all political stripes does not mean that somewhere in the world liberalism is rational.

You also irrationally support a great many conservative and (mostly) pseudo-conservative positions (corporate welfare for one).

What the fuck are you smoking? I have never once in my life supported "corporate welfare". What part of "end all subsidies" sounds like I support that?

You are arguing against a "straw-brian" that does not exist in this Universe.

brian -

They are all based upon appeals to emotion which is the very opposite of reason.

Talk about a strawman. Just because there are a lot of emotional reasons for many liberal positions, doesn't mean that is the sum of the arguments for them.

Case in point - capital punishment. I take a very liberal stance on it, that while based in part on emotion, is entirely rational. I just don't believe that the risk of executing anyone who is not guilty of a capital crime is worth it. On another thread Radwaste has been arguing rather voraciously with me on this point and not once have I made an appeal to emotion.

One can argue that the possibility that the wrong person might be executed, given it's rarity, does not make it worth housing capital criminals for life. But it is not irrational to say that the risk, small and rare as it might be, is not worth perpetuating capital punishment.

I also take a rather liberal position on gun control laws, one that is firmly grounded in evidence. While I absolutely support the right to own and bare arms, I also support restrictions on those rights. It has nothing to do with emotion either. I have weighed the evidence and used common sense to conclude that every asshole out there having the right to secret a pistol in their pocket is entirely unreasonable. I have also concluded that laws requiring a few days between the decision to buy a fire-arm and actually allowing someone to walk out of the store with one, are entirely reasonable and will prevent some spur of the moment decisions to shoot someone. No emotion involved in any of those positions.

I have never once in my life supported "corporate welfare".

I can't even begin to remember the thread, as it was a very long time ago, but I remember you making a rather voracious argument for energy subsidies. I will admit though, that I don't recall you actually supporting the subsidies. You were mainly arguing that the subsidies weren't substantive when you boiled it down to actual energy produced.

DuWayne - your position on capital punishment is libertarian, not liberal. Your position on gun control IS based upon emotion because there is no evidence that gun restrictions work, and significant evidence that they cause significant increases in violent and gun crime.

You have arrived at an opinion on gun control after convincing yourself that you have weighed the evidence. However the evidence you weighed must have been flawed for you to come to the conclusion you have. It is completely illegal for an individual to own a firearm inside Washington, D.C. Firearm homicides are not uncommon there.

I can't even begin to remember the thread, as it was a very long time ago, but I remember you making a rather voracious argument for energy subsidies.

You cannot remember it because it never happened. I have never supported energy or any other subsidies. Ever. The government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers. Subsidizing one thing over another (either through direct subsidy or tariff on competition) guarantees that the worst possible outcome will occur.

brian -

The fact that many libertarians share my view on capital punishment, doesn't make it any less liberal a position. There are a lot of liberal notions that happen to also be shared by libertarians. This doesn't make those positions any less liberal.b

As for the gun control, I am absolutely and dead set set against any outright bans. Sorry, but that is the same silliness that extremists like to throw at me in this discussion (liberal extremists do the same with my position, from the opposite direction). I am a gun owner and voraciously support the right to own and bear arms, I just don't see that right as an absolute.

To whit, I do not believe that persons convicted of violent felonies should have the right to own or possess firearms, without jumping through a whole lot of additional hoops.

Beyond that, I do not see any reason that someone should be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun, in the same trip (unless they have a court order, such as someone who has just gotten a restraining order). It just isn't going to hurt someone to wait two or three days, after making the purchase and may well save them a murder conviction.

I also have issues with any old asshole being allowed to walk around with a concealed gun. I am all about people be allowed, given they can show they are competent to do so and have a permit. I am all about letting anyone who can legally own a firearm carry it, but I also support the right of others around them to avoid them - can't avoid them if you don't know they have one.

I don't see any reasonable excuse for open ownership of fully automatic weapons. I am all about permits to own them, but there are very few reasons for most people to possess them and a lot of reasons for most people not to.

The fact that you may not find the evidence compelling or wish to dismiss it, does not mean that I am wrong. I could just as easily say that your evidence is flawed and that your position is based on emotion. But making that claim would be irrational, as I cannot know what motivates your position. I assume that you have evidence to support your position, that you find as compelling as I find the evidence that supports mine.

My apologies for mis-remembering. You are not the only brian to comment here and it was probably the other brian (who hasn't been around in a great long while). Of course, instead of assuming that it was someone else, you just assume the conversation never took place - yet you accuse others of being irrational.

When you tell me I said something, I'm not reasonably going to expect you misremembered it as someone else saying it. I didn't say it. If someone else did, it's not germane.

Most of your "gun control" position is not, actually, "gun control". Although frankly I don't think there ought to be any restrictions on what a law-abiding citizen should be able to hold as armament.

Oh, and the Constitution itself supports the loss of rights for felons (and not just violent ones). So that's already covered.

As far as waiting periods go, I don't like them. And your exception is actually the worst possible one to grant, as that person might actually be inclined to hunt down and kill the source of their torment. In any event, it's not the job of the government to prevent crime, but to prosecute and punish the offenders. If the punishment is severe enough, most people won't commit a given crime.

