I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I'm more saddened by the fact that Cuban ball players (white, black, mulatto, etc.) can't compete in the Majors than by the fact that black americans (or to be more precise visibly-black-descendants-of-Sub-Saharan-African-slaves-who-were-brought-to-what-eventually-would-comprise-the-US) are playing less baseball than they did.

But that's just me.

(going back to my hyphenated definition, it ticks me off that Juan "I'm-a-right-wing-stooge" Williams denies he's Latin American, even though he was born in Colón, here in my country of Panama. Yes, your parents were of West Indian origin, but so are a pretty good chunk of Colonenses. Heck, former NBA star Rolando Blackman had a similar background and he never denied he was Black and Panamanian. But again, Juan Williams is a tool).

I also lament that Cuban players are not able to freely participate in MLB. I hope and expect it will change in my lifetime after the expiration of The Maximum Leader and his brother.

I hope and expect it will change in my lifetime after the expiration of The Maximum Leader and his brother.

I think Hank and Hal would sign any Cuban who could help them win. You need to blame Castro, and Americans dated policies toward Cuba.

My memory might be playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall that Castro and co. did allow some Cuban players to go play in Asia (Japan?), with the proviso that they (Cuba's government) kept the bulk of the money.

It seems difficult that this system would be acceptable to MLB, even if the U.S. took down the embargo against Cuba (if Obama wins, as it looks like he might, I'm willing to bet the embargo goes down within the first 6 months of Obama's Presidency. The possibility of business for American companies and of exports by American farmers seems like a good eye-candy argument to take the embargo down in these trying economic times).

Mmm. Cuban black beans.

I hope and expect it will change in my lifetime after the expiration of The Maximum Leader and his brother

You're referring, of course, to Fidel and his brother, Dennis Castro. Or is it Duane?

I'm actually old enuff to remember when the majority of Latin players in the majors WERE Cuban

like to see it again

It's Raul Castro, and he's just sick about the way the Yankees treated Torre.

he never denied he was Black and Panamanian.

I can't believe he didn't insist people refer to him as "Blackamanian". That would've been awesome.

You're referring, of course, to Fidel and his brother, Dennis Castro. Or is it Duane?

you're thinking of the Allman brothers.

I remember a few Toronto papers, about a decade ago, talking of the Jays signing a Cuban or two and having them play only home games, thus never having to go into the USA. Put them on the 'suspended list' or something while the Jays are on the road and call up a minor leaguer for those games. An interesting idea, but would've been a heck of a headache to put into place thus never would happen (ie: sign a star third baseman and you have a AAA guy on the road playing). Might have worked for a starting pitcher but a bit of a challenge to keep things going smoothly. Not to mention the headaches with any American players who object to playing with a guy who supports the Cuban government.

My memory might be playing tricks on me, but I seem to recall that Castro and co. did allow some Cuban players to go play in Asia (Japan?), with the proviso that they (Cuba's government) kept the bulk of the money.

A few Cuban players, notably Omar Linares, were allowed to play in Japan in 2002. Linares was in his mid-30s, and past his prime when he played there - he hit .246/.327/.387 in parts of three seasons with the Chunichi Dragons.

(going back to my hyphenated definition, it ticks me off that Juan "I'm-a-right-wing-stooge" Williams denies he's Latin American, even though he was born in Colón, here in my country of Panama. Yes, your parents were of West Indian origin, but so are a pretty good chunk of Colonenses. Heck, former NBA star Rolando Blackman had a similar background and he never denied he was Black and Panamanian. But again, Juan Williams is a tool).

I think it is pretty much uncalled for to rip Juan Williams to the extent you do for his decision to claim he is black and not latin. Was he born in Panama? Yes. So what. John McCain was too. He is not latin. It's pretty apparent that it is not easy for those with complex origins to claim a racial identity and not struggle with it, or without coming under fire from one group or another. I prefer to allow the individual to make that decision and not judge them on their decision. So I am not bothered in the least by Juan Williams decision to define himself as a black man.

I think of people like Tiger Woods, who has been claimed by all sorts of groups over the years, and his approach to this issue.....he has mostly shunned the idea that he must embrace any particular group and says it is about talent. Many rip him for that attitude calling him naive to the realities race plays in society. Yet he has asked people to accept him as he is. It is a very person decision and far be it for me to say what he should or should not embrace.

Jessica Alba has faced attacks from Hispanic groups, namely La Raza, because she has not claimed herself as Latina. Alba says she is an American. Surely the melting pot has never gone over well among the left, as they hate the idea that people like Tiger Woods/Alba refuse to claim a race, but would rather be accepted for what they are and simply considered Americans.

Surely the melting pot has never gone over well among the left, as they hate the idea that people like Tiger Woods/Alba refuse to claim a race, but would rather be accepted for what they are and simply considered Americans.

I dunno. White liberal Thaddeus Stevens wanted the pot to melt in the South, but some conservatives in white hoods didn't care for it much.

I dunno. White liberal Thaddeus Stevens wanted the pot to melt in the South, but some conservatives in white hoods didn't care for it much.

Let me guess, you live in the north?

I've lived in the south briefly, they have largely confronted and dealt with race in a more direct manner than any northern city. Nearly across the board, there is much more integration in the south today, than there has ever been in northern cities. Also, I have learned more racial and ethnic slurs living in the north, NYC area to be specific, than I imagined existed. Most likely due to the vast array of diverse ethnic cultures, but certainly not without their own racial tensions, as each group seemingly holding mistrust of other groups. I'd bet the secret racism of today is mostly a northern thing, as the north has really never fully dealt with this issue, yet they pretend they have.

Sure take your little shots like you did above, but make no mistake, you have no moral high ground to stand on.

you have no moral high ground to stand on

I don't claim to. You were the one taking the first pot shot from that position. I think the issue is more complicated than you portrayed it the first post I quoted.

You are missing the point entirely. This issue is not about the Republicans trying to end slavery in the 1800s or the white KKK Democrats trying to oppose them.

