I am a Latina…and that is really sickening.

That is racist pure and simple…and NPR should have not put her one.

That was an old Latino term for whites. It’s like someone using the term “Colored” or the N-word.

That is sickening.

She should not use this sad incident for racial politics.

This is the same NPR that took Juan Williams off, but had spout that racism.

so typical. She’ll be promoted no doubt

1 – The Liberals were hoping it wasn’t one of them

2 – The Conservatives were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

3 – The Hispanics were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

Nothing to see here..

What’s priceless here to me is the astounding purity of the hypocrisy. Trying to paraphrase her to illustrate what I mean…let’s see:

“Thank God that the shooter wasn’t Hispanic, What a relief it is to have people falsely claiming causality betwen his insane shooting rampage and Sarah Palin instead of falsely claiming causality between his insane shooting rampage and hispanics, WHEW!”

I’m a Gringo married to a Gringa, and I have to say I too was pleased the shootist did not have a Hispanic surname. The good people in Utah would have formed a lynch mob and headed to Tucson.

screwauger said:
so typical. She’ll be promoted no doubt

…and remember this is NPR. The same people who fired Juan Williams for what he said.

She didn’t even care about the victims.

Then she used the racist term “Gringo” not once, but twice.

That is really racist.

Why would the mainstream media worry about whether the shooter was Hispanic or a tea party member or anything. No matter what the FACTS might be, the mainstream media simply ignores them and creates their own narrative. For example, there is ZERO connection between the shooter and Sarah Palin, but they are now linked in 4,890 different news stories (based on a Google news search).

In short, American media have become untethered from reality. This is not journalism. This is not even punditry. It’s just a smear campaign of the most vile kind. And when Ms. Palin defends herself, the media — you couldn’t make this stuff up! — ignores her very reasonable requests not to politicize this tragedy, but instead smears her again, this time shamelessly manipulating her use of the term “blood libel” — as if this is the crux of the story?

In short, this is the week American media left the ranks of the sane and went off into cloud cuckoo land. Even people who don’t pay attention to politics have learned a lesson this week. Anyone who thought the media still practiced journalism now know otherwise.

BFD said:
1 – The Liberals were hoping it wasn’t one of them 2 – The Conservatives were hoping it wasn’t one of them. 3 – The Hispanics were hoping it wasn’t one of them. Nothing to see here..

Agreed. Nobody (nobody I’ve heard, anyway) wants to be associated with this guy. Until the Lifetime Movie of the Week people show up with checks, I mean.

Just_MC said:
Agreed. Nobody (nobody I’ve heard, anyway) wants to be associated with this guy. Until the Lifetime Movie of the Week people show up with checks, I mean.

I think this might be Justin Bieber’s breakthrough film, although Dean Cain is always good.

As a Latina I am surprised that Liberals are acting like it is nothing when a minority uses a racist terms about white people.

Racism is racism, not matter what.

Latin2 said:
As a Latina I am surprised that Liberals are acting like it is nothing when a minority uses a racist terms about white people.

Latin2, you wouldn’t be SURPRISED if you found out liberals put ground-up dead babies in their morning cereal so stop acting all dumbfounded and shit.

Latin2 said:
As a Latina I am surprised that Liberals are acting like it is nothing when a minority uses a racist terms about white people.

Racism is racism, not matter what.

That’s why I asked my Hispanic friends to call me “Delgado”.

The Real Royal King said:
That’s why I asked my Hispanic friends to call me “Delgado”.

More like pendejo.

Latin2 said:
More like pendejo.

In the Philippine sense of course.

Thank you Google.

Just_MC said:
What’s priceless here to me is the astounding purity of the hypocrisy. Trying to paraphrase her to illustrate what I mean…let’s see:

“Thank God that the shooter wasn’t Hispanic, What a relief it is to have people falsely claiming causality betwen his insane shooting rampage and Sarah Palin instead of falsely claiming causality between his insane shooting rampage and hispanics, WHEW!”

You do understand how the consequences would be harder hitting if the situation were the opposite, right?
Palin, Beck and Limbaugh are still going to be millionaires and it will blow over and things will go back to normal for them. If the media and politicians were to attack an entire race in an already hostile state, the impact would be a much different story.

I look forward to Fox trotting Williams out for his opinion, I think he might be on the ladies side here.

Nacho said:
You do understand how the consequences would be harder hitting if the situation were the opposite, right?Palin, Beck and Limbaugh are still going to be millionaires and it will blow over and things will go back to normal for them. If the media and politicians were to attack an entire race in an already hostile state, the impact would be a much different story. I look forward to Fox trotting Williams out for his opinion, I think he might be on the ladies side here.

No.

“Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn’t be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they’d be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people.”

I really do object that whatever infintesimal fraction of my tax dollars goes to fund NPR it is TOO much if this is what they consider fit to broadcast.

Say it completely on your own dime or show show minimal respect for your country.

Latin2 said:
I am a Latina…and that is really sickening.

That is racist pure and simple…and NPR should have not put her one.

That was an old Latino term for whites. It’s like someone using the term “Colored” or the N-word.

That is sickening.

Gringo has absolutely no connotation of skin tone short of what those who feign offense to it create for themselves. As a Latino, I grew up fully aware the gringo refers to the dominant culture in America outside of the Latino community, meaning both white and black Americans. It’s certainly exclusionary, but not racial.

WHY hasn’t boehner yet introduced a bill to STOP ALL TAXPAYER FUNDS FOR THE LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS AT NPR AND PBS ?

So may whites do not realize the stress that minorities feel living in this society. African Americans and Hispanics feel this same pressure. Italians used to fee it. The lack of sensitivity to these pressures is real. You should try to understand it, not condemn it.

It was interesting to meet whites from America, the UK and Canana in the ROK living and working for the first time as minorities. They had a great difficulty dealing with the fact that the majority population saw them as HIV carrying sexual predators. We would have long discussions which were nothing about gripe sessions. When a”foreigner” was accused of committing a crime they always hoped it was anyone but someone white. At these times I always pointed out to them that this is the feeling that minorities feel everyday in their home countries.

I have seen posts by a couple of people who deny this. I understand their desire for acceptance and hope that denial will facilitate their assimilation. This woman on NPR spoke the truth of her feelings and emotions. They are natural, and widespread. They only seem strange to those who have never had the experience of being a member of a minority group.

blurgh. said:
Gringo has absolutely no connotation of skin tone short of what those who feign offense to it create for themselves. As a Latino, I grew up fully aware the gringo refers to the dominant culture in America outside of the Latino community, meaning both white and black Americans. It’s certainly exclusionary, but not racial.

Very true!

Latin2 said:
As a Latina I am surprised that Liberals are acting like it is nothing when a minority uses a racist terms about white people.

Racism is racism, not matter what.

I’m actually surprised that anybody who purports themselves to be of Latino descent would react so quickly in a way that completely disregards historical and cultural context. Calling someone a gringo is certainly used as an exclusionary function, but it’s cultural–not racial.

armwood said:
So may whites do not realize the stress that minorities feel living in this society. African Americans and Hispanics feel this same pressure. Italians used to fee it. The lack of sensitivity to these pressures is real. You should try to understand it, not condemn it. It was interesting to meet whites from America, the UK and Canana in the ROK living and working for the first time as minorities. They had a great difficulty dealing with the fact that the majority population saw them as HIV carrying sexual predators. We would have long discussions which were nothing about gripe sessions. When a”foreigner” was accused of committing a crime they always hoped it was anyone but someone white. At these times I always pointed out to them that this is the feeling that minorities feel everyday in their home countries. I have seen posts by a couple of people who deny this. I understand their desire for acceptance and hope that denial will facilitate their assimilation. This woman on NPR spoke the truth of her feelings and emotions. They are natural, and widespread. They only seem strange to those who have never had the experience of being a member of a minority group.

well then, i hate to say it minorites will always be treated different then

cjd ohio 1 said:
well then, i hate to say it minorites will always be treated different then

The very nature of there being “minorities” mean that they will always be treated differently than the majority, usually by the majority.

Grammie said:
“Had the shooter been Latino, media pundits wouldn’t be discussing the impact of nasty politics on a young man this week — they’d be demanding an even more stringent anti-immigrant policy. The new members of the House would be stepping over each other to propose new legislation for more guns on the border, more mothers to be deported, and more employers to be penalized for hiring brown people.”

I really do object that whatever infintesimal fraction of my tax dollars goes to fund NPR it is TOO much if this is what they consider fit to broadcast.

Say it completely on your own dime or show show minimal respect for your country.

How is someone expressing their true feelings as an American experiencing her American reality “they consider not fit for broadcast” Do you think you own America? It seems that you believe that she is less American than you are. Guess what, she is just as much an American as you are!

NPR has a fiduciary duty to its audience to broadcast a wide spectrum of viewpoints which it does. Take time and listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. They are great programs.

blurgh. said:
The very nature of there being “minorities” mean that they will always be treated differently than the majority, usually by the majority.

There is a lot of truth to that but not all minorities are treated the same. As an example in America Asians are treated more favorably than African Americans or Hispanics. It really depends on the culture of the society. So many societies have been poisoned by color prejudice. Unfortunately this prejudice exists around the world, in South America, North East Asia, The Middle East etc. Not all minorities are treated the same. Some are more favored than others.

Paranoia is bad for the state of mind. This statement of her’s is silly, but I understand the idea of them being concerned about their own, but it’s irresponsible and she should have kept it to herself. Idiotic and moronic behavior,I’d say.

armwood said:
There is a lot of truth to that but not all minorities are treated the same. As an example in America Asians are treated more favorably than African Americans or Hispanics. It really depends on the culture of the society. So many societies have been poisoned by color prejudice. Unfortunately this prejudice exists around the world, in South America, North East Asia, The Middle East etc. Not all minorities are treated the same. Some are more favored than others.

Sure, but they are still treated differently by a majority.

