I suspect that Andy highlights my comments because a) I'm a relatively rare voice, b) I echo or reinforce much of what he says about race relations, but I have "street cred" in a way that he doesn't, c) he quotes things he likes a lot anyway.

I'm sure the actors and actresses understand what the risks are. Thus, no need for a law.

your apparent presumption that one side would still have a "rainbow of flavors" because they're better people

Blade Runner and Speilbergian A.I. aside - I have a hard time believing that androids would ever substitute for the old-fashioned role in the hay, even for mechanical, loveless sex... couple that with increased feminine sexual empowerment, maybe we'll have see an explosion in the world's oldest profession.

But both of those are too stringent. Republicans just need to run someone who is unapologetically pro-immigration, both in terms of its impact upon the country and in terms of favoring reasonable policies to deal with people who came here by some other means. Tone matters but policy matters, too. If they do that, I don't think the past 50 years will haunt them. I don't see an emphatically pro-immigration platform getting through the convention but stranger things have happened.

Harsher sentencing for crack cocaine was the result of Democratic legislation in the weeks after Len Bias died, while "stop and frisk" is the policy of a liberal mayor who endorsed Obama.

If your two best examples of institutional racism are Dem policies or policies of Dems in "independent" clothing, then maybe (1) there isn't as much racism in the U.S. as alleged, and (2) fingers shouldn't be so easily pointed at the GOP.

A good chunk of the population is not smart enough to handle those jobs, and the traditional jobs those people would ordinarily take will be mostly gone.

One generation's pathology is the next generation's fun-time hobby! I think your crime, alcoholism and druggies is a worst case dystopian scenario. It's possible that people will decide to travel, see the world, meet new peoples and cultures (robot boats taking the newly freed working classes around the world on month long holidays) which in turn will build understanding and trust between nations and cultures, reducing global violence and war. Art and literature becomes a common man's game. We shoot Lassus into outer space. Everyone wins.

This only works if you completely ignore history. As I've mentioned here countless times, the Reagan immigration amnesty in 1986 did little or nothing to win Latino votes over to the GOP.

I'm sure the actors and actresses understand what the risks are. Thus, no need for a law.

Wait, what? They are the rainbow party because they have folks of many genders, races, and sexual preferences in positions of power. People feel more comfortable with voting for the party that has all those people in power, thinking that people like them are more likely to share their concerns.

My concern is that it's not just "Puritanism" though. People with nothing to occupy their time create social pathologies. The ones who want status but have no outlet to do so through traditional means will turn to crime. Alcoholism and drug abuse become rampant. Depression and other mental illnesses become more common. There's a lot of evidence that it's not healthy for people to just do nothing.

One generation's pathology is the next generation's fun-time hobby! I think your crime, alcoholism and druggies is a worst case dystopian scenario. It's possible that people will decide to travel, see the world, meet new peoples and cultures (robot boats taking the newly freed working classes around the world on month long holidays) which in turn will build understanding and trust between nations and cultures, reducing global violence and war. Art and literature becomes a common man's game. We shoot Lassus into outer space. Everyone wins.

Blade Runner and Speilbergian A.I. aside - I have a hard time believing that androids would ever substitute for the old-fashioned role in the hay, even for mechanical, loveless sex... couple that with increased feminine sexual empowerment, maybe we'll have see an explosion in the world's oldest profession.

I honestly wish I knew what "grabbed a turnip" is a euphemism for.

I'm focusing on the near future. It's 2025 and effective unemployment is ~40% and holding steady, with very few job opportunities for unskilled or semiskilled workers. There's no money for that 40% to travel and see the world; they're poor, living in government subsidized housing, eating government subsidized food, and living on the dole. We've already seen what that looks like, both in the US and overseas; it looks a lot like my 5979.

That said, we should still shoot Lassus into outer space.

Should I ever become Richard Branson rich, I'm totally going to shoot Lassus into space.