It is about today's attitudes among the left and how they look down on people that call themselves American. There is pressure on Woods/Alba and now Juan Williams to pick a side and if the don't choose the "right" side, somehow others are offended. Somehow Democrats always find themselves on the wrong side of race issues. today they are against the concept of the Melting Pot, 150 years ago they were against freeing the slaves.

Democrats have always been trading the races. Today they may not be owning blacks, but they are still buying them.

I get your style Fra Paolo, twice you have only reacted to my last sentence. That is it. That is all you can offer junior. Later..

Somehow Democrats always find themselves on the wrong side of race issues.

And some folks think we occasionally have some Republicans to keep us company on the wrong side. This is from Red Juice/Gambling Rent, when I asked him for examples of prejudice against Latin Americans he says he has seen on BTF:


RR we just had one yesterday where Beanocook suggested that illegals in Arizona should compete in a swimming competition for our enjoyment. The winner gets citizenship.

***

To be fair to Beano, which is one hell of a lot more than I ever seen him be with Liberals in general, I did not see this thread and do not have the post. Red Juice, BTW, is a Republican.

It is about today's attitudes among the left and how they look down on people that call themselves American.

Yes, but why is that? I don't think you can ignore the history of ethnic relations in the United States in today's politics. It's not just a matter of party labels.

Because Republicans began with an anti-immigrant wing in their party, because they abandoned Reconstruction and the potential for a black-white voting alliance in the South, because a traitor was buried at Arlington in 1903, because quotas were introduced for immigration in 1924, because African Americans tried to make the best of segregation for decades, because Hispanics had a similar history of being looked down on by white Anglos and other ethnics trying to melt into the pot that was basically conforming to WASP culture, is why we have groups like La Raza being annoyed with people like Alba.

Sure, all politicians are out there buying votes. That's why while I may call myself a conservative, I don't identify with a party and I try to avoid glib pot shots.

That's why while I may call myself a conservative

WHAT??? I have been told there are no conservatives here. ;-

I have been told there are no conservatives here.

In my book, most of the so-called 'conservatives' here strike a proper reactionary like me as desperately liberal. I blame the Fox network for brainwashing them into some kind of persecution complex.

RR we just had one yesterday where Beanocook suggested that illegals in Arizona should compete in a swimming competition for our enjoyment. The winner gets citizenship.

That thread was one of one joke after another. In case you haven't noticed, people today take pride in having the thinnest skin possible. Being offended is something people aspire to, it is actually become a sign of power in our society. If that is all they got for prejudice against Hispanics, then they have got nothing.

I think Taco Bell, as official MLB sponsor, would be happy to sponsor that one.

that is all they got for prejudice against Hispanics, then they have got nothing.

Well, RJ doesn't see it that way:

Missed that. Did you respond to him?

i called it disgusting, and just walked away. I've been round and round with him before, and have a pretty good idea as to where he stands on Latin Americans ..

And it's not "they." It is one guy, who IIRC is a self-identified Latino--and not a lefty.

And some folks

is where "they" is in reference to.
--------------

i called it disgusting, and just walked away. I've been round and round with him before, and have a pretty good idea as to where he stands on Latin Americans ..

I guarantee you this guy can't answer one thing about my views on latin americans. That is a guarantee. Anyone can search this site and you won't be able to get enough to develop a "good idea of where I stand" on Latin Americans.

In fact, my 1st question would be to RJ....."So where do I stand on Latin Americans?

People that assume to know one's views or develop an opinion without using facts or relying on stereotypes, as RJ surely is doing, are rather common and are usually not the kind of people that make good character witnesses.

I've been round and round with him before, and have a pretty good idea as to where he stands on Latin Americans ..

This usually includes the thinking:

"I know he is a conservative" and as we all know, conservative = racist.

Kind of like how liberals think blacks and feminists need to think a certain way to be "real" blacks and feminists. They have got the labels all nailed down and defined.

I think it is pretty much uncalled for to rip Juan Williams to the extent you do for his decision to claim he is black and not latin. Was he born in Panama? Yes. So what. John McCain was too. He is not latin

Two things: 1. You seem pretty unaware of the differences between having been born in the former Canal Zone (as was McCain) to military parents (who were stationed there for a very short time) and having been born in Colón, to West Indian non-military parents.

So there's an issue there, even though you don't seem to understand it.

(BTW - Panama applies both Ius Solis and Ius Sanguinis to anyone born in Panama, including the Canal Zone. Thus, both McCain and Williams are Panamanian citizens - regardless of whatever subsequent decisions they may have made in their life - due to Ius Solis, since Panamanian Citizenship cannot be renounced).

2. I suggest you read my first post, when I mentioned Rolando Blackman, who also had West Indian ancestry (NEWS FLASH - The builders of the Panama Canal, be it the French or American efforts, were mostly West Indians, particularly from Barbados), but accepts that he is also Latin.

I wouldn't have a problem if Juan Williams thought he was the tooth fairy, provided that he does not deny his heritage, and that includes being Latin.

Two things: 1. You seem pretty unaware of the differences between having been born in the former Canal Zone (as was McCain) to military parents (who were stationed there for a very short time) and having been born in Colón, to West Indian non-military parents.

So there's an issue there, even though you don't seem to understand it.

I very well understand this, thank you. Wikipedia says McCain is a Colonens But no matter where he was born, in Colon or 1 mile away on Coco Solo (Coco Solo touched Colon), that is really not central to my point, which you did not address.

My point is how can you rake Juan Williams for his choice here? First of all, it is his choice, not yours. But if you want to measure how "latin" he is, consider he never grew up surrounded by that culture. He moved to the US when he was 3 and at some point either him or his parents or maybe his American environment made him find comfort in his black roots. I don't see how anyone could be upset over someones decision like this, unless he was outspoken against Latin people, culture...etc.

You even invoked the fact that McCain was briefly stationed in Panama, yet McCain lived in Panama longer than Williams.