BFD said:

“1 – The Liberals were hoping it wasn’t one of them

2 – The Conservatives were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

3 – The Hispanics were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

Nothing to see here..”

I find myself in the odd position here of agreeing with him to a point. She lost me when she started the leftist mantra that some evil police officer was just waiting to profile him because of his last name.

blurgh. said:
Gringo has absolutely no connotation of skin tone short of what those who feign offense to it create for themselves. As a Latino, I grew up fully aware the gringo refers to the dominant culture in America outside of the Latino community, meaning both white and black Americans. It’s certainly exclusionary, but not racial.

Neither does the word “Wetback”. It has not connotation to skin tone or physical attribute. Is it racist when used against Mexicam-Americans? Of course.

So is the word Gringo.

Kam Fet said:
Paranoia is bad for the state of mind. This statement of her’s is silly, but I understand the idea of them being concerned about their own, but it’s irresponsible and she should have kept it to herself. Idiotic and moronic behavior,I’d say.

This is not an expression of paranoia. You should walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins before you judge. I feel the same fear that she expressed every time I watch the nightly news. “I hope the perpetrator of the crime was not black”. My wife feels the same way if the perpetrator is Asian “I hope he is not Chinese”. I heard it from whites in Korea. This is not paranoia.
This is a common feeling felt by minorities who just want to fit in and be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin, their religion, their accent, their gender or sexual persuasion.

armwood said:
This is not an expression of paranoia. You should walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins before you judge. I feel the same fear that she expressed every time I watch the nightly news. “I hope the perpetrator of the crime was not black”. My wife feels the same way if the perpetrator is Asian “I hope he is not Chinese”. I heard it from whites in Korea. This is not paranoia.This is a common feeling felt by minorities who just want to fit in and be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin, their religion, their accent, their gender or sexual persuasion.

but all white people dont judge on the nightly news sir, times are changing (crime thing)

Latin2 said:
Neither does the word “Wetback”. It has not connotation to skin tone or physical attribute. Is it racist when used against Mexicam-Americans? Of course.

So is the word Gringo.

You are right.

grin·go   
[gring-goh] Show IPA

–noun, plural -gos. Usually Disparaging .

(in Latin America or Spain) a foreigner, esp. one of U.S. or British descent.
Origin:
1840–50, Americanism ; < Sp: foreign language, foreigner, esp. English-speaking (pejorative); prob. alter. of griego Greek. The belief that word is from the song “Green Grow the Lilacs,” popular during U.S.-Mexican War, is without substance
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gringo

I never realized it was a disparaging term. Growing up in NYC latinos never used it. Thanks.

cjd ohio 1 said:
but all white people dont judge on the nightly news sir, times are changing (crime thing)

We totally agree. Minorities tend to privately be more critical of themselves than outsiders. Everyone wants to just fit in.

Latin2 said:
Neither does the word “Wetback”. It has not connotation to skin tone or physical attribute. Is it racist when used against Mexicam-Americans? Of course.

So is the word Gringo.

Wetback was a term created exclusively to slur mostly illegal Mexican immigrants and refers to when they would allegedly cross a river to get into the United States.

Gringo isn’t used exclusively by any particular race or ethnicity against any particular race or ethnicity. Not racist. Wetback is used is used by non-Latino Americans against Latino Americans. Racist.

armwood said:
We totally agree. Minorities tend to privately be more critical of themselves than outsiders. Everyone wants to just fit in.

fit in why? be yourself, be true to yourself………i am not as old as you armwood.(ha ha), but i have learned in life not everyone is going to like me……so just be myself and relax……………………………………..i know it is a simpleton answer, but the problem is not as complex everyone makes it

What an Idiot, she doesn’t care about theose who were blown/blasted away, rather the surname of the shooter to see if it’s one of them. Qhat happened to common human decency? when something bad happens or an accident, we all hope in that heat of time to see that the victims are fine and see if we could help, we are not looking or asking the color of their skins. This moron stoop low in her mentality, and calling people Gringo, what an idiot, if that was the other way round, it’d be racist this raist that. Sickeniing.
What the hell is going on nowadays that when things happen, people stick to their ideology or whatever gorup they are allign to, what happened to the common brotherhood.

cjd ohio 1 said:
fit in why? be yourself, be true to yourself………i am not as old as you armwood.(ha ha), but i have learned in life not everyone is going to like me……so just be myself and relax……………………………………..i know it is a simpleton answer, but the problem is not as complex everyone makes it

You try but there is always the conflict within your self, a fear of being judged. As you mature you laugh at it, at least hopefully. I just think its normal and natural.

Hopefully in the future none of us will notice these types of inconsequential differences.

that day will come old man lol

Latin2 said:
As a Latina I am surprised that Liberals are acting like it is nothing when a minority uses a racist terms about white people.

Racism is racism, not matter what.

I don’t like the term, and have never used it in speech. Let’s not be naive. Liberals, especially minorities use racist words all the time. However, she articulated what all of us fear. Let’s be fair, had this guy been a hispanic or latino we would be arguing about a very different topic. Same thing if the guy was called Muhammad.

BFD –
1 – The Liberals were hoping it wasn’t one of them

2 – The Conservatives were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

3 – The Hispanics were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

Nothing to see here..

…….except our tax dollars pay for NPR. If they want to broadcast, fine. Sell advertising, have fundraisers, what have you. We shouldn’t subsidize it

armwood said:
How is someone expressing their true feelings as an American experiencing her American reality “they consider not fit for broadcast” Do you think you own America? It seems that you believe that she is less American than you are. Guess what, she is just as much an American as you are! NPR has a fiduciary duty to its audience to broadcast a wide spectrum of viewpoints which it does. Take time and listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. They are great programs.

If they are great, pay for them your goddamn self! Or consider what it would be like if someone took you tax dollars to pay for Hannity or Limbaugh, and would lock you up if you didn’t and kill you if you resisted.

PEOPLE are, THEMSELVES, the only rightful judge of whether media are worth buying. Having anyone other then the individual payer decide whether that payer should consider something to be biased, or good, or worth paying for is the ULTIMATE in hypocrisy. If ANYONE objects to paying for NPR and the government doesn’t let that person opt out, it is inherently CRIMINAL.

I’d love to see what you thought of state radio if it had existed in the south in 1950. And a bunch of racist pricks who controlled the government TOLD YOU how nice and fair JIM CROW RADIO was.

If it is WORTH PAYING FOR, LET PEOPLE SIMPLY PAY FOR IT. DON’T COMPEL THEM TO BUY IT AGAINST THEIR WILL.

Gasket – Let’s be fair, had this guy been a hispanic or latino we would be arguing about a very different topic. Same thing if the guy was called Muhammad.

But because he is of European descent he is assumed to be a right- winger? The problem is assumptions before the facts are in…..Political Correctness- THE cancer of this Nation

skyfet says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:09 pm skyfet(Quote)
0 1
What an Idiot, she doesn’t care about theose who were blown/blasted away, rather the surname of the shooter to see if it’s one of them. Qhat happened to common human decency? when something bad happens or an accident, we all hope in that heat of time to see that the victims are fine and see if we could help, we are not looking or asking the color of their skins. This moron stoop low in her mentality, and calling people Gringo, what an idiot, if that was the other way round, it’d be racist this raist that. Sickeniing.
What the hell is going on nowadays that when things happen, people stick to their ideology or whatever gorup they are allign to, what happened to the common brotherhood.

Good post!

armwood said:
This is a common feeling felt by minorities who just want to fit in and be judged by the quality of their character, not the color of their skin, their religion, their accent, their gender or sexual persuasion.

Well, actually Ms. Hernandez’s statements entail a lot more.

In her comments she characterized Republican congress people as being anti-immigration, rather than anti-illegal immigration. And she alludes to penalties against the hiring of undocumented workers as being penalties against hiring “brown people” in general.

How compelling is it for someone to relay the feelings you mention above, while broadly suggesting that those who don’t share their views on a particular matter, are endemic racists.

It’s as though it wasn’t enough that in putting forth her own fears of how the politicization of a crime may have adversely impacted her, that she made it clear that she is entirely comfortable with the fact that it’s opponent’s ox that is now being gored. She also must broadly stereotype and smear those opponents in the same way she merely surmises that her community would be smeared.

I’m not sure one can discuss anything with anyone who has this tunnel visioned sense of their own righteousness. It’s an anti-intellectualism and a narrowing of heart and mind that seems to have infected the entire body politic.

armwood said:
How is someone expressing their true feelings as an American experiencing her American reality “they consider not fit for broadcast” Do you think you own America? It seems that you believe that she is less American than you are. Guess what, she is just as much an American as you are!

NPR has a fiduciary duty to its audience to broadcast a wide spectrum of viewpoints which it does. Take time and listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. They are great programs.

Excuse me, nothing she said was based on the REALITY of what actually happened. She played a “what if” game based on her “feelings”. She then used that to editorialize about all the horrors that might have happened.

No, I do not own America. But neither do you and neither does she. We do, however, pay part of her salary and that gives us the right to demand that she not play political games based on her emotions. If her emotional take on subjects is that important she should be able to sell her feelings on the open market.

It seems I don’t think she is as American as I am? And you know that because I …..WHAT? I don’t agree with her and think she misused her position? Because I said anything that implied that? Or is it that you just leap to conclusions when you have no better ideas.

Cecelia said:
Cecelia says:
January 13, 2011 at 6:54 pm

Thanks! I can always count on you to cut to the underlying core of the discussion! :)

Gasket said:
I don’t like the term, and have never used it in speech. Let’s not be naive. Liberals, especially minorities use racist words all the time. However, she articulated what all of us fear. Let’s be fair, had this guy been a hispanic or latino we would be arguing about a very different topic. Same thing if the guy was called Muhammad.

“especially minorities”

What is the basis of that statement. That is incredibly offensive!

Thanks, Grammie.

It’s so good that you’re back!

Grammie said:
Excuse me, nothing she said was based on the REALITY of what actually happened. She played a “what if” game based on her “feelings”. She then used that to editorialize about all the horrors that might have happened.