I don't think this is really true. There is still energy to be input into the system. A dumber person might be not very efficient at data collection and management, but it's not impossible. How is this different from saying, in 1880 - that the vast majority of people are incapable of learning to read so will be shut out of the reading-based economy. Human brains -- even below average ones -- are incredibly good at some kinds of data processing.

his idea that the Dems have a monopoly on diversity is nonsense.

What are you talking about?

With or without a rocket?

his idea that the Dems have a monopoly on diversity is nonsense.

It's true. We do often undersell the GOP's rainbow coalition of racists and demagogues. I mean, Sean Hannity is totally not like Glenn Beck at all!

This idea that the Dems have a monopoly on diversity is nonsense.

The real issues isn't android women replacing real women, but android men, as in AI.

Joe, I know following a thread can be tough in conversations like this, but my point, which you immediately parsed in a Democrat/Republican binary, was in response to SBB's claim that there's nothing we can do to address systemic/institutional racism. It's actually the opposite-- because it lives in institutions, and people create and maintain those institutions, there are things we can do to fix them. But immediately, you go back to the "your guy" vs. "my guy" thinking. I voted against Bloomberg when I had the chance, in large part because he maintained or intensified Giuliani's absurd and racist policing policies.

As to your "suppressed" video: You already stated your conclusion. Every piece of data you find is just further evidence used in support of that conclusion. Which is precisely how the research on media bias predicts you'll act. So I dismiss your faith-based 'reasoning' on the subject as just that.

Do Jews vote Democratic because they want free stuff or because they hate Jesus?

It's 2025

What are you talking about? Blacks and Latinos were voting overwhelmingly for Dems long before Obama came along. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 promoted Colin Powell into ever more prominent roles. Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush 43 had a black secretary of state for all 8 years of his presidency, a Latino attorney general, a Latino commerce secretary, and Asian-American secretaries of labor and transportation, along with countless women in positions of authority. The GOP currently has more Latino U.S. senators and governors than the Dems (which has 1 and 0, respectively).

Do Jews vote Democratic because they want free stuff or because they hate Jesus?

How about we have a conversation about the Boxer Rebellion? The Golden Horde? The Great Bengal Famine of 1943?

Was the near-total whiteness of the crowd in Boston two nights ago simply camera angles?

How about Asians? More free stuff mongers I guess.

Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes.

Let's set aside for a moment the idea and natural susceptibility to wanting 'more' - i.e., I might say that give me a decent enough clean and safe domicile, the means to power/heat/cool it as necessary, and sustenance enough not to go hungry - and I'll happily spend the rest of my life in thought, learning, and play, even though the reality is that then, I'd probably want a country home, a ski villa, and maybe a lakehouse... plus a bottle of Hendricks every week, the finest cut of beef for dinner, etc... but set that aside.

I do think that I could keep myself occupied with enough intellectual pursuits and (benign) leisure activities. I don't actually travel for leisure all that much, but there are definitely enough places on earth that I'd like to see to keep me traveling for more than a few years. I read a fair bit, but free up 10 more hours a day - and I'm certain I'd never run out of material enough to use up a couple of them. I enjoy movies, television, and even plays/etc -- but haven't seen or watched nearly as much as I'd like. I'd love to learn a number of foreign languages -- always wanted to become fluent enough in Russian to read Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky in the original. Since I've recently become a fair bit more physically active -- a weekly baseball game would suit me fine.

Of course, we always worry -- but -- what about the other guy....

The simplest way to read this is Republicans can do better with Latinos--not win maybe but do better--when they advocate more pro-immigrant policies. When they don't, they don't get any support.

That issue has been used as an anti-GOP talking point for decades despite being patently false.

We know the video exists. We know CBS didn't release it for almost two months. We know Obama directly contradicts a claim he made in the second presidential debate. You've offered no explanations for the video not being released, yet you expect us to believe your declarations that there's no such thing as media bias. It appears your belief is much more religious than mine.

I can't compete against a robot Jude Law.

Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?

So you're saying white men can jump?

??? Reagan won 40% of the Latino vote. Then Pete Wilson and Pat Buchanan in different ways pushed the Republican Party as the home of real Americans, and Latino vote plummeted in 96. G W Bush ran as a moderate with open-ended policy proposals, and did much better. McCain had an interesting past but was trapped by the campaign into a rigid spot and declined. Romney ditto with even more decline.