I just think you wanted to take a shot at a guy that you don't like because he is on Fox. I read your first post. So what about R Blackman? Why does J Williams have to have the same view? They have lived different lives and have different experiences.

1. Coco Solo and Colón were physically segregated. That was the whole point of the Canal Zone - to have an area separate from Panama, under U.S. control. So no, you don't get it.

2. McCain's family was military, and had no contacts to Panama OTHER than as a military station. When that was over, McCain's family went elsewhere, and that was the extent of their relationship to the country.

Williams' family was not military, and had a very different relationship vis-a-vis Panama (plus, by the mid 50s, Panama had nibbled away at some of the harsher aspects of the Canal Zone). By definition, they had much more contact with Panama and Lat Am culture, and you can't switch that off, however you may choose.

Defining yourself away from your Latin roots is enough to be upset, regardless of whether you agree or not (again, I don't have a problem with Williams wanting to identify himself as black, provided he doesn't do that to the exclusion of being Latin).

3. Rolando Blackman and Juan Williams have the same ethnic and cultural background (i.e., members of families of West Indian origin who lived in Panama - by definition, Blackman and Williams are either 1st or 2nd generation Panamanians, since the Canal was built by 1914, Williams was born in 1954 and Blackman in 1959 - until they migrated to the U.S.), and both ended up in the States.

By your reckoning, there's no reason for them to share the same viewpoint, and I disagree, probably because I don't have a problem with people being Black / African American AND Latin (I disagree with being Black / African American to the exclusion of being Latin).

4. I dislike Williams BECAUSE of his position about his heritage INDEPENDENT of his political views, which have shifted during time (I remember Williams from This Week with David Brinkley, and he was a very different commentator then).

I've lived in the south briefly, they have largely confronted and dealt with race in a more direct manner than any northern city. Nearly across the board, there is much more integration in the south today, than there has ever been in northern cities.

Well, I lived in Mississippi for the first 29 years of my life, and I now live in Chicago. You're dead wrong. Churches in the South, truly the bedrocks of Southern society, are unbelievably segregated. Almost uniformly, the only white kids who go to public schools are those who don't have money. Neighborhoods in the South are more sharply partitioned along racial lines than they are in the North. Much more.

This comment "there is much more integration in the south today, than there has ever been in northern cities." is an absolute joke.

Juan "I'm-a-right-wing-stooge" Williams

I haven't read the full thread, but Juan Williams isn't a right wing stooge. He is just stupid. He couldn't last a month hosting Talk of the Nation in the late 90's. His commentary on ATC is the most insipid crap you can imagine.

This usually includes the thinking:

"I know he is a conservative" and as we all know, conservative = racist.

Why would Red Juice call himself a racist, in a post complaining about racism?

This comment "there is much more integration in the south today, than there has ever been in northern cities." is an absolute joke.

Well you have never lived in Minneapolis, Milwaukee, St Louis, Cleveland.....all very segregated by the traditional measure.

I did not live in Mississippi, I lived in North Carolina, and that was very integrated compared to the northern cities I listed above and I might as well add Chicago.

Beyond the traditional measures of segregation, the greater difference between N and S is that in the South, they actually confronted race and there are many, many more interactions between white and black in greater society, work, school...etc. Your example of the Church being segregated is correct, but that is true of every city. Churches tend to be very segregated, see Obama's racist church....even our next US President attended a racist, segregated church in Chicago.

There is little doubt the people in the south have dealt with more race issues and come further than in the north. Mississippi may very well be a holdout. *Your rage adds little to the debate.

1. Coco Solo and Colón were physically segregated. That was the whole point of the Canal Zone - to have an area separate from Panama, under U.S. control. So no, you don't get it.

Okay, so you live in Panama, big deal. This information you are sharing with me is widely available and I am well aware, so thank you mr attitude.

Basically you have give little reason to justify your rage at Juan Williams. Even if he identifies with being an African black and not Latin black, so what? He was 3 when he moved out and grew up in the US. In America you can end up surrounded by just about any culture, esp in Brooklyn.

I'm curious, where have you seen Juan Williams deny he has an interest in his Latin roots? It is not like he has made much of a show of any of this, certainly not in a prominent manner.

Mr. Attitude?

You delve into an issue with ramifications you know nothing about and call me Mr. Attitude?

Whatever. Keep on debating yourself.

Two things: 1. You seem pretty unaware of the differences between having been born in the former Canal Zone (as was McCain) to military parents (who were stationed there for a very short time) and having been born in Colón, to West Indian non-military parents.

How does this affect Rod Carew?

Black people are tearing us Primates apart!

I'm not exactly sure about Carew's early life story (I know he was born in the Canal Zone), but I do know that he's kept in contact with Panama (he would often come back to give baseball clinics - I attended one in the early 80s - and he would always identify himself as a Panamanian, plus he spoke fluent Spanish).

In any case, Panama's national baseball stadium is named after Carew (google Estadio Nacional Rod Carew and you can confirm this), and I think he came here to innaugurate it in the late 1990s (but I could be wrong on that).

Speaking of Carew:

Moved Quickly to Major League

Unlike most players who need several years in the minor leagues to develop their skills, Carew spent only three years in the farm system before Twins owner Calvin Griffith brought him up to the big league club,

Reminds me of a Diane Keaton line in "Love and Death":

I'm not scared of death...I'm frightened of it.

Ah, identity politics....the cause of, and the solution to all of BTF's problems.

But Carew? We all know that he's just a nice Jewish boy. The rest is incidental.

I did not live in Mississippi, I lived in North Carolina, and that was very integrated compared to the northern cities I listed above and I might as well add Chicago.

My junior high in the Durham County school system had a segregated yearbook through 1985. In the superlatives under "Best Looking" we had the best looking white people and the best looking black people, listed separately. Same for "Most Likely To Succeed", "Funniest", and "Best Personality". But they integrated "Friendliest", which I suppose was a nice symbolic gesture.