No, I do not own America. But neither do you and neither does she. We do, however, pay part of her salary and that gives us the right to demand that she not play political games based on her emotions. If her emotional take on subjects is that important she should be able to sell her feelings on the open market.

It seems I don’t think she is as American as I am? And you know that because I …..WHAT? I don’t agree with her and think she misused her position? Because I said anything that implied that? Or is it that you just leap to conclusions when you have no better ideas.

1) We all own America, That’s what “We the People” mean ,geez!

2) She was not playing political games. Do not judge what you do not understand. Just because it is not a part of your experience does not mean it does not exist.. Open you mind to other peoples experience and have some compassion for people who have a different experiences from you.

3) How many minorities have you had as longterm close friends? If you have some friends who are close to you ask them about their feelings. If not that is very sad. You are missing a lot.

Please, have an open mind and a compassionate heart.

armwood said:
1) We all own America, That’s what “We the People” mean ,geez!

2) She was not playing political games. Do not judge what you do not understand. Just because it is not a part of your experience does not mean it does not exist.. Open you mind to other peoples experience and have some compassion for people who have a different experiences from you.

3) How many minorities have you had as longterm close friends? If you have some friends who are close to you ask them about their feelings. If not that is very sad. You are missing a lot.

Please, have an open mind and a compassionate heart.

I’m sorry but your statements are nothing but the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy and make no attempt to address the points made by others.

Cecelia said:
I’m sorry and make no attempt to address the points made by others.

If you think so make a cogent argument against them. This your statement “but your statements are nothing but the appeal-to-authority logical fallacy” is gibberish. It makes no sense. Please say what you mean.

1) What appeal to authority are you talking about, the constitution? If so that is the basis of our country, our founding document. It establishes the fact that we the people own America. Are you disputing that? Please make your argument.

2) What points are you saying I have failed to address?

3) You have not addressed any of the points I raised. Number one being how can you judge someone else’s American experience when you have not had the same experiences that they have had.

4) The feelings that she has expressed are common experiences and feelings common to minorities everywhere. Do you challenge this?

It is one thing to may a general dismissal of someones position. It is another thing to provide a thoughtful, reasoned, counter argument to their position. This should be based on either an attack on the facts underlining their assumptions or a logical defect in the construction of their argument from their assumptions to their conclusions. I am awaiting your response.

armwood said:
3) You have not addressed any of the points I raised. Number one being how can you judge someone else’s American experience when you have not had the same experiences that they have had.

4) The feelings that she has expressed are common experiences and feelings common to minorities everywhere. Do you challenge this?

Which is it?

I can’t make judgments b/c my experiences are different but she can b/c unlike my incredibly unique life progression she has a common bond with the universe.

Yor are not only illogical but incredibly disconnected to reality.

Have fun. I certainly will never subject myself to merry-go-round mind.

BFD said:
1 – The Liberals were hoping it wasn’t one of them

2 – The Conservatives were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

3 – The Hispanics were hoping it wasn’t one of them.

Nothing to see here..

I was really praying it wasn’t an old burnt-out hippie from Texas.

Grammie said:
Which is it?

I can’t make judgments b/c my experiences are different but she can b/c unlike my incredibly unique life progression she has a common bond with the universe.

Yor are not only illogical but incredibly disconnected to reality.

Have fun. I certainly will never subject myself to merry-go-round mind.

You started off judging her comments. You cannot seem come up with an argument to actually challenge them. You attack me instead. OK

david r said:
I was really praying it wasn’t an old burnt-out hippie from Texas.

Now that was funny!

In one sense you can see her mindset, but the tragedy should have been her focus before any social matter. Therefore she should have held her sentiments and not shared them to the world.

This is the kind of crap that ruins NPR for me. Why not just publish whatever the local state college’s La Raza Student Whatever group writes on its email list and call it “analysis”? Incidentally, while this story was breaking, also breaking was news that 14 headless bodies were discovered in a house in Acapulco.

bdpritch said:
In one sense you can see her mindset, but the tragedy should have been her focus before any social matter. Therefore she should have held her sentiments and not shared them to the world.

It’s still instructive. Non-whites think almost exclusively in terms of racial and ethnic group interests–indeed, the white left even encourages it; however, when whites do it, people shit themselves.

Dsiscokid said:
Gasket – Let’s be fair, had this guy been a hispanic or latino we would be arguing about a very different topic. Same thing if the guy was called Muhammad.

But because he is of European descent he is assumed to be a right- winger? The problem is assumptions before the facts are in…..Political Correctness- THE cancer of this Nation

That makes no sense at all. What does political correctness have to do with pre-judgment? It’s a non-sequitur.

armwood said:
“especially minorities”

What is the basis of that statement. That is incredibly offensive!

I don’t care if it’s offensive to you because you are a minority. It is the truth. A minority community feels that it’s minority status, absolves it of any scorn or rebuke for using racially inflammatory tone towards other people and especially whites. Why is it accepted by blacks to pejoratively refer to white women (esp. those dating blacks) as “Beckys”? I will give you another example; Kanye West — Eminem would never in a million years rap about black women the way Kanye does of white women and be “accepted” in the HipHop and/or mainstream music industry. I could give you MANY examples.

Gasket said:
That makes no sense at all. What does political correctness have to do with pre-judgment? It’s a non-sequitur.

I don’t care if it’s offensive to you because you are a minority. It is the truth. A minority community feels that it’s minority status, absolves it of any scorn or rebuke for using racially inflammatory tone towards other people and especially whites. Why is it accepted by blacks to pejoratively refer to white women (esp. those dating blacks) as “Beckys”? I will give you another example; Kanye West — Eminem would never in a million years rap about black women the way Kanye does of white women and be “accepted” in the HipHop and/or mainstream music industry. I could give you MANY examples.

Have you seen Kanye west’s new video “Monster” or whatever it’s called? I’m sure some clever people will defend it as satire, but–well, have you seen it? It’s appalling. Also, why is a black racist like Ice Cube making a network series targeted at children?

armwood said:
You started off judging her comments. You cannot seem come up with an argument to actually challenge them. You attack me instead. OK

She made an ignorant statement using a racially charged word. There’s nothing to defend there. Nothing.

Sean68 said:
Have you seen Kanye west’s new video “Monster” or whatever it’s called? I’m sure some clever people will defend it as satire, but–well, have you seen it? It’s appalling. Also, why is a black racist like Ice Cube making a network series targeted at children?

Ice Cube is not a racist. A true HipHop head would not make that careless proclamation. Most HipHop performers are acts. Get off that train.

I will agree that most HipHop is very anti-establishment (represented mostly by whites) but race is not the mitigating factor (simultaneity=/=causation) tends to be very misogynist and gay bashing. You need to understand the biggest market for HipHop is white males.

Gasket said:
Ice Cube is not a racist. A true HipHop head would not make that careless proclamation. Most HipHop performers are acts. Get off that train.

I will agree that most HipHop is very anti-establishment (represented mostly by whites) but race is not the mitigating factor (simultaneity=/=causation) tends to be very misogynist and gay bashing. You need to understand the biggest market for HipHop is white males.

He’s not? You’ve got to be fucking kidding.

Awaiting moderation? Test. Test. Test.

My comments aren’t being posted when I quote the lyrics to Ice Cube’s song Cave B***h. Are you unfamiliar with that particular piece of poetry? Here’s the song.

I’m pretty sure that’s Ice Cube’s voice (after “Dr” Kalid Muhammed’s)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3sHT0cXnJw

Gasket said:
That makes no sense at all. What does political correctness have to do with pre-judgment? It’s a non-sequitur.

I don’t care if it’s offensive to you because you are a minority. It is the truth. A minority community feels that it’s minority status, absolves it of any scorn or rebuke for using racially inflammatory tone towards other people and especially whites. Why is it accepted by blacks to pejoratively refer to white women (esp. those dating blacks) as “Beckys”? I will give you another example; Kanye West — Eminem would never in a million years rap about black women the way Kanye does of white women and be “accepted” in the HipHop and/or mainstream music industry. I could give you MANY examples.

1) I am African American and have never heard the expression “Beckys”

2) And Kanye West is every black perwon.

Just like Kanye West is not every black person your ignorant bigotry does not represent every white person.

bdpritch said:
In one sense you can see her mindset, but the tragedy should have been her focus before any social matter. Therefore she should have held her sentiments and not shared them to the world.

Why not share them. The world needs to hear how many people feel. She expressed feelings that are common among minorities. The opinions of minorities are just as deserving to be heard as your opinions even if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Gasket said:
Ice Cube is not a racist. A true HipHop head would not make that careless proclamation. Most HipHop performers are acts. Get off that train.

I will agree that most HipHop is very anti-establishment (represented mostly by whites) but race is not the mitigating factor (simultaneity=/=causation) tends to be very misogynist and gay bashing. You need to understand the biggest market for HipHop is white males.

Here is some very positive and hip hip hop that I even like and I don’t really like hip hop. I am a jazz head.

http://www.youtube.com/user/jasirix

Sean, you cannot use lyrics (by themselves) to call someone a racist. You do have the poetic license to perform. Was Peter Boyle a racist for his portrayal of a racist father in Monster’s Ball? No. Cube’s lyrics are VERY misogynist too, but using your logic, he should hate women in real life. The guy has been married to the same woman for over 20 years. It’s just not logical if the act is not reinforced by the actual person demeanor, behavior when he is not playing that role. :) This is why the Kanye West example is good. His lyrics leave you questioning, then his behavior in real life answers those questions ie. calling Bush a racist and upstaging/interrupting a teen white girl while she accepted an award.

armwood said:
1) I am African American and have never heard the expression “Beckys”

2) And Kanye West is every black perwon.

Just like Kanye West is not every black person your ignorant bigotry does not represent every white person.

You are playing the race card. I am black by the way. I can not be a bigot against blacks. If you have not heard that word, you must be an older gentleman. Don’t mistake my honesty for ignorance or bigotry. My words are true to the core.