The simplest way to read this is Republicans can do better with Latinos--not win maybe but do better--when they advocate more pro-immigrant policies. When they don't, they don't get any support.

I think you're skipping ahead to the post-scarcity part. Everything breaks down at that point, because we have no meaningful frame of reference for what such a world would look like.

I'm focusing on the near future. It's 2025 and effective unemployment is ~40% and holding steady, with very few job opportunities for unskilled or semiskilled workers. There's no money for that 40% to travel and see the world; they're poor, living in government subsidized housing, eating government subsidized food, and living on the dole. We've already seen what that looks like, both in the US and overseas; it looks a lot like my 5979. That said, we should still shoot Lassus into outer space.

What are you talking about? Blacks and Latinos were voting overwhelmingly for Dems long before Obama came along. Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 promoted Colin Powell into ever more prominent roles. Bush 41 nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. Bush 43 had a black secretary of state for all 8 years of his presidency, a Latino attorney general, a Latino commerce secretary, and Asian-American secretaries of labor and transportation, along with countless women in positions of authority. The GOP currently has more Latino U.S. senators and governors than the Dems (which has 1 and 0, respectively).

You haven't met Don Nelson and his collection of white centers for the Warriors during his coaching career.

2025 is really, really soon in terms of technological change. Check out Minority Report-- where they hired 'futurologists' to create a realistic vision of what the world would like like in 2054. Their assertion was that social and economic change, at the macro level, happens on a way less compressed timeline than we imagine/want it to.

So you invented a straw man to fight! And you beat him up! Wow, you're so good at this.

I haven't offered an explanation for a lot of things. This is not proof of media bias. You haven't offered any evidence that it is media bias, other than "it fits my preconceived narrative that the media's in the tank for Obama, so all other possibilities are simply foreclosed."

Boston's not exactly noted for its diversity in the first place...

The overthrough of Mossadegh is quite interesting. You have Ottamanish Iran, Cold War, Islamicists, depravity, a real melange. Patriot of Persia: Muhammad Mossadegh and a Tragic Anglo-American Coup.:

Fact-checking Joe is a full-time job, but for the record, there are currently 7 Hispanic U.S. Senators, 4 of whom are Democrats.

You haven't met Don Nelson and his collection of white centers for the Warriors during his coaching career.

Boston stats from the 2010 census:

The GOP currently has more Latino U.S. senators and governors than the Dems (which has 1 and 0, respectively).

Fact-checking Joe is a full-time job, but for the record, there are currently 7 Hispanic U.S. Senators, 4 of whom are Democrats.

There are 49 Hispanic U.S. Congressmen, 35 of whom are Democrats, 1 affiliated with both parties, and 13 of whom are Republicans. Of course Joe doesn't mention that.

But yes, there is one Hispanic governor**, and yes, she is a Republican. Big whoops.

**There may be more, but I'm going by the names. I don't see any overall list of Hispanic governors.

Probably no way to get around a visionary strongman/regime that certainly has a lot in common with history's dictatorial regimes...

Our problem is that 1)we've proven time and again that as a species, we are terribly, terribly awful at recognizing when that appropriate epoch is upon us, 2)we'd need the benevolent sort, and those are even rarer if not non-existent, who'd 'release us' when post-scarcity became a reality, 3)what do you about the people that aren't ready/don't want to participate for whatever reason.

As rough as that sounds, the alternatives might well be worse -- some sort of horrific selection process, some sort of age-related "old world people" vs "new world people" cut-off...

...or maybe, if we DO shoot Lassus into space, he'll just return at the appropriate time ala Buck Rogers!

Boston's not exactly noted for its diversity in the first place...

currently 7 Hispanic U.S. Senators

and 75 percent of Latinos tell pollsters they want a bigger government with more services

So they voted for the guy whose policy proposals matched their interests, and also happened to not be running as the candidate repping the party that alienates and hates on them with vigor? Weird.