Things have changed hugely since then in the Triangle, thanks to a massive influx of out-of-state whites, Asian white collar workers, and Latino immigrants. But that's pretty new, the last three decades or so, really.

My junior high in the Durham County school system had a segregated yearbook through 1985.

What exactly do you mean by that? Two separate alphabetical listings for the students? A "Part I" for the whites and and "Part II" for the blacks? Actual categories like "best looking white girl" and "best looking black girl"? All-black classes with black teachers and all-white classes with white teachers?

Or do you just mean that whenever they had to choose a "best" category, they chose one white student and one black student, without stating the obvious reason that they were doing so? That has to be what you're talking about, because if it'd been anything else, it's hard to believe that nobody would have mentioned it and made a stink about it in 1985, especially in the Triangle area. I'd love to see that yearbook.

I'd like to second Dayn Perry and call BS on Beano. I grew up in the north and lived three years in Georgia. I really can't think of a single positive way in which that state has "dealt with race" and they sure as hell aren't integrated. My wife taught in a public school in one of the wealthiest counties in Atlanta, practically sitting on top of a country club, and she had one white student in three years. They bussed kids in from miles away just to fill the school up while all the white kids that actually lived around there went to private school. Meanwhile, I managed a restaurant at the time, and was amazed at the response I would get from black customers just for providing good customer service. I know this is going to sound ridiculous, but I actually had a customer tell me, "See I knew you were a northern boy, 'cause you actually treat me like a person." I'm almost embarrassed to write that, but I swear it's true. And it wasn't the only comment of its kind either. Meanwhile, I'd rather not get into the comments I heard from many southern whites. A LOT of them speak in code about race constantly, which I suppose is a small step up from throwing the N-word around, but I'd hardly call it "dealing with race."
I've never spent any time in NC, but if the Duke Lacrosse Rape fiasco is any indication, I really doubt they've hashed things out there either. Frankly, I don't even understand the point Beano is trying to make here. Are you really trying to take the issue that's probably the blackest mark on American conservatism and flip it on us? Yeah, sure, Democrats used to own a lot of slaves- back when they were conservatives and the Republican party was made up of radical liberals. What the hell is your point? Between that and the jaw-droppingly false (and transparent) assertion that Red States are more progressive than Blue on race, you're really letting your political biases embarrass you on this.
To be fair, I don't claim to know what the right answer is on race relations. If you look at what the extremely liberal diversity policies in Amsterdam have wrought in recent years, you can see that both sides are full of bad ideas. The difference is that I'll just admit there's still a lot to figure out rather than use misleading and outdated terms or utterly baseless assertions to try to make my side sound better than it actually is.
Wow, I can't believe I just wasted this much effort on calling out a conservative for being full of ####. I don't think I'll ever learn...

What exactly do you mean by that? Two separate alphabetical listings for the students? A "Part I" for the whites and and "Part II" for the blacks? Actual categories like "best looking white girl" and "best looking black girl"? All-black classes with black teachers and all-white classes with white teachers?

I meant just like I said, separate "Best" listings. The page with "Best Looking" had two pictures, one with a white couple and one with a black couple, one for the other "Bests". They didn't say "Best looking white people", but you couldn't really interpret it any other way. I have no idea how they chose the superlatives; that was for 9th graders and I was in the 7th. This was Githens Junior High, for the 1984-1985 school year. Everything else was alphabetical and by year. I'd scan it as evidence but it's in my parents' attic.

It changed the next year. Maybe there was a big stink about it, I have no idea. I was 13 and didn't have any sort of clue about these things. I didn't even notice anything funny about the separate listing until my aunt made fun of it.

Also, it wasn't fair of me not to talk about Durham's history in the comment, as background. Durham traditionally had a very strong black middle class that for much of the late 19th and 20th century was relatively self-contained, for all of the reasons that something like that might have occurred at that historic moment. There was a tacit agreements that blacks and whites would basically leave each other alone. It wasn't perfect, but the ugly incidents in the state's history tend to come from elsewhere. Durham long had a strong black-owned business sector and a large black middle class -- I went to an elementary school that was overwhelmingly black and also overwhelmingly middle class, which is a pretty unusual combination in the US. It's broken down a lot in the last 40 years, for a lot of reasons, and the state very notoriously ran the Durham Freeway through the middle of Hayti, the center of the black middle class. But in 1930 that sort of separation was a hell of a lot better setup than what existed in most other places in the country, to the point that W.E.B. Dubois considered Durham to be a model of what other communities could be like. If the yearbook was just a tiny remnant of that relatively benign separation agreement persisting long after its historical moment, then it looks innocuous and quaint. But whatever the cause it's still a relic of segregation.

Lowes Grove Junior High in Durham got rid of its smoking area (9th graders only!) after the 1984-1985 school year. 1984 was a long time ago.

(Edited for clarity)

People that assume to know one's views or develop an opinion without using facts or relying on stereotypes, as RJ surely is doing, are rather common and are usually not the kind of people that make good character witnesses.

Kind of like how liberals think blacks and feminists need to think a certain way to be "real" blacks and feminists. They have got the labels all nailed down and defined.

Nice self-awareness. These are consecutive posts, BTW.

And, of course, as pointed out to you, although you ignored it, RJ IS a Republican and considers himself to be conservative.

And, incidentally, you make a legit point about Williams although as fra paolo said, you are oversimplifying the issue. Since I am as liberal as they come, this shows how you are relying on stertreotypes to talk about liberals, as you often do.

Almost uniformly, the only white kids who go to public schools are those who don't have money.

If Chicago didn't have "magnet" schools, this would almost certainly be true in Chicago, as well.

Midwestern cities are among the most segregated places in all of America. The data's pretty good on this, Beano's not wrong to point to Chicago and Milwaukee, Detroit and Cleveland are similar.

The idea that southern cities and towns are not deeply divided along racial lines, though, is insane, and I have no idea what he's talking about.