Gasket said:
You are playing the race card. I am black by the way. I can not be a bigot against blacks. If you have not heard that word, you must be an older gentleman. Don’t mistake my honesty for ignorance or bigotry. My words are true to the core.

I am an older man. I think it is very dangerous to generalize about people.

I thank you for your honesty. What you are saying may be true of your generation but people I know of African decent, those whom I am around are very offended by any type of racial or ethnic slurs. We know all to well what it is like to have them hurled at us. If you notice on this blog I immediately jump to the defense of any group who is labeled unfairly whether it be gays, Latinos, African American’s, Jews are any other group.

I tend to socialize with an older, multiethnic, very well educated crowd so maybe I am missing something but I have never heard my three African American sons use these kind of slurs, they are 33 and 23 respectively.

I truly hope what you are saying is not true among your generation. If it is it should be widely and openly condemned,the way many people of my generation condem any use of the “N” word, irrespective of who is using it. I personally feel any other position is incredibly hypocritical. It took years for my oldest son to come around to my way of thinking on this issue.

I am very happy you are hearing speaking out. Please make me aware of your views and perception on issues here and particularly on points I raise where you disagree. I really want and need to hear other views.

Gasket said:
You are playing the race card. I am black by the way. I can not be a bigot against blacks. If you have not heard that word, you must be an older gentleman. Don’t mistake my honesty for ignorance or bigotry. My words are true to the core.

By the way pointing out broad generalizations is not in my mind playing “the race card”. The whole concept of the race card to me is a false notion, created by not African Americans who want to pretend that America is over its race problem and therefore it is impolite to mention race. These folks argue for a color blind approach to race. I see this as a new and improved form of the old racism. Race based inequality still exist in America ,which is not based solely on education or social class. There is still institutional racism in America. A race neutral, color blind approach to American society denies this reality and prevents any discussion of the need for any restorative justice. This view is unacceptable to me. I will not accept an ideology or conceptual framework for looking at the world which is not derived from my personal and familial experience, one that does not stand up to the acid test of my subjective life experiences. I get annoyed whenever I hear the term “race card” because I see it as a dodge, an avoidance of the reality of race in the world today.

African Americans were systematically, purposefully injured in this society by law from 1619 until 1965. Non legally sanctioned injury has been withering away since that date. This injury was a multi-generational genocide. on a global scale, involving the death of over 10 million people during the middle passage and the enslavement, brutalization and murder of millions more. This was the largest multigenerational genocide in human history.

To remove the legal sanctions just forty-five years ago and pretend that nearly four hundred years of injury has simply disappeared is disingenuous at best and invidious in practice. Those who hide behing the myth that race neutrality is true equality are perpetrating a fraud and further injuring a people who have suffered far to much. Please do not buy into their conception of reality or their language to define reality.

armwood said:
I think it is very dangerous to generalize about people.

armwood said:
Minorities tend to privately be more critical of themselves than outsiders. Everyone wants to just fit in.

armwood said:
So may whites do not realize the stress that minorities feel living in this society.

armwood said:
African Americans and Hispanics feel this same pressure.

armwood said:
Italians used to fee it.

armwood said:
As an example in America Asians are treated more favorably than African Americans or Hispanics

armwood said:
Minorities tend to privately be more critical of themselves than outsiders.

Just_MC said:

Are you disputing the truth of what I am saying?

armwood said:
Are you disputing the truth of what I am saying?

i think he was make fun of you generalizing about people, while you said it was dangerous sir

cjd ohio 1 said:
i think he was make fun of you generalizing about people, while you said it was dangerous sir

I wish instead of just poking fun, he would address my points. I was providing a proviso acknowledging the limits of generalizing. The reaction to this woman’s comments stunned me. It is deeply disturbing as a member of a minority group, to see how insensitive and unaware some people are to the everyday life concerns of people who are different from them. In addition the hostility to those feelings was even more disturbing. I had thought that America had made more progress than the posts here indicate. This lack of progress is quite frankly frightening. I hate the idea that my grandchildren have to grow up around people who are so hostile to them.

It unfathomable to me that her statements were considered controversia at all. It demonstrates the inability of some people to even conceive that people have experiences and feelings that are different from them and that this reality is normal. I am just saddened by the lack of human tolerance and understanding.

armwood said:
I wish instead of just poking fun, he would address my points. I was providing a proviso acknowledging the limits of generalizing. The reaction to this woman’s comments stunned me. It is deeply disturbing as a member of a minority group, to see how insensitive and unaware some people are to the everyday life concerns of people who are different from them. In addition the hostility to those feelings was even more disturbing. I had thought that America had made more progress than the posts here indicate. This lack of progress is quite frankly frightening. I hate the idea that my grandchildren have to grow up around people who are so hostile to them. It unfathomable to me that her statements were considered controversia at all. It demonstrates the inability of some people to even conceive that people have experiences and feelings that are different from them and that this reality is normal. I am just saddened by the lack of human tolerance and understanding.

i am white armwood and i find her comments insulting. some people look at event though race colored glasses, i dont, the least of my concerns was what color, race or sex the offender was. i understand your view, but you have to understand mine as well sir

i am young enough that seperate but equal laws were history not a part of my life. not to downplay history but i think that i have learned for it. I grew up post MLK ,and his words of content of character are very important , i try to live my life by it. Do i prejudge or have prejudices yes, nobody is perfect , but i try not let it effect me. And that sir is the first step

cjd ohio 1 said:
i am young enough that seperate but equal laws were history not a part of my life. not to downplay history but i think that i have learned for it. I grew up post MLK ,and his words of content of character are very important , i try to live my life by it. Do i prejudge or have prejudices yes, nobody is perfect , but i try not let it effect me. And that sir is the first step

Yes it is!

armwood said:
Are you disputing the truth of what I am saying?

“Two men say they’re Jesus. One of ‘em must be wrong.” -Dire Straits

armwood said:
1) What appeal to authority are you talking about, the constitution? If so that is the basis of our country, our founding document. It establishes the fact that we the people own America. Are you disputing that? Please make your argument.

2) What points are you saying I have failed to address?

3) You have not addressed any of the points I raised. Number one being how can you judge someone else’s American experience when you have not had the same experiences that they have had.

4) The feelings that she has expressed are common experiences and feelings common to minorities everywhere. Do you challenge this?

It is one thing to may a general dismissal of someones position. It is another thing to provide a thoughtful, reasoned, counter argument to their position. This should be based on either an attack on the facts underlining their assumptions or a logical defect in the construction of their argument from their assumptions to their conclusions. I am awaiting your response.

1. You’re making a special case pleading for minorities. That somehow Hernandez’s listeners can’t weight her remarks by any objective standard because her experience is unique to her ethnicity and/or is WHOLLY subjective.

2. You have failed to address the charge that Ms. Hernandez not only misrepresented the position of those who want stronger border control, but outright smeared them as being essentially racist.

You have failed to address the irony that in Hernandez’s tirade about what MIGHT have happened had the shooter been Hispanic, she failed to show the slightest concern for the fact that by her OWN scenario, a mirror-image situation is ACTUALLY happening right now to others that the media has, without a shred of evidence, linked to a crime. That radio personalities had been pointed out as fomenting the shooter, as has Sara Palin. That there is currently talk of legal remedies, solely based upon nothing more than these assumptions.

3 and 4:. To suggest that anyone’s perceptions are entirely subjective and therefore not accountable to any standard of reality is UTTER nonsense.

If former NPR commenter Juan Williams were to say that minorities NEVER face discrimination in the U.S., and that it is entirely a myth that they do, I’d wager you’d have no difficulty measuring that “personal “experience” by an objective standard.

If you wish to argue that Ms. Hernandez’s speculations are probably correct because “they are common feelings by minorities everywhere”, then do so, but you can’t do that AND ALSO argue that such opinions are beyond the boundaries of objective analysis as to their timing or as to the accuracy of how they portrayed others.

The appropriateness and professionalism of Hernandez’s using this incident to play what Grammie described as a ” what if game” in order to make a political point, was questioned. It’s certainly within the parameter of any audience member to make a judgment about the professionalism of someone who made a public comment in a professional capacity, without it being suggested that in doing so they show that they think they are the sole proprietor of the entire country…. THAT was not a thoughtful ….reasoned…. counterargument. Neither was the special pleading that Ms. Hernandez’s minority status confers a particular authority on certain matters. Neither was your argument that subjective experience is outside the parameter of objective reasoning.

You’ve not made any point here other than to tell Hernandez’s critics that unless they have walked a mile in her shoes (or unless they ARE Hernandez), they must suspend judgment upon every aspect of her rambling conjectures.

That’s not a “counterargument”. It’s an utter negation of any position other than your own.

Cecelia said:
1. You’re making a special case pleading for minorities. That somehow Hernandez’s listeners can’t weight her remarks by any objective standard because her experience is unique to her ethnicity and/or is WHOLLY subjective. 2. You have failed to address the charge that Ms. Hernandez not only misrepresented the position of those who want stronger border control, but outright smeared them as being essentially racist. You have failed to address the irony that in Hernandez’s tirade about what MIGHT have happened had the shooter been Hispanic, she failed to show the slightest concern for the fact that by her OWN scenario, a mirror-image situation is ACTUALLY happening right now to others that the media has, without a shred of evidence, linked to a crime. That radio personalities had been pointed out as fomenting the shooter, as has Sara Palin. That there is currently talk of legal remedies, solely based upon nothing more than these assumptions. 3 and 4:. To suggest that anyone’s perceptions are entirely subjective and therefore not accountable to any standard of reality is UTTER nonsense. If former NPR commenter Juan Williams were to say that minorities NEVER face discrimination in the U.S., and that it is entirely a myth that they do, I’d wager you’d have no difficulty measuring that “personal “experience” by an objective standard. If you wish to argue that Ms. Hernandez’s speculations are probably correct because “they are common feelings by minorities everywhere”, then do so, but you can’t do that AND ALSO argue that such opinions are beyond the boundaries of objective analysis as to their timing or as to the accuracy of how they portrayed others. The appropriateness and professionalism of Hernandez’s using this incident to play what Grammie described as a ” what if game” in order to make a political point, was questioned. It’s certainly within the parameter of any audience member to make a judgment about the professionalism of someone who made a public comment in a professional capacity, without it being suggested that in doing so they show that they think they are the sole proprietor of the entire country…. THAT was not a thoughtful ….reasoned…. counterargument. Neither was the special pleading that Ms. Hernandez’s minority status confers a particular authority on certain matters. Neither was your argument that subjective experience is outside the parameter of objective reasoning. You’ve not made any point here other than to tell Hernandez’s critics that unless they have walked a mile in her shoes (or unless they ARE Hernandez), they must suspend judgment upon every aspect of her rambling conjectures. That’s not a “counterargument”. It’s an utter negation of any position other than your own.

