>> ^jimnms:

They didn't cherry pick the interviews? They got off the plane and didn't seek out any of these people? I call bull shit. Bill says he plans to send her back to interview people in the "inner city," but if they flew in commercially they would have been in Jackson, which like most larger cities in other states is fairly liberal (compared to the rest of the state). I know at least three of the interviews are in my home town (I know because I recognize the places in the background) which is probably one of the most liberal places in MS due to the two government research facilities here, which means lots of scientists and educated people, and yet still lots of morons like in the video. My home town is 60% black, Jackson (the capitol) is 70% black, yet 100% of the people they interviewed were white. It looks to me like they got off the plane and drove straight out into the backwoods, and/or looked for the nearest Walmart.


Maybe if you argue hard enough you'll convince us that there are no morons in your state. It doesn't bother me that they cherry picked...it bothers me that these people exist.

From TPM:

The “controversy” around President Obama’s 1990 speech at Harvard on the occasion of the late Professor Bell’s decision to take a leave of absence to protest Harvard’s hiring practices is shameful in what it implies (full disclosure — Professor Bell taught me Constitutional Law at NYU during his self-imposed exile from Harvard).

The implication is that Professor Bell was some kind of violent radical racist. Professor Bell was a HERO who dedicated his life to desegregating the United States. From his job as the only black lawyer in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in the 1950’s, to his work alongside Thurgood Marshall bringing hundreds of desegregation actions in Mississippi, right up to his leaving Harvard, Professor Bell lived what he preached. That his life’s work was radical or provocative says more about how far we have left to go. If its radical to be appalled that Harvard Law School had no women law professors and only five black male law professors among hundreds of professors, then the world could use a lot more radicals. And to tarnish his reputation as simply anti-white is false and totally and intentionally missing the point. I hope to see President Obama speak about Professor Bell, in prime time, on all networks, if for no other reason than this was an American hero that more people should know about and take inspiration from.

>> ^transporter:

I feel your empathy towards wildlife, but if you lived near the Mississippi River you would understand. I don't know if you noticed but those sliver carp get pretty big and they jump out of the river when they hear a motor. So yeah, pretty much makes boating impossible, and there have been cases where people have been put in comas or worse from them. Not to mention they kill off all the native fish populations....and their next destination is the great lakes. So its tough to care about how it gets done --> these fish need to die. Slow, quick, I don't care, but they need to be culled big time.
The Mississippi is fucked up and the entire ecosystem of the great lakes is in jeopardy. This is a cause that unites sport fishermen (billion dollar industry in great lakes) and environmentalists alike. Although these guys aren't going to spokesperson for PETA anytime soon, the carp isn't exactly a higher life form. The farming industry does much worse to higher functioning animals. I think here the ends justify the means.
Anyhow, I thought this was hilarious.>> ^artician:
I'm not exactly an animal rights person, but I was a little miffed at the fact that they basically just maim the majority of the fish they hit.
Early in the video the guy with the machete even cuts a fin off of one. You know that fish lived, and it kind of sucks to think about.
For me...
Again, not an animal rights person, (maybe I am and don't know it?) but this is a good example of humans just fucking up their world and the species they share it with for fun.



Hah! Not a perspective I had previously thought of. Thanks for shedding some light on it for me!

I feel your empathy towards wildlife, but if you lived near the Mississippi River you would understand. I don't know if you noticed but those sliver carp get pretty big and they jump out of the river when they hear a motor. So yeah, pretty much makes boating impossible, and there have been cases where people have been put in comas or worse from them. Not to mention they kill off all the native fish populations....and their next destination is the great lakes. So its tough to care about how it gets done --> these fish need to die. Slow, quick, I don't care, but they need to be culled big time.

The Mississippi is fucked up and the entire ecosystem of the great lakes is in jeopardy. This is a cause that unites sport fishermen (billion dollar industry in great lakes) and environmentalists alike. Although these guys aren't going to spokesperson for PETA anytime soon, the carp isn't exactly a higher life form. The farming industry does much worse to higher functioning animals. I think here the ends justify the means.

Anyhow, I thought this was hilarious.>> ^artician:

I'm not exactly an animal rights person, but I was a little miffed at the fact that they basically just maim the majority of the fish they hit.
Early in the video the guy with the machete even cuts a fin off of one. You know that fish lived, and it kind of sucks to think about.
For me...
Again, not an animal rights person, (maybe I am and don't know it?) but this is a good example of humans just fucking up their world and the species they share it with for fun.

@quantumushroom, sounds to me like that's 5 different ways of saying slavery.

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South

From the site you cited:

[T]he southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture.

So, the Southern economy was based on slavery, the Northern economy wasn't.


2. States versus federal rights

As I said before, the origin of this concept was the schism over slavery. The South wanted to be able to hold slaves, and the North wanted them free. The compromise was the concept of "state's rights".


3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents

Hey, that one's obviously about slavery.