I love when some white folks hyperventilate when discussions of racism in America take place.

"It's not as bad as it USED to be!" is like saying "we don't boil people in oil any more, we just beat them to death."

Any white folks hyperventilating around here probably have a pulmonary embolism.

You son of a...

It was cool to see Mark Armour's name in the article.

Back to your regularly scheduled politalks.

What exactly do you mean by that? Two separate alphabetical listings for the students? A "Part I" for the whites and and "Part II" for the blacks? Actual categories like "best looking white girl" and "best looking black girl"? All-black classes with black teachers and all-white classes with white teachers?

I meant just like I said, separate "Best" listings. The page with "Best Looking" had two pictures, one with a white couple and one with a black couple, one for the other "Bests". They didn't say "Best looking white people", but you couldn't really interpret it any other way.

I agree with the interpretation, but that's still a far cry from saying that it was a "segregated" yearbook. The closest thing I've heard of to what I'd call real segregation is in those schools with two different proms, one with "white" music and one with "black" music. The irony for that is that in the mid-1960's the white radio stations were made up largely of black R&B;hits. This was before rock 'n' roll became "rock" and divided itself along strictly racial lines.

Having gone to Duke in the mid-60's (62-67) and worked as an organizer in Durham in 1969-70 (when they were just starting to bulldoze working class neighborhoods to make room for the Expressway), it was interesting to read your take on Durham. If you're interested, there's a terrific Durham history website that's full of photographs and history going back well over 100 years. One of the best websites of its type that I know of.

I agree with the interpretation, but that's still a far cry from saying that it was a "segregated" yearbook.

This is obviously a terminological rather than a material distinction, but I wonder why you think it's important to keep the word "segregation" to only refer to things that are directly analogous to Jim Crow. The effects of this sort of de facto, implicit segregation are deeply harmful, and I think it's useful to have the same word to describe it, to make clear that it's a really bad thing.

So, uh, what happened in the Palin card thread? I posted around 1005 or so and by 1021 it was deleted. That was a sharpt decline.

It was for health reasons: Dan was afraid the members of the leftwing cricle jerk would overly dehydrate.


Are you sure the guy who is against the 4th and 5th amendment is the guy you want to be commiserating with?

I guess if this is the politics thread, here's my response to Szym from the thread what was eated.

In other words, you think some people should be forced to provide for others at gunpoint.

No, I believe that there is no metaphysical right to property that exists previous to social and economic arrangements. Can you please show me one exists? There was no natural state of nature in which people agreed to social contracts that laid out rights and property. Can you point me to the evidence for it?

If all we have are the empirical, actually-existing social and economic arrangements of the real world, then it is clear that we only have freedom and property based on those arrangements. They are real, contingent, historical, material things, not airy-fairy metaphysical things. And we know these arrangements are historically contingent, because they differ across time and space. So we need to ask which arrangements will be both possible to achieve and most productive of the good, and how we understand the good. This means that redistributionism is always on the table, because there is nothing natural about any particular distribution of property - every social and economic arrangement is in part a function of the work of power, to enforce the structures of that agreement. There was no social contract that arranged the world as it is, to which to appeal to defend the natural-ness of a particular arrangement of economics and society.

I would argue that everyone's property and the social and economic arrangements that allow for these forms of property-holding are already in part of a function of what you would call "force ... at gunpoint". (I think that's a really stupid way of understanding power, but then I'm not a vulgar Foucauldian like you.) Force is always previous to social and economic arrangements. You need to appeal to metaphysical rights and ahistorical contracts to defend the notion that force only appears on the scene after a social and economic arrangement of society has appeared, and I have seen no argument presented for these assumptions.

No, I believe that there is no metaphysical right to property that exists previous to social and economic arrangements. Can you please show me one exists?

All our freedoms, speech, sexual intercourse, association, religion, stem from the notion that we own ourselves and what we do.

Without that, these freedoms become only available at the whim of government.

All our freedoms, speech, sexual intercourse, association, religion, stem from the notion that we own ourselves and what we do.

Without that, these freedoms become only at the whim of government.

No, they are a function of the arrangmement of society, family, community, and economy into which we are born. Government is only a small part of that. And the structures of the world that enable freedom and property and not "whims" that could change at any moment, they are developed over time by the shared action and common cultural training and education of masses of people.

Basically, you're arguing that unless I assent to something for which you have no evidence, all of society falls apart. I find that deeply unconvincing. I think that lots of pretty good societies have existed which didn't presume an 18th c. Anglo-American anthropology.

If it weren't for that pesky government, I'd be robbing you at gun point. You'll always be a victim.

No, they are a function of the arrangmement of society, family, community, and economy into which we are born. Government is only a small part of that. And the structures of the world that enable freedom and property and not "whims" that could change at any moment, they are developed over time by the shared action and common cultural training and education of masses of people.

The function of the arrangement of society, family, community, and economy into which we were born also says homosexual relationships are wrong. A generation before, society didn't think blacks should vote. Before that, that blacks didn't have the rights to their most important property.

I know you don't agree with these things, but you can't unlock society as the "arbiter" of who has what right and how much but then disinherit the strength of collective rights when they result in things you find reprehensible. The only society that can enslave others is a society that doesn't believe that people have a complete right to themselves.

All our freedoms, speech, sexual intercourse, association, religion, stem from the notion that we own ourselves and what we do.

Without that, these freedoms become only at the whim of government.

To take a different tack, this is entirely circular.

I asked if you had evidence for the existence of metaphysical rights or a social contract previous to social arrangements and force. I asked for this because your presumption that redistribution is "force ... at gunpoint" is dependent on a belief in particular metaphysical rights or ahistorical social contracts.

You responded that without these ahistorical entities, all the good in society disappears somehow. But that's precisely what I was trying to get you to defend! I precisely don't think that metaphyiscal rights and ahistorical social contracts underlie good arrangements of society, community, family, economy and government. You responded by asserting that they do and presenting no argument.