That gigantic whooshing sound I just heard all the way over here in Indiana was your cogent retort egressing over the Black Drew Carey’s head like an F-22.

Thank you for sharing this dismantling of a poor excuse for discourse.

Two folks enter……one smart lady leaves.

Wormwood….you’ve just been to Thunderdome.

Just_MC said:
“Two men say they’re Jesus. One of ‘em must be wrong.” -Dire Straits

Put another way. YOU’RE disputing what you are saying. Or you are being dangerous.

Cecelia said:
1. You’re making a special case pleading for minorities. That somehow Hernandez’s listeners can’t weight her remarks by any objective standard because her experience is unique to her ethnicity and/or is WHOLLY subjective.

2. You have failed to address the charge that Ms. Hernandez not only misrepresented the position of those who want stronger border control, but outright smeared them as being essentially racist.

You have failed to address the irony that in Hernandez’s tirade about what MIGHT have happened had the shooter been Hispanic, she failed to show the slightest concern for the fact that by her OWN scenario, a mirror-image situation is ACTUALLY happening right now to others that the media has, without a shred of evidence, linked to a crime. That radio personalities had been pointed out as fomenting the shooter, as has Sara Palin. That there is currently talk of legal remedies, solely based upon nothing more than these assumptions.

3 and 4:. To suggest that anyone’s perceptions are entirely subjective and therefore not accountable to any standard of reality is UTTER nonsense.

If former NPR commenter Juan Williams were to say that minorities NEVER face discrimination in the U.S., and that it is entirely a myth that they do, I’d wager you’d have no difficulty measuring that “personal “experience” by an objective standard.

If you wish to argue that Ms. Hernandez’s speculations are probably correct because “they are common feelings by minorities everywhere”, then do so, but you can’t do that AND ALSO argue that such opinions are beyond the boundaries of objective analysis as to their timing or as to the accuracy of how they portrayed others.

The appropriateness and professionalism of Hernandez’s using this incident to play what Grammie described as a ” what if game” in order to make a political point, was questioned. It’s certainly within the parameter of any audience member to make a judgment about the professionalism of someone who made a public comment in a professional capacity, without it being suggested that in doing so they show that they think they are the sole proprietor of the entire country…. THAT was not a thoughtful ….reasoned…. counterargument. Neither was the special pleading that Ms. Hernandez’s minority status confers a particular authority on certain matters. Neither was your argument that subjective experience is outside the parameter of objective reasoning.

You’ve not made any point here other than to tell Hernandez’s critics that unless they have walked a mile in her shoes (or unless they ARE Hernandez), they must suspend judgment upon every aspect of her rambling conjectures.

That’s not a “counterargument”. It’s an utter negation of any position other than your own.

1) Hunan experience is ontologically subjective. You see things from the perspective of where you stand and what your experiences have taught you. That is the beauty of diversity. I am not pleading for anything. Who would I plead to here and for what purpose, you surely jest. I am trying to illuminate an issue which you and some others here have no clue about due to a limited set of experiences and interactions.

2) The call for stronger border control is based on a legitimate concern about illegal border crossings but also by plain old fashioned racism.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2001/spring/blood-on-the-border/anti-immigration-

The irony here is almost unfathomable. It is impossible for me to get very upset about illegal immigration from Mexico given that Arizona ,California and much of the Southwest United States was stolen from Mexico in an agressive, expansionist war between 1846 and 1848 which no less a figure than Abraham Lincoln opposed.

3) You do not realize that your assumptions are based on a white supremacist paradigm which you should consider examining. You need to expose yourself a little more to other ponts of view. You might gain a wider perspective.

Why do you think a white run organization put this story on the air in a positive light? Think about that. Obviously the radio producers think quite differently than you do. You might ask yourself why and actually think before you provide yourself with a knee jerk response.

VoiceofReason said:
Two folks enter……one smart lady leaves.

Wormwood….you’ve just been to Thunderdome.

You really think so. Obviously you don’t get out much!

armwood It is impossible for me to get very upset about illegal immigration from Mexico given that Arizona ,California and much of the Southwest United States was stolen from Mexico in an agressive, expansionist war between 1846 and 1848 which no less a figure than Abraham Lincoln opposed.

So lobby to cede it back to Mexico if that is what you stand for. But supporting a lawless border that allows illegal aliens to flood THOUGHOUT the United States is untenable.

Further, if you are so interested in the history here, WHAT IS MEXICO anyway? How about you give Mexico back to the Aztecs, and the US back to the Indian tribes, for that matter?

armwood said:
1) Hunan experience is ontologically subjective. You see things from the perspective of where you stand and what your experiences have taught you. That is the beauty of diversity. I am not pleading for anything. Who would I plead to here and for what purpose, you surely jest. I am trying to illuminate an issue which you and some others here have no clue about due to a limited set of experiences and interactions.

You have no idea of my own “experience” so how can you determine that it is limited in the way you describe?

Secondly, that perceptions gleaned from personal experience are subjective is the very reason why they must be analyzed from objective standards, rather than the converse.

Your personal experience may have convinced you that the moon is made of cheese. That perception is not made realistic simply because it subjectively yours….

armwood said:
2) The call for stronger border control is based on a legitimate concern about illegal border crossings but also by plain old fashioned racism.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2001/spring/blood-on-the-border/anti-immigration-

The irony here is almost unfathomable. It is impossible for me to get very upset about illegal immigration from Mexico given that Arizona ,California and much of the Southwest United States was stolen from Mexico in an agressive, expansionist war between 1846 and 1848 which no less a figure than Abraham Lincoln opposed.

2. Hernandez specifically stated that the new HOUSE LEADERS would be calling for legislation that curtailed immigration and penalized businesses for “hiring more brown people”. Not curtailing illegal immigration. Not penalizing businesses who hired undocumented workers.

In her tirade, she made none of the obvious distinctions about legitimate concerns about border issues that you managed to make, DESPITE any racial, ethnic, or otherwise personal experiences…that you may possess….

Therefore she was JUSTLY criticized for her remarks based upon a proper standard of logic that YOU reflexively followed.

As to your remarks dismissing border issues because YOU find them less than compelling…. they are more than a little ironic coming from a man who has suggested that others differ with Ms. Hernandez’s remarks because of limited personal experience.

armwood said:
3) You do not realize that your assumptions are based on a white supremacist paradigm which you should consider examining. You need to expose yourself a little more to other ponts of view. You might gain a wider perspective.

In order for me to gauge whether I am making assumptions based upon a “white supremacist paradigm”, you need to tell me just what you think I’m assuming here.

armwood said:
Why do you think a white run organization put this story on the air in a positive light? Think about that. Obviously the radio producers think quite differently than you do. You might ask yourself why and actually think before you provide yourself with a knee jerk response.

I didn’t make a knee-jerk response. I didn’t make conjectures about people or nonexistent events based upon nothing more than my own sense of grievance.

Hernandez did.

I didn’t make blanket assumptions about the limitations of Hernandez critic’s experiences or perceptions.

YOU did.

I didn’t make appeals to any special authority that comes from racial or ethnic experience.

YOU did.

And finally, I didn’t sally forth with a nonsensical argument that perceptions are unassailable simply because they are perceptions…

You did.

Hernandez is guilty of a behaving issuing unprofessional conjectures designed to belittle those who don’t hold her stance on border control.

However, if anyone made reflexive, hackneyed, knee-jerk arguments based upon little more than racial and ethnic assumptions, it’s YOU.

Make that:

Hernandez is guilty of making unprofessional conjectures designed to belittle those who don’t hold her stance on border control.

Just_MC said:
Put another way. YOU’RE disputing what you are saying. Or you are being dangerous.

Issues are not always as simple or clear cut as we would like them to be. Life if complex. We should recognize the limitations of our own perspective. It’s unfortunate that so many people today get their information from short video clips and sound bytes. The development of so many media choices, in the past 35 years or so, has led to many people only seeking out information which affirms their prejudices. They do not read widely nor do they examine opposing views. Someone actually bragged a couple of days ago, on this forum, that he didn’t examine the links that others post here. That type of narrow-mindedness coupled with laziness is sad. What’s the point of being on a blog if you are not willing to learn from other posters and hopefully find common ground on some issues.

As one conservative poster here, cjd ohio 1, posted on this blog yesterday, and I paraphrase, we often have more in common than we realize. I really appreciated his comment. I really believe that this is true. Life is not black and white. It is full of a lot of grey with some orange thrown in for good measure. More than one perspective can co-exist at the same time and both can be equally valid.

Have you ever interviewed or spoken with two different witnesses to a car accident? They both may see totally different occurrences and it might make you feel that they observed two different accidents. They can both be giving a truthful version of what they saw and actually have see two contradictory things. This drives insurance companies and lawyers crazy.