Nor, of course, is he truly willing to let "individuals ... negotiate meanings in their own contexts." Only certain people get to do that, so long as they "negotiate" certain meanings.

it is valuable to have a whole roster of future Luis Gutiérrez' available...

Best case would probably be the development of godlike AI that maintains an inexplicable fondness for humans similar to the fondness many humans have for cats. Something along the lines of the Culture novels from Iain Banks. If we're ridiculously, win-the-lottery lucky, that's what we'll end up with.

Your line of thinking reflects the exact problem. You think in terms of individuals. You keep saying, "but we have one of those!" like minorities are collectibles. Structurally, does the Republican Party discuss the issues of these communities and explain why Republican policies will help? It's like someone saying that Thurgood Marshall was able to get a law degree, so black people in the 40's and 50's were just whining. Democrats never talk about "who" they have.

It's not necessary. Are there too few at top positions? Yes. But Democrats have a much deeper bench. Without any big names at all (remove Jindal, Haley, Rubio, Martinez), where are the brown faces? When there are rallies, why are there so few minorities? The Democratic congressional delegation now has non-Hispanic white men as a minority of their caucus.

Do Jews vote Democratic because they want free stuff or because they hate Jesus?

Well, we all know who killed Him, don't we?

This, from yesterday, is #1 in my all-time (not very long) post-election tirades.

This guy needs to hook up with Elaine Benes, so they could be the King and Queen of Confrontation. And in the spirit of this "Libertarian Republican" (which is what he calls himself), anyone who doesn't like quotes can just #### off:

You require a risky and complicated brain surgery, one that is performed by only two neurosurgeons in the country. One is a Republican and the other is a Democrat, but the Republican is generally unknown, and the Democrat was just heralded by Time Magazine as the nation's best neurosurgeon. Everything else — the cost, location, etc. — is the same. Which doctor do you choose?

Simple: Avoid them both. Go to Mexico for your medical treatment. Avoid all the red tape and bureaucracy.

Boston's not exactly noted for its diversity in the first place, but wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans while poorer people tend to vote for Democrats.

Sure, both parties have their 'dynasties' -- but next FL Senate cycle, will the GOP be running Connie Mack XIV, or, do they have another Marco Rubio?

And now they worship a king in a pointy hat what sits on this throne in Rome.

Boston's not exactly noted for its diversity in the first place...

DA Baracus just broke the thread. That's going to cost him votes in 2014.

currently 7 Hispanic U.S. Senators


Camilo Pascual, Aurelio Rodriguez ...

Oh.

"Currently."

Never mind.

*sigh*

this idea that white Dems can't wait to vote for blacks and Latinos is assuming a lot of facts not in evidence.

I liked the reference, YR!

A great performance ruined in a crappy movie. That romantic subplot was worse than worthless.

New York Magazine interviewed him (well, through email).

Nope, I fixed it. Baracusmentum!

That's why we all voted against whatshisface--Barney Omaba or something--in the 2008 primaries.

Barney Omaba didn't even win enough delegates during the primary to seal the nomination. That's another of those pesky facts revisionist Dems like to leave out of the narrative.

Barney Omaba didn't even win enough delegates during the primary to seal the nomination. That's another of those pesky facts revisionist Dems like to leave out of the narrative.

What on earth are you babbling about here?

Uh, wot now?

I gotta give the Unskewed Polls guy credit. Unlike the bloviators like Rove and Will, he's admitted he was wrong and has tipped his cap to Nate. And he's not taking his site down.

I'll credit him when he apologizes for the gay-baiting of Silver.

Joe is presumably referring to the fact that, while Obama won more than half of the delegates awarded in the primaries, he didn't win by so much that he could take the nomination without support from superdelegates. I'm not sure what this proves, but there it is.

Joe is presumably referring to the fact that, while Obama won more than half of the delegates awarded in the primaries, he didn't win by so much that he could take the nomination without support from superdelegates. I'm not sure what this proves, but there it is.

I'd love to know how, sitting from his perch in Libertaria, Obama is a plague to him but Romney is just fine. From where he is sitting they should both be unacceptable.