I don't know why you keep defending history. Blacks have not had rights for the vast majority of history. Women have not had rights for the vast majority of history. People have not had rights to worship as they choose for the vast majority of history.

Dismissing something as being ahistorical is an extremely weak crutch to stand on - every right that every one on here on the political spectrum values requires that right to be inconsistent with the history of man.

Why was the Palin thread closed? That's really irritating.

In an attempt to actually learn something about Libertarianism: Can you explain, Dan, where the the general Libertarian line between Government and Anarchy exists and is acceptable? I don't want to be referred to a treatise on the topic, I'd rather get a conversational take.

I know you don't agree with these things, but you can't unlock society as the "arbiter" of who has what right and how much but then disinherit the strength of collective rights when they result in things you find reprehensible. The only society that can enslave others is a society that doesn't believe that people have a complete right to themselves.

Ok, I think you're not understanding my point. I definitely don't believe that any particular arrangement of society is good.

I said, above:

So we need to ask which arrangements will be both possible to achieve and most productive of the good, and how we understand the good.

The issue I take with you is not that society can be better than it is, but rather I'm trying to get you to explain why you are against redistribution. You have argued that it is equivalent to "force ... by gunpoint".

My point is that the acquisition of properties and freedoms only happens in contingent, particular historical circumstances, and so all property and freedom, whether redistributed by government or not, is at some level a function of force. Your argument against redistribution is predicated on a belief in a metaphysical state of freedom or state of nature in which property and freedom accrue to individuals outside of historically contingent situations of power. If all property and freedom is in some way a function of an arrangement of society, and thus a function of force, all property and freedom would be described by you as a function of "force ... at gunpoint."

Again, I don't think "property is theft", I think it's a function of social arrangements, which should not be understood as theft at gunpoint. But in your vulgar libertarian description of society, which is exceptionally similar to a vulgar Marxist description, it would follow that all property is theft unless you could appeal to metaphysical rights or ahistorical social contracts that could be posited as existing previous to society.

I'm questioning the positing of those rights or contracts, and asking for material evidence. Without that material evidence, your arguments against redistributionism fall flat.

I'm questioning the positing of those rights or contracts, and asking for material evidence. Without that material evidence, your arguments against redistributionism fall flat.

What's your evidence then? There's no null hypothesis that redistributionism is right.

There's no null hypothesis, period. We are where we are because people with power believed it benefited society. That's it. I don't know why he wants to make this more complicated by slapping vulgar labels onto you.

What's your evidence then? There's no null hypothesis that redistributionism is right.

If you're willing not to presume metaphysical rights, then I'd love to have a discussion of political philosophy.

I'd probably start from the precariousness of life - we know that it doesn't take a lot to kill someone. It makes sense to figure out what social arrangements, as a basic floor, help to buttress life. I'd think that a floor of protections for food, shelter, and health care should be at the bottom. Recognizing that no one has an absolute right to their social position, we'd look to arrange things such that no one would starve or freeze to death, and no one would die of treatable illnesses.

It might be the case that redistributive measures do not accomplish these goals, but rather a pure Randian defense of property as sacrosanct produces the best results. I find that dubious, but it would be an argument I would listen to and data that would be worth taking into consideration. As long as we're talking about real material effects and not metaphysical rights, I'm more than willing to listen to libertarian utopiae.

And, of course, given human frailty and imperfection, we would need to be careful about all the effects of social change that we cannot possibly predict. Even if I were convinced that some form of post-Marxist syndicalism were the best way for people to live, I certainly wouldn't presume it should be imposed by force on people in Zambia, and I wouldn't presume that it should be created by a popular revolution in Western Massachusetts either.

Then we'd start working on the other things that allow humans to flourish, which would necessarily differ greatly among localities and cultures. Any particular arrangements would probably have to be very different and imposed locally, for the most part, though in conversation with the rest of the world and with neighbors. I know this last bit is exceptionally vague, but I think that it's best to leave open what forms of society, community, economy and government will be best given the radical diversity of human society. (Not that there's anything natural about existing arrangements, that there would be an essentially Indian way of doing things, but it's materially true that India is different from Australia for contingent historical reasons, and so we shouldn't assume that what's good in one place at one time is good in another.)

It might be the case that redistributive measures do not accomplish these goals, but rather a pure Randian defense of property as sacrosanct produces the best results. I find that dubious, but it would be an argument I would listen to and data that would be worth taking into consideration. As long as we're talking about real material effects and not metaphysical rights, I'm more than willing to listen to libertarian utopiae.

What data could there possibly be? That's like someone saying "show me the data that unlimited homosexual marriage is good."

It's hard. You have to argue about it, you have to experiment, you have to listen to voices you don't necessarily agree with. I think that democracy generally provides a platform for all these different voices and opinions to be heard, and i think they should have equal say, through certain institutional structures, in how we arrange things. Creating the space for different people to disagree, to discuss, and to act in concert provisionally, seems like the best way to go.

Basically, my politics are vague because I think that politics is really, really hard. There are no easy rules to appeal to, no metaphysical truths that get to determine our beliefs.

I think that historical evidence for the alleviation of suffering and death through redistributive practices and policies is pretty solid. I see very little reason to assume that removing these programs of social insurance will improve our lives.

Basically, my politics are vague because I think that politics is really, really hard. There are no easy rules to appeal to, no metaphysical truths that get to determine our beliefs.

I think that historical evidence for the alleviation of suffering and death through redistributive practices and policies is pretty solid. I see very little reason to assume that removing these programs of social insurance will improve our lives.

If you've read what I've written plenty of times, on a practical level, I'm talking about as a matter of policy, incremental change over long periods. I thought we were talking first pricinciples, though? My eventual hope is that we can transfer society to a state in which taking care of the less fortunate is a moral duty, not something that is primarily the responsibility of others. When only a few are responsible for these things, you de-link wanting people to be helped and actually helping people.

Why was the Palin thread closed? That's really irritating.