Many of you are judging this woman without really understand “where she is coming from”. There was nothing racist in her statement at all. She was expressing her fear of being judged by “the other” and her fear that if the perpetrator was “Hispanic” it would lead to an increase in the well documented anti Hispanic fervor in this country. What is wrong with that? Some of the comments posted here, most recently by Cecelia confirm the legitimacy of Daisy Hernandez’s fears. Cecelia’s thinly veiled white supremacist position, applauded by the so called “VoiceofReason” , confirm that there are many people in America with anti-Hispanic sentiment.

Let me make it clear. I am not saying that if you are concerned with illegal immigration you are anti-Hispanic. There is not a quid quo pro relationship between the two beliefs. I am saying however that the two are intertwined in this debate and that Ms. Hernandez’s fears are reasonable, they are legitimate and not out of the ordinary.

Some people want to remain in denial when anyone states that there is racism in America today. They become very defensive. This is not a conservative problem. It is not a liberal problem. It is an American problem. We need to face it openly, discuss it and not be defensive about it. Obviously I am comfortable discussing it or I wouldn’t be on such a very conservative blog. What I don’t like are personal attacks, making fun of my name. At least I have the courage not to cower behind a pseudo name and avatar. With me what you see is what you get.

That is why I prefaced my comments yesterday evening by saying that broad generalizations are dangerous. This does not mean that we don’t or that we should’t make them. We have to make them to survive. What it does mean is that we should examine them critically because often they are wrong, or they are limited by the time and place where we are standing. That has been my whole point here. I recognize clearly that my perspective is derived in large point by my experiences as an African American growing up in a predominantly white environment in a predominantly white country. Even with that I realized that not all white people were the same, both as individuals and as part of ethnic groups. Sometimes broad generalizations about groups could keep you grom receiving a butt whooping or worse. These assumptions were often wrong. To provide an example. Growing up the friendliest whites that I knew at school were generally Jewish. They tended to respect academic achievement, an area in which I excelled. The most racist and violent tended to be Italians who tended not to be as strong academically as I was.

These generalizations meant that I knew better than walking alone in a predominantly, Italian neighborhood by myself during the day or at night. I had been caught and stomped more than once. It was difficult to do that because when I grew up Staten Island was around 80% Italian. Robert De Niro described this commonplace occurrence in a much more urban setting in his wonderful movie “A Bronx Tale”. However where I lived there were no black neighborhoods close by. I was the only black in my class from the 3rd grade to the 12th and the only one in my high school for the last two years. I know something about race and racism. I participated in the integration of the NYC schools in Brooklyn before moving to Staten Island. I was spat on by white parents, while getting off the school bus on the first day of school and I first learned the “N” word at that school. I was told by my 3rd grade teacher that I, the only black child in the class “was not ready to participate in class elections” when I tried to nominate a fellow classmate for vice-president.

In high school I was jumped by two Italian students after I complained about their daily murmuring of the N” word on a daily basis. I was jumped from behind with books in my hand while another student punched me in the eye, braking my glasses and causing glass to cut my eye. I was not able to see out of my left eye for three weeks. One of the two students was suspended for one day. Nothing else happened. The school did not even take me to the hospital. I had to take a bus which ran once every half an hour.

As you see I was operating on broad generalizations based upon experiences but even in a violent culture I realized that not all white people were bad though there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. Thank God I had strong, well educated parents, who explained to me the evils of ignorance coupled with racism. The proof that they were right was that even in this hostile climate, I had loyal Italian friends. I visited their homes and their businesses. They stood with me against racism. That is what America is about. Did I care what white people thought about me or other African Americans? Yes I did. Did I fear that whites would judge me if they saw a black person do something wrong? Of course? When I watched the news and saw that someone had done something wrong did I hope that they were not black? Yes. This is normal, it is rational. I was fearing a backlash. It is an unpleasant reality for many minorities. Give Ms. Hernandez a break.

Guess what. Both in junior high school and high school my best friends, a young man in junior high and a young woman in high school were both Italian. It’s so important to understand the limits of your perspective. It tuned out that the young woman got into a fight with another student, out of my presence for calling me the “N” word. She did not even mention it to me. Other students told me about it.

In closing we should try to understand other peoples perspectives. Do not be offended by Ms. Hernandez, even if you disagree with what she says. Try and understand her.

Cecelia said:
You have no idea of my own “experience” so how can you determine that it is limited in the way you describe?

Secondly, that perceptions gleaned from personal experience are subjective is the very reason why they must be analyzed from objective standards, rather than the converse.

Your personal experience may have convinced you that the moon is made of cheese. That perception is not made realistic simply because it subjectively yours….

2. Hernandez specifically stated that the new HOUSE LEADERS would be calling for legislation that curtailed immigration and penalized businesses for “hiring more brown people”. Not curtailing illegal immigration. Not penalizing businesses who hired undocumented workers.

In her tirade, she made none of the obvious distinctions about legitimate concerns about border issues that you managed to make, DESPITE any racial, ethnic, or otherwise personal experiences…that you may possess….

Therefore she was JUSTLY criticized for her remarks based upon a proper standard of logic that YOU reflexively followed.

As to your remarks dismissing border issues because YOU find them less than compelling…. they are more than a little ironic coming from a man who has suggested that others differ with Ms. Hernandez’s remarks because of limited personal experience.

In order for me to gauge whether I am making assumptions based upon a “white supremacist paradigm”, you need to tell me just what you think I’m assuming here.

I didn’t make a knee-jerk response. I didn’t make conjectures about people or nonexistent events based upon nothing more than my own sense of grievance.

Hernandez did.

I didn’t make blanket assumptions about the limitations of Hernandez critic’s experiences or perceptions.

YOU did.

I didn’t make appeals to any special authority that comes from racial or ethnic experience.

YOU did.

And finally, I didn’t sally forth with a nonsensical argument that perceptions are unassailable simply because they are perceptions…

You did.

Hernandez is guilty of a behaving issuing unprofessional conjectures designed to belittle those who don’t hold her stance on border control.

However, if anyone made reflexive, hackneyed, knee-jerk arguments based upon little more than racial and ethnic assumptions, it’s YOU.

1) There is no such thing as an objective standard. You should no better than that. We all have our biases.

2) I agree that Republican house leaders would be calling for more anti-immigration legislation. You seem to forget that Michelle Bachman is head of the House Tea Party caucus. She has already said she wants to investigated Democrats to see if they are patriotic.

3) You are misquoting Ms. Hernandez, she spoke about penalizing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants who are brown people and the resulting racial profiling that goes with that. Dod you not read about the Mexican American citizen who was illegally deported to Mexico a few months ago in Texas? Let’s look at reality, not fantasy. You are very naive. you do not see the big picture.

4) Another African American poster called you out for your racist comments last night. I guess you didn’t bother to read them, or at least respond.

“Gasket says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm (Quote)

“She made an ignorant statement using a racially charged word. There’s nothing to defend there. Nothing.”

Perhaps you’d be more compelling in making an argument against “broad generalizations” if you weren’t fully engaged in making them yourself.

So far you’re argument had been that I can’t legitimately criticize Hernandez’s remarks because of my limited personal experience. Now you’ve gone as far as to suggest that I’m “anti-Hispanic” for daring to judge her remarks in the first place.

What’s next? I’m a Grand Wizard of the local KKK?

It must quite convenient to put yourself in the position of assigning the most pejorative motivations to the perceptions of others, while demanding that they not make ANY judgments as to the remarks of others and that they keep a mind so open that their brain falls out….