The fact of the matter on evidence is this: there are numerous case studies in real life where the removal of weaponry from law-abiding citizens has led directly to an increase in crime. There are no such studies that show a decrease after such a ban.

This is because when the guns are banned, by definition only the law-abiding hand over their weapons. And then the criminals know that they are assured an unarmed victim pool, and the predations begin anew.

It is not I who find the evidence not compelling, it is reality. And I'm not in the business of telling reality what it ought to be.

Most of your "gun control" position is not, actually, "gun control".

Then what the fuck is it? I believe in restricting what law abiding citizens can do with their firearms and what firearms they can possess (I forgot to mention that I also support laws requiring folks who live in households with kids to secure their firearms, either with trigger locks or vaults). That certainly seems like gun control to me.

Or is it that my attitudes about guns aren't irrational, so they must not be a liberal position or the evile gun control?

Although frankly I don't think there ought to be any restrictions on what a law-abiding citizen should be able to hold as armament.

Of course not. Everyone should be allowed to own weapons that have no rational use outside a war zone.

Oh, and the Constitution itself supports the loss of rights for felons (and not just violent ones). So that's already covered.

The constitution doesn't make the right to bear arms an absolute either.

And your exception is actually the worst possible one to grant, as that person might actually be inclined to hunt down and kill the source of their torment.

You're probably right about that. But I believe very strongly in the right of an individual to protect themselves and a piece of paper isn't real protection. So I tend to want to error on the side allowing self-defense and making exceptions for folks who have a known and definite threat against their person.

In any event, it's not the job of the government to prevent crime, but to prosecute and punish the offenders.

That is only your opinion, the majority of citizens in the U.S. disagree with you.

If the punishment is severe enough, most people won't commit a given crime.

The vast majority of people won't commit a given crime, even if the punishment isn't all that severe. But no matter how harsh we seem to make the penalties, a lot of those inclined towards committing crimes seem to keep committing them. (the death penalty for example, doesn't seem to have any effect on the incidence of capital crimes)

The fact of the matter on evidence is this: there are numerous case studies in real life where the removal of weaponry from law-abiding citizens has led directly to an increase in crime.

This applies only to outright gun bans and the studies that make these claims are dubious at best. I don't believe in gun bans. But while I don't think they do anything to reduce the incidence of gun crime, I have yet to see a single reasonable study that shows they lead to an increase in gun crime or crime in general.

It is not I who find the evidence not compelling, it is reality. And I'm not in the business of telling reality what it ought to be.

Dubious studies are dubious studies. Such studies are rife on every side of the gun control discussion (and a great many other discussions) and do not reflect reality. I don't find a lot of studies that would support your position compelling, because I have yet to see any that weren't inherently biased, or otherwise flawed. I assume that you feel the same way about studies that support such dubious notions as gun bans or other forms of gun control, and not just because you disagree with their conclusions.

Or is it that my attitudes about guns aren't irrational, so they must not be a liberal position or the evile gun control?

Therefore your position, while headed leftward, does not constitute the liberal position.

It is a bit irrational though.

The constitution doesn't make the right to bear arms an absolute either.

Actually, it rather does.

Of course not. Everyone should be allowed to own weapons that have no rational use outside a war zone.

We should be allowed the same armament that our government has, precisely because the purpose of the second amendment was to protect the citizenry from the government.

Besides, nothing says "stay off my lawn" quite like a howitzer.

brian -

There isn't any one liberal position on anything. Just as there is no single conservative position on anything.

Actually, it rather does.

Funny, a lot of justices rather disagree with you on that.

We should be allowed the same armament that our government has, precisely because the purpose of the second amendment was to protect the citizenry from the government.

First of all, that was not the purpose of the second amendment, which was a compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists. And even on the anti-federalist side, it was the notion that state militias should have the ability to fight off the potential tyranny of a federal government bent on lording over the states.

Arguments over it's actual meaning have been going on since before it was even ratified and has been fought in the courts since it was ratified.

But that said, do you honestly believe that any old asshole should have the right to own nuclear weapons? How about missiles?

Besides, nothing says "stay off my lawn" quite like a howitzer.

I can't find the link right this minute (I'll post it later), but recently an eight year old was killed, when he was allowed to fire a demonstration model of a micro uzi at a gun show. He lost control of the weapon and took a portion of his head right off. Personally, I am all for preventing stupidity like that before the fact, rather than prosecuting morons for negligence after the fact.

Fully automatic weapons are absolutely and entirely unnecessary in most civilian positions. Personally, I don't like so many fucking cops having them, much less citizens. High power and easy enough for even adults to lose control of, they too often infringe on the rights of others to be safe and secure in their homes and in public.

A short barrel twelve gauge is just as effective for saying "stay the fuck away." Just as visible and racking a shot into the chamber is enough to make most (sensible) intruders shit themselves. And if they aren't sensible, well, you have a shot in the chamber now don't you?

Personally, I am all for preventing stupidity like that before the fact, rather than prosecuting morons for negligence after the fact.

This is where you and I differ. I look at it this way - one less stupid in the world. The only shame of it is that the kid didn't take his stupid father out too.

Yup, we really do differ there. I wouldn't shed a tear if the kid had accidentally shot his old man, but I tend to like kids having the chance to grow beyond their parent's stupidity.