Yeah, why was it closed? Up to now this has been like asking Sarah Palin to come out for a press conference.

And if it was closed because someone said a naughty, why was it deemed necessary to erase the entire thread? Why not just delete the offending post, or delete it and shut the thread down from that point on? Why the need to erase everything that went before it? And why no explanation?

While I can understand not wanting multiple political threads going, the act of closing the Palin thread and moving its discussion here has had the unwelcome effect of overwhelming the more-interesting-to-me matter of race and segregation. It's a Mets-fans-style hijack, you miserable so'n'sos.

Why not just delete the offending post, or delete it and shut the thread down from that point on? Why the need to erase everything that went before it? And why no explanation?

Ack, that was the idea - I closed offending comments but it seems I closed the thread itself instead of simply the comments. I'll go fix that.

If you've read what I've written plenty of times, on a practical level, I'm talking about as a matter of policy, incremental change over long periods. I thought we were talking first pricinciples, though?

I think trying to talk about first principles as somehow separate from practical and material concerns is not the most politically useful way to go about things. I try to take as minor and as provisional a set of principles as possible, in which I think I'd list the precariousness of life and the universal value of human life and the universal negative of human suffering. (Obviously, trying to talk about what the "human" is becomes important here, especially because I'm using "life" to talk about something that I generally define differently from, say, Joseph Ratzinger.) If we don't allow our first principles to be altered by material events and situations, and to be always informed by them, we're going to have trouble. If we take a very expansive set of first principles and spend all our time arguing about them, we're not going to be talking about real people and real lives.

My eventual hope is that we can transfer society to a state in which taking care of the less fortunate is a moral duty, not something that is primarily the responsibility of others. When only a few are responsible for these things, you de-link wanting people to be helped and actually helping people.

That's fair, and quite noble. (Very Christian of you...)

Exactly how we get there on the particulars is messy, and exactly what we understand as collective or individual action, are complicated, but I don't have an immediate problem with the way you describe things there. It's the immediate response that any form of redistributionism is "force ... at gunpoint", based on unargued metaphysical presuppositions, that I have a problem with, and that I don't think are productive for political discussion.

Dan S - I have no problem with you exercising your (granted) property rights and shutting down threads... but can I request a 1 page warning (unless they are shut down for threats/assault or something)?

I agree with the interpretation, but that's still a far cry from saying that it was a "segregated" yearbook.

This is obviously a terminological rather than a material distinction, but I wonder why you think it's important to keep the word "segregation" to only refer to things that are directly analogous to Jim Crow. The effects of this sort of de facto, implicit segregation are deeply harmful, and I think it's useful to have the same word to describe it, to make clear that it's a really bad thing.

I make the distinction between Jim Crow segregation and de facto segregation because it is a distinction. One is ironclad and fixed by law, while the other is far more fluid or improvisational, and often merely transitional.

Of course in many ways this is admitedly a distinction without a difference, but even within the realm of de facto segregation, there's a big difference between having two different "best looking" students---which can easily be justified as a way of agreeing to disagree about standards of "best looking"---and the sort of de facto segregation that you often see resulting from (for instance) academic tracking, which is far more serious and crippling in effect.

I'm not at all saying that those separate but equal "best looking" (etc.) pages of the yearbook aren't worthy of comment, or that they aren't often symptomatic of a far deeper racial divide. But if you want to use the "s" word, just add de facto to it. This delineates an historic distinction while not masking the underlying condition.

All our freedoms, speech, sexual intercourse, association, religion, stem from the notion that we own ourselves and what we do.

Even if I grant this - property and economic "rights" (e.g., you keep 100% of products of your labor and bequeathed "stuff" for now and evermore) don't necessarily follow.

That's fair, and quite noble. (Very Christian of you...)

Hope not! I would really be pathetic if I couldn't be a good agnostic.

's the immediate response that any form of redistributionism is "force ... at gunpoint", based on unargued metaphysical presuppositions, that I have a problem with, and that I don't think are productive for political discussion.

Point taken.

I'm an atheist, but I can't help that my beliefs about life and suffering sound a lot like certain forms of Christian ethics that clearly predate modern atheism. You grow up in most places in America, you will sound very Christian when you talk about ethics and politics.

Agnostics and atheists, in America and much of Europe, can be understood pretty usefully as radical Protestants.

I make the distinction between Jim Crow segregation and de facto segregation because it is a distinction. One is ironclad and fixed by law, while the other is far more fluid or improvisational, and often merely transitional.

We're arguing a minor terminological point here, but I note that you just used the term "segregation" to talk about both things. I agree, of course, that the yearbook discussed above is very different from a "Whites Only" drinking fountain, but I would call these different forms of segregation, rather than say the former is not segregation.

Even if I grant this - property and economic "rights" (e.g., you keep 100% of products of your labor and bequeathed "stuff" for now and evermore) don't necessarily follow.

Sure it is, you're taking away time. Every person's most valuable property is themselves and it's a finite resource. When you take the product of someone's labors and give it to someone else, you're taking their time, so any restriction on this should, as a principle, be as minimal as possible.

So now that all the pre-naughty posts on the Palin thread have been restored and the naughty post deleted, what's the point of now barring any future comments? Isn't that kind of like Lidice? [/testing, 1,2] Why not delete the naughty post and let the rest of us continue to enlighten the oppressed and embittered masses?

Dan does shut down threads where he's being strongly disagreed with or where his personal sensibilities are offended. It's no longer a pattern, it's a habit.

Liar.

You forgot, "pants on fire!"

We're arguing a minor terminological point here, but I note that you just used the term "segregation" to talk about both things. I agree, of course, that the yearbook discussed above is very different from a "Whites Only" drinking fountain, but I would call these different forms of segregation, rather than say the former is not segregation.

I don't (and didn't) disagree with that. What I said was to add the prefix de facto, not to remove the "s" word.