armwood said:
Issues are not always as simple or clear cut as we would like them to be. Life if complex. We should recognize the limitations of our own perspective. It’s unfortunate that so many people today get their information from short video clips and sound bytes. The development of so many media choices, in the past 35 years or so, has led to many people only seeking out information which affirms their prejudices. They do not read widely nor do they examine opposing views. Someone actually bragged a couple of days ago, on this forum, that he didn’t examine the links that others post here. That type of narrow-mindedness coupled with laziness is sad. What’s the point of being on a blog if you are not willing to learn from other posters and hopefully find common ground on some issues. As one conservative poster here, cjd ohio 1, posted on this blog yesterday, and I paraphrase, we often have more in common than we realize. I really appreciated his comment. I really believe that this is true. Life is not black and white. It is full of a lot of grey with some orange thrown in for good measure. More than one perspective can co-exist at the same time and both can be equally valid. Have you ever interviewed or spoken with two different witnesses to a car accident? They both may see totally different occurrences and it might make you feel that they observed two different accidents. They can both be giving a truthful version of what they saw and actually have see two contradictory things. This drives insurance companies and lawyers crazy. Many of you are judging this woman without really understand “where she is coming from”. There was nothing racist in her statement at all. She was expressing her fear of being judged by “the other” and her fear that if the perpetrator was “Hispanic” it would lead to an increase in the well documented anti Hispanic fervor in this country. What is wrong with that? Some of the comments posted here, most recently by Cecelia confirm the legitimacy of Daisy Hernandez’s fears. Cecelia’s thinly veiled white supremacist position, applauded by the so called “VoiceofReason” , confirm that there are many people in America with anti-Hispanic sentiment. Let me make it clear. I am not saying that if you are concerned with illegal immigration you are anti-Hispanic. There is not a quid quo pro relationship between the two beliefs. I am saying however that the two are intertwined in this debate and that Ms. Hernandez’s fears are reasonable, they are legitimate and not out of the ordinary. Some people want to remain in denial when anyone states that there is racism in America today. They become very defensive. This is not a conservative problem. It is not a liberal problem. It is an American problem. We need to face it openly, discuss it and not be defensive about it. Obviously I am comfortable discussing it or I wouldn’t be on such a very conservative blog. What I don’t like are personal attacks, making fun of my name. At least I have the courage not to cower behind a pseudo name and avatar. With me what you see is what you get. That is why I prefaced my comments yesterday evening by saying that broad generalizations are dangerous. This does not mean that we don’t or that we should’t make them. We have to make them to survive. What it does mean is that we should examine them critically because often they are wrong, or they are limited by the time and place where we are standing. That has been my whole point here. I recognize clearly that my perspective is derived in large point by my experiences as an African American growing up in a predominantly white environment in a predominantly white country. Even with that I realized that not all white people were the same, both as individuals and as part of ethnic groups. Sometimes broad generalizations about groups could keep you grom receiving a butt whooping or worse. These assumptions were often wrong. To provide an example. Growing up the friendliest whites that I knew at school were generally Jewish. They tended to respect academic achievement, an area in which I excelled. The most racist and violent tended to be Italians who tended not to be as strong academically as I was. These generalizations meant that I knew better than walking alone in a predominantly, Italian neighborhood by myself during the day or at night. I had been caught and stomped more than once. It was difficult to do that because when I grew up Staten Island was around 80% Italian. Robert De Niro described this commonplace occurrence in a much more urban setting in his wonderful movie “A Bronx Tale”. However where I lived there were no black neighborhoods close by. I was the only black in my class from the 3rd grade to the 12th and the only one in my high school for the last two years. I know something about race and racism. I participated in the integration of the NYC schools in Brooklyn before moving to Staten Island. I was spat on by white parents, while getting off the school bus on the first day of school and I first learned the “N” word at that school. I was told by my 3rd grade teacher that I, the only black child in the class “was not ready to participate in class elections” when I tried to nominate a fellow classmate for vice-president. In high school I was jumped by two Italian students after I complained about their daily murmuring of the N” word on a daily basis. I was jumped from behind with books in my hand while another student punched me in the eye, braking my glasses and causing glass to cut my eye. I was not able to see out of my left eye for three weeks. One of the two students was suspended for one day. Nothing else happened. The school did not even take me to the hospital. I had to take a bus which ran once every half an hour. As you see I was operating on broad generalizations based upon experiences but even in a violent culture I realized that not all white people were bad though there was plenty of evidence to the contrary. Thank God I had strong, well educated parents, who explained to me the evils of ignorance coupled with racism. The proof that they were right was that even in this hostile climate, I had loyal Italian friends. I visited their homes and their businesses. They stood with me against racism. That is what America is about. Did I care what white people thought about me or other African Americans? Yes I did. Did I fear that whites would judge me if they saw a black person do something wrong? Of course? When I watched the news and saw that someone had done something wrong did I hope that they were not black? Yes. This is normal, it is rational. I was fearing a backlash. It is an unpleasant reality for many minorities. Give Ms. Hernandez a break. Guess what. Both in junior high school and high school my best friends, a young man in junior high and a young woman in high school were both Italian. It’s so important to understand the limits of your perspective. It tuned out that the young woman got into a fight with another student, out of my presence for calling me the “N” word. She did not even mention it to me. Other students told me about it. In closing we should try to understand other peoples perspectives. Do not be offended by Ms. Hernandez, even if you disagree with what she says. Try and understand her.

Yeah, look at the quotes again.. You say generalizing about people is dangerous. Then you proceed to generalize about people over and over. As you often do. Usually about race.

So, are you dangerous? Or are you contradicting yourself?

Cecelia said:
Perhaps you’d be more compelling in making an argument against “broad generalizations” if you weren’t fully engaged in making them yourself. So far you’re argument had been that I can’t legitimately criticize Hernandez’s remarks because of my limited personal experience. Now you’ve gone as far as to suggest that I’m “anti-Hispanic” for daring to judge her remarks in the first place. What’s next? I’m a Grand Wizard of the local KKK? It must quite convenient to put yourself in the position of assigning the most pejorative motivations to the perceptions of others, while demanding that they not make ANY judgments as to the remarks of others and that they keep a mind so open that their brain falls out….

Precisely my point.

armwood said:
1) There is no such thing as an objective standard. You should no better than that. We all have our biases.

Interesting. So if a mad man says the moon is made of cheese, we must consider that as being a reasonable summation….

armwood said:
2) I agree that Republican house leaders would be calling for more anti-immigration legislation. You seem to forget that Michelle Bachman is head of the House Tea Party caucus. She has already said she wants to investigated Democrats to see if they are patriotic.

There’s a legal codified difference between legal immigration and illegal immigration… and I’m afraid it’s not merely a matter of perception….

armwood said:
3) You are misquoting Ms. Hernandez, she spoke about penalizing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants who are brown people and the resulting racial profiling that goes with that. Dod you not read about the Mexican American citizen who was illegally deported to Mexico a few months ago in Texas? Let’s look at reality, not fantasy. You are very naive. you do not see the big picture.

YOU are misquoting Hernandez. She specifically said that house leaders would make ANTI-IMMIGRANT policy (not policy against illegal immigrants) and she said that they would penalize businesses hiring BROWN PEOPLE (not Hispanics who are here illegally)

But most interestingly, is that you have changed your argument from saying that Hernandez’s remarks are unassailable because they come from her own personal perception, to arguing that they are unassailable because they are realistic.

Sooner or later you had to come around to putting yourself on the firm foundation of attempting to make an argument based upon what you consider to be objective proof.

However, Hernandez was criticized for the timing of her remarks and for her professionalism in her wholesale mischaracterization of the motives of others.

armwood said:
4) Another African American poster called you out for your racist comments last night. I guess you didn’t bother to read them, or at least respond.

“Gasket says:
January 13, 2011 at 10:01 pm (Quote)

“She made an ignorant statement using a racially charged word. There’s nothing to defend there. Nothing.”

Are you suggesting that Gasket made that remark about me? I think Gasket was saying that about Hernandez and her use of the term gringo.

Please you can now point out my “racist comments”.

Cecelia said:
Perhaps you’d be more compelling in making an argument against “broad generalizations” if you weren’t fully engaged in making them yourself.

So far you’re argument had been that I can’t legitimately criticize Hernandez’s remarks because of my limited personal experience. Now you’ve gone as far as to suggest that I’m “anti-Hispanic” for daring to judge her remarks in the first place.

What’s next? I’m a Grand Wizard of the local KKK?

It must quite convenient to put yourself in the position of assigning the most pejorative motivations to the perceptions of others, while demanding that they not make ANY judgments as to the remarks of others and that they keep a mind so open that their brain falls out….

!) I didn’t say you can’t criticize her, I said and still say you didn’t understand her!

2) Was that a freudian slip? Your views are light years closer to that of the KKK than mine are or will ever be.

I live in a multicultural world, have a multicultural family, I have lived in a foreign country and have traveled widely around the world, mostly staying in local, non tourist areas being accompanied by locals. I explore other cultures. I do not shun them or fear them.

Just_MC said:
Yeah, look at the quotes again.. You say generalizing about people is dangerous. Then you proceed to generalize about people over and over. As you often do. Usually about race.

So, are you dangerous? Or are you contradicting yourself?

You obviously do not have the reading comprehension skills to read and comprehend what is written, if you actually bothered to read it at all. which is unlikely. You are just a troll.

armwood said:
2) Was that a freudian slip? Your views are light years closer to that of the KKK than mine are or will ever be.

I live in a multicultural world, have a multicultural family, I have lived in a foreign country and have traveled widely around the world, mostly staying in local, non tourist areas being accompanied by locals. I explore other cultures. I do not shun them or fear them.

Since I have not made assumptions about people based upon their race, nor assigned anyone a perspective based upon race or ethnicity, please explain how my views are more “light years closer” to those of the KKK than are yours.

While you’re at it, point out what comments I have made that you describe as “racist” ones.

armwood said:
You obviously do not have the reading comprehension skills to read and comprehend what is written, if you actually bothered to read it at all. which is unlikely. You are just a troll.

Did you or did you not make a lot of generalizations about groups of people?

Did you or did you not say doing that was dangerous?

I didn’t say either was wrong, I said the two contradicted one another, or you are dangerous by YOUR definition.

armwood said:
!) I didn’t say you can’t criticize her, I said and still say you didn’t understand her!

So far in allowing me to criticize Ms. Hernandez…. you’ve called my arguments racist, white supremacist, anti-Hispanic, and “light-years closer” to KKK thinking than better traveled people….

I hate to think of what you’d call me if you didn’t allow me to criticize her…

armwood said:
I live in a multicultural world, have a multicultural family, I have lived in a foreign country and have traveled widely around the world, mostly staying in local, non tourist areas being accompanied by locals. I explore other cultures. I do not shun them or fear them.

Why do you seem to assume that I do not share any of these traits with you?

armwood said:
I realized that not all white people were bad though there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.

RIGHT HERE. THIS is your philosophy in a nutshell. And it is fundamentally flawed, revealed in this single sentence.

You think there is plenty of evidence that ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD. And you are just the holier-than-thou enlightened Potatohead to know that not all of them are. There must be one or two good ones out there, despite all that evidence to the contrary.

This is the fine print legal out you give yourself. But your Freudian slip is showing. You think there is plenty of evidence that all white people are bad. This logic is taken DIRECTLY from your statement.

It is sad, because I suspect you are fundamentally like a dog that’s been beaten too much. I pity you.

You’re just a bigot with a thesaurus.

Just_MC said:
RIGHT HERE. THIS is your philosophy in a nutshell. And it is fundamentally flawed, revealed in this single sentence.

You think there is plenty of evidence that ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD. And you are just the holier-than-thou enlightened Potatohead to know that not all of them are. There must be one or two good ones out there, despite all that evidence to the contrary.

This is the fine print legal out you give yourself. But your Freudian slip is showing. You think there is plenty of evidence that all white people are bad. This logic is taken DIRECTLY from your statement.

It is sad, because I suspect you are fundamentally like a dog that’s been beaten too much. I pity you.

You’re just a bigot with a thesaurus.

You are ignorant bigoted and obviously not well educated. You cherry pick sentences, taking them out of context to purposely distort them. Do you actually think that I need a Thesaurus to discuss something with someone like you, please flatter yourself. You are not interested in an exchange of ideas. Go ahead and live in your narrow minded world. America is changing around you and you can do nothing about it. Your last post was incredibly dishonest and it exposes your character. I have nothing more to say to the likes of you. I will not cast my pearls in front of swine.

armwood said:
Your last post was incredibly dishonest and it exposes your character.

armwood said:
As you see I was operating on broad generalizations based upon experiences but even in a violent culture I realized that not all white people were bad though there was plenty of evidence to the contrary.

If you are not a bigot and if you intellectually honest, you will admit you made a mistake in your wording. YOUR WORDS make the case that there is plenty of evidence that ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD. Basic propositional logic: if you say “not all white people are bad despite plenty of evidence to the contrary” implies “there is plenty of evidence that all white people are bad.” This is language. This is logic. If you meant something other than what you typed, you should simply admit it.

So far you have instead chosen to bang out a huge word salad about your life experiences rather than addressing WHAT YOU ACTUALLY POSTED. If it were just a bit of poor wording on your part, it would cost so little to admit that. One must wonder why you won’t.

Hooper: It might be a marlin or a stingray but it’s definitely a game fish!

Quint: Gamin’ fish eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don’t you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge.

Hooper: Quint, that doesn’t prove a damn thing.

Quint: Well it proves one thing Mr. Hooper. I proves that you wealthy college boys don’t the education enough to admit when you’re wrong.

Just_MC said:
Did you or did you not make a lot of generalizations about groups of people? Did you or did you not say doing that was dangerous? I didn’t say either was wrong, I said the two contradicted one another, or you are dangerous by YOUR definition.

In addition, you wouldn’t answer the most basic clarifying questions above. Instead, you typed out a novel about your multicultural experiences. Again, if you just overstated your case or worded things poorly, it would cost so little to admit that and go on with useful discourse. You instead choose to create a smokescreen of endless rambling.

Doesn’t seem rational. Doesn’t seem intellectually honest. Looks like style over substance.

Just_MC said:
If you are not a bigot and if you intellectually honest, you will admit you made a mistake in your wording. YOUR WORDS make the case that there is plenty of evidence that ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD. Basic propositional logic: if you say “not all white people are bad despite plenty of evidence to the contrary” implies “there is plenty of evidence that all white people are bad.” This is language. This is logic. If you meant something other than what you typed, you should simply admit it.

So far you have instead chosen to bang out a huge word salad about your life experiences rather than addressing WHAT YOU ACTUALLY POSTED. If it were just a bit of poor wording on your part, it would cost so little to admit that. One must wonder why you won’t.

Hooper: It might be a marlin or a stingray but it’s definitely a game fish!

Quint: Gamin’ fish eh? Marlin? Stingray? Bit through this piano wire? Don’t you tell me my business again! You get back on the bridge.

Hooper: Quint, that doesn’t prove a damn thing.

Quint: Well it proves one thing Mr. Hooper. I proves that you wealthy college boys don’t the education enough to admit when you’re wrong.

There was no mistake. You may try and misconstrue my very clear meaning any way you choose. Anyone who reads my post with an open mind and heart will understand exactly what I am saying. You are just playing a game in which I will not join. Grow up and stop playing childish, divisive, games. We are all Americans. Please act like one.

I’m still waiting for you to show me my racists and anti-hispanic comments, armwood.

Gasket said:
Sean, you cannot use lyrics (by themselves) to call someone a racist. You do have the poetic license to perform. Was Peter Boyle a racist for his portrayal of a racist father in Monster’s Ball? No. Cube’s lyrics are VERY misogynist too, but using your logic, he should hate women in real life. The guy has been married to the same woman for over 20 years. It’s just not logical if the act is not reinforced by the actual person demeanor, behavior when he is not playing that role. :) This is why the Kanye West example is good. His lyrics leave you questioning, then his behavior in real life answers those questions ie. calling Bush a racist and upstaging/interrupting a teen white girl while she accepted an award.

I’m sorry, but for that song “Cube” was not adopting a persona. This is something I know a little about, having spent several years studying in depth literature. This is not Randy Newman singing Rednecks. Or Mark Twain voicing Huck Finn.

Furthermore, “Cube” (as you casually call him) associates with the Nation of Islam, whose essential creed is racist. In fact, the spoken word intro of that song is by perhaps the most loathsome maggot on that particular infestation of Islam.

Sean68 said:
I’m sorry, but for that song “Cube” was not adopting a persona. This is something I know a little about, having spent several years studying in depth literature. This is not Randy Newman singing Rednecks. Or Mark Twain voicing Huck Finn.

Furthermore, “Cube” (as you casually call him) associates with the Nation of Islam, whose essential creed is racist. In fact, the spoken word intro of that song is by perhaps the most loathsome maggot on that particular infestation of Islam.

Kalid Muhammed (the late, thankfully) used to advocate killing white babies. Saw him do it myself on the Phil Donahue show. Odd choice for “Cube” the non-racist don’t ya think?

Hey, I’m sure that there are any number of blacks who were just overjoyed that the shooter wasn’t black, Arabs who were glad that he wasn’t Arab, Iranians who were glad he wasn’t Iranians, Cubans… You get the idea.

armwood said:
How is someone expressing their true feelings as an American experiencing her American reality “they consider not fit for broadcast”

It’s funny how malleable armwood’s principles are, dependent on the political views of the person he’s assessing. For instance, when Juan Williams was expressing his true feelings as an American experiencing his American reality, armwood graced us with this screed:

armwood said:
!00% Correct. This is not a 1st Amendment issue. It amazes me how ignorant so me Americans are when it comes to understanding our constitution and government. The 1st Amendment only applies to government action. An employer, even a government employer, can require you to restrict your speech as a condition of employment. The is old, settled law. Federal Government employees have many restrictions on their political activities. Those restrictions are restrictions on speech. They are constitutional. Non government organizations often have the same restrictions as did NPR.

Juan Williams expressed a bigotry, one share by many unsophisticated American, bit a bigotry still. He didn’t jus say he was afraid when he sees Muslims on a plane, that was bad enough but he expressed resentment that they put their religion out front by wearing Islamic garb. That was an outrageous comment. That kind of bigotry is un-American. We have freedom of expression under the 1st Amendment in America. People may dress as they please. Would he have the same bigotry towards a Catholic Priest or nun wearing their religious garb? How about a Hassidic Jew wearing a black coat and hat in the summertime?. Of course not. This was a clear case of ignorant, Islamophobic bigotry. He deserved to be fired. I would have fired him. Juan Williams should know better. As a black man i am sure he has experienced the looks of fear on the faces of older bigoted white women when he, a black man, enters an elevator and she is the only one there. I have experienced this kind of ignorance even while wearing a business suit. It’s the same thing, the same bigotry. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose.

It is not surprising that fox News would hire Juan Williams. This network makes money by stoking fear and hate. They will lie, distort facts and even falsify information in pursuit of the almighty dollar. It is said to see so many ignorant and poorly educated Americans watching the garbage Fox spews out. Their is an anti-intellectual climate in this country. How else can you explain a woman like Sarah Palin, who attended four different mediocre colleges in four years gaining such a national following. You have to be a pretty poor student to accomplish that feat. George Bush as a C student. It’s interesting that conservatives are attracted to poorly educated leaders and liberals are attracted to scholars like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This fact alone says a lot about Fox and the conservative movement. It’s funny to read some of the crude and unsophisticated language used by so many conservatives in this forum. It follows a pattern. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

You, my big headed friend, are a putz.

Pablo, you absolutely nailed it.

The short version for anyone who missed it:

Armwood says Juan Williams’s true feelings merit his firing from NPR.

When this lady put her bigoted views on the air, armwood defended her:

armwood said:
How is someone expressing their true feelings as an American experiencing her American reality “they consider not fit for broadcast” Do you think you own America? It seems that you believe that she is less American than you are. Guess what, she is just as much an American as you are!

The hypocrisy is pretty naked.

He went on to say:

armwood said:
NPR has a fiduciary duty to its audience to broadcast a wide spectrum of viewpoints which it does. Take time and listen to Morning Edition and All Things Considered. They are great programs.

On principle, if there is such a thing as FIDUCIARY DUTY, NPR has that duty not to its audience, but to those who PAY FOR IT. Which exposes, again, the CRIME of NPR. We are all forced, under the ultimate threat of death, to pay for NPR. No one is allowed to opt out.

Each of us is the only rightful judge of what we buy. This is particularly true of anything as bias-filled as news reporting and opinion, as it is often covering political topics and NOBODY is unbiased, and no aggregation of content is unbiased in its choice of content. It cannot be. The ONLY reasonable answer is to let people buy the journalism they want to read or watch or listen to.

But we can’t. Proof? Withhold the money from your taxes. They will fine you many times the amount of money you held back, AND demand the money you held back. And if you refuse to pay, they will arrest you. And if you rightfully resist that arrest, they will kill you.

So, what is the rationale again for forcing everyone to buy NPR, against his will, under the ultimate threat of death for any who resists? Hello POLICE STATE RADIO.

Just_MC said:
If you are not a bigot and if you intellectually honest, you will admit you made a mistake in your wording. YOUR WORDS make the case that there is plenty of evidence that ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE BAD. Basic propositional logic: if you say “not all white people are bad despite plenty of evidence to the contrary” implies “there is plenty of evidence that all white people are bad.” This is language. This is logic. If you meant something other than what you typed, you should simply admit it.

armwood said:
There was no mistake. You may try and misconstrue my very clear meaning any way you choose. Anyone who reads my post with an open mind and heart will understand exactly what I am saying. You are just playing a game in which I will not join. Grow up and stop playing childish, divisive, games. We are all Americans. Please act like one.

Rather than casting uselessly vague, insults about how “American” people are, how about you DIRECTLY ADDRESS the specific and straightforward questions that I posed? You say you made no mistake in your wording. So, then, I will ask a final time. I say that basic propositional logic dictates that if you say:
“not all white people are bad despite plenty of evidence to the contrary”
that an indisputable conclusion of YOUR STATEMENT is that :
“there is plenty of evidence that all white people are bad.”

Since you adamantly say you made no mistake in your wording, do you disagree with the logic above?