I hope you don't think that I'm trying to pretty things up here. But I do think that it's important to be precise in one's descriptions, because otherwise you often wind up with the hairsplitting lawyers playing "gotcha" over terminology. Speaking for myself, I'd rather not give them that opportunity. If they're going to misrepresent our arguments, make them fabricate not only our logic but the words themselves. It's tough enough to deal with their misrepresentations without leading with your chin.

So now that all the pre-naughty posts on the Palin thread have been restored and the naughty post deleted, what's the point of now barring any future comments? Isn't that kind of like Lidice? [/testing, 1,2] Why not delete the naughty post and let the rest of us continue to enlighten the oppressed and embittered masses?

That wasn't why the thread was closed. As I've already stated, the willingness to allow off-topic discussions is to keep the baseball ones on-topic - the willingness is not to have 3 or 4 of the threads on hot topics be politics and another 2 or 3 be generic META complaining.

. Every person's most valuable property is themselves and it's a finite resource. When you take the product of someone's labors and give it to someone else, you're taking their time, so any restriction on this should, as a principle, be as minimal as possible.

Nieporent has used this line,too--which appears to view labor/salary as an extension of a corporeal model of the autonomous subject and therefore equates any redistirbution of the results of that labor with "serfdom" "at gunpoint" etc--thus making taxation an oppressie violation of said subject.

And, as I (and others) have said, the issue I have with that is that the results and valuation of labor in a multinational, service-based economy are not separate entities from our interaction with society. If, a la, say, Coke Stevenson, we were speaking from the perspective of someone who had built his house with his own hands and the help of family members or people he hired, and mostly lived off the land, doing a little trading and selling, the perspective would resonate more with me. In red/blue terms, I can see why a guy running a ranch in Idaho does not want to pay taxes to help schools in LA.

However, while it is as valid as any other first principle, when applied to this society, it seems to quickly just become a question of degree, as your post from a few weeks back when you said if you were named Dictator of the USA you would leave Medicaid etc. alone and would instead focus on scaling back governmental power demonstrated.

So now that all the pre-naughty posts on the Palin thread have been restored and the naughty post deleted, what's the point of now barring any future comments? Isn't that kind of like Lidice? [/testing, 1,2] Why not delete the naughty post and let the rest of us continue to enlighten the oppressed and embittered masses?

That wasn't why the thread was closed. As I've already stated, the willingness to allow off-topic discussions is to keep the baseball ones on-topic - the willingness is not to have 3 or 4 of the threads on hot topics be politics and another 2 or 3 be generic META complaining.

OK, that's cool. But you might want to re-state that policy as the final post to any closed thread, if only for the sake of the occasional newcomer who otherwise might think that his computer (or the site itself) is malfunctioning. It also makes it seem a lot less arbitrary.

However, while it is as valid as any other first principle, when applied to this society, it seems to quickly just become a question of degree, as your post from a few weeks back when you said if you were named Dictator of the USA you would leave Medicaid etc. alone and would instead focus on scaling back governmental power demonstrated.


Well, we were talking about a finite period of time and a manner of priorities. I find things like corporate welfare to be more immediate priorites and more easily addressed. Medicare's a difficult one to tackle and from a practical standpoint, we probably need an assist from technology.

OK, that's cool. But you might want to re-state that policy as the final post to any closed thread, if only for the sake of the occasional newcomer who otherwise might think that his computer (or the site itself) is malfunctioning. It also makes it seem a lot less arbitrary.

From GGC's post on the primer list, I'm thinking that simply having a dedicated political thread opened for that purpose might be a better idea.

From GGC's post on the primer list, I'm thinking that simply having a dedicated political thread opened for that purpose might be a better idea.

I have no idea what post you're referring to, but I think you're smart enough to know the importance of keeping a thread free flowing without letting it degenerate into personalities and personal insults.

As it's stood so far, I have to say that the level of political debate here, in spite of the occasional flame war, is a hell of a lot higher than it is on nearly any, if not every, news media or political site. But I'm not under any illusion that the unspoken threat of shutdown doesn't at least have something to do with that.

But I'm not under any illusion that the unspoken threat of shutdown doesn't at least have something to do with that.

Sure, but you also need the occasional pre-emptive strike. ;

I have no idea what post you're referring to

I asked what would happen if I wanted to actually talk about Bialik's article. I know that Delta Socrates hijacked this thread from the get go, but it's now virtually impossible to talk about TFA.

I have no idea what post you're referring to

I asked what would happen if I wanted to actually talk about Bialik's article. I know that Delta Socrates hijacked this thread from the get go, but it's now virtually impossible to talk about TFA.

Still not sure what thread that was, or what the offending post actually said, or when Delta Socrates pulled out his switchblade, or who Bialek is, or what Bialek's article was about. Other than that, I think I follow you.

who Bialek is, or what Bialek's article was about

This is unintentionally hilaripus.

Still not sure what thread that was

This one.

or what the offending post actually said

Read post #1.

or when Delta Socrates pulled out his switchblade

Read post #1.

or who Bialek is

The author of TFA.

or what Bialek's article was about.

RTFA.

You know who shut down the Palin thread? You might never know.

That one.

Bialik is the WSJ writer that's linked on this thread. From the fine article:

Dr. Loy reported that the percentage of black players in the majors had risen to 27% in 1975. Dr. Loy doesn't remember whether he used similar methodology to arrive at that statistic. "Most of the recent studies have better data sources," he says.

The statistic has been repeated by Richard Lapchick, founder and director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida. "I certainly don't remember how he calculated the statistic," Prof. Lapchick says, adding that it is possible Dr. Loy's number isn't comparable to more-recent data.

Mark Armour became suspicious of the stat as he was making an independent count of blacks in baseball as part of his research into how much teams that were slow to integrate hurt themselves on the field.

I saw Mark's presentation in Saint Louis last year, but I didn't realize what spurred his research.

So what percentage did Armour come up with? I was there, too, but I can't remember. It's always worth checking 'footnotes' carefully.