4. Growth of the Abolition Movement

Uhh, that one too.


5. The election of Abraham Lincoln

From the site you cited:

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its "Declaration of the Causes of Secession." They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.

And yes, Lincoln said otherwise. Amazingly enough, the South projected all their worst fears and prejudices on a well educated, liberal, African-friendly President from Illinois back in 1860 too.

as long as i'm not later portrayed by Ralph Macchio, i'm good yeah...

(for all the cheese in that movie, it's still got 2 or 3 incredibly memorable moments that had a hand in my try at guitar playing as a youth)


>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^pho3n1x:
I'd sell my soul to be able to play harp like that...

Well son, there's a certain crossroads. Lies just south of Clarksdale Mississippi. Where Highway 61 and Highway 49 meet is the spot where the King of the Delta Blues, Mr. Robert Johnson, made his deal with Old Scratch himself- you might know him better as the Devil.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?daddr=Mississippi+322,+Clarksdale,+MS+38614,+USA&hl=en&sll=34.168734,-90.549767&sspn=0.
007465,0.016512&geocode=CbR02FDY8kQt
Fa5fCQId_FKa-il5lRRVOd4qhjFsHgBZXf1IEw&vpsrc=0&mra=mift&t=h&z=17
Get yourself there and you can have what you want, but are you really willing to pay the price?
<iframe width="425" height="350" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=d&source=s_d&saddr=&daddr=Mississippi+322,+Clarksdale,+MS+38614,+USA&hl=en&geocode=CbR02FDY8kQtF

a5fCQId_FKa-il5lRRVOd4qhjFsHgBZXf1IEw&sll=34.168734,-90.549767&sspn=0.007465,0.016512&vpsrc=0&g=34.168787,-90.549565&mra=mift&

ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=34.168734,-90.549767&spn=0.007465,0.016512&output=embed"></iframe>
<a rel="nofollow" href="http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=d&source=embed&saddr=&daddr=Mississippi+322,+Clarksdale,+MS+38614,+USA&hl=en&geocode=CbR02FDY8k

QtFa5fCQId_FKa-il5lRRVOd4qhjFsHgBZXf1IEw&sll=34.168734,-90.549767&sspn=0.007465,0.016512&vpsrc=0&g=34.168787,-90.549565&mra=mift&a
mp;a
mp;ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=34.168734,-90.549767&spn=0.007465,0.016512" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map

>> ^pho3n1x:

I'd sell my soul to be able to play harp like that...


Well son, there's a certain crossroads. Lies just south of Clarksdale Mississippi. Where Highway 61 and Highway 49 meet is the spot where the King of the Delta Blues, Mr. Robert Johnson, made his deal with Old Scratch himself- you might know him better as the Devil.

http://g.co/maps/kgu25

Get yourself there and you can have what you want, but are you really willing to pay the price?

That's good assuming there, Lou!

So you're saying the US government is going to specially treat certain groups poorly because Ron Paul would be in office? FAIL.

go to Mississippi, talk to anyone black over the age of 60 about life before the late 1960s. Then ask them if federal enforcement of civil rights helped at all.

The civil rights act helped primarily because it prevented the public institutions run by the local, state, and federal government from discriminating. We definitely have a problem when the government treats people unequally. And yes, I'm sure that there were some private institutions that did more than inconvenience minorities before the 1960s because they discriminated, but guess what? That's not applicable today. If Taco Bell says no more white people allowed, the white people will go next door! Barely even an inconvenience.

You don't care because you don't think you will be turned away from buying goods or services. Not your problem.

This is where you show that you're just trolling and not actually serious. If you were serious, you wouldn't make an ass out of yourself by ass-uming.

>> ^longde:

No, the reason I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul is because of his specific position on a specific piece of legislation and policy.
Special (negative) treatment for certain groups is what I don't want. I'm not even talking about affirmative action (where did that come from?), I'm talking about the civil rights act of 64.
"Social change comes from social elements, not the government. A person feels much more pressure from their peers than from laws."
As one example out of many, go to Mississippi, talk to anyone black over the age of 60 about life before the late 1960s. Then ask them if federal enforcement of civil rights helped at all.
As for businesses not allowing a certain group or groups to buy from them, and people putting up signs of "none of your kind here"... who cares?
You don't care because you don't think you will be turned away from buying goods or services. Not your problem.
Let that occur on the state level, if it's needed at all. Could it cause certain states to become more racist? Sure, but that would only hurt that state more in the long run.
I'm sure any brown citizen in Arizona strongly disagrees. Again, you don't care because you don't think you'll ever be affected negatively.


I'm sure any brown citizen in Arizona strongly disagrees. Again, you don't care because you don't think you'll ever be affected negatively.

Again, we're talking about government legislation. Silly laws get passed all the time. In this case it has surely hurt Arizona already, and will continue to hurt them. I'd say 'let them be dumb', but in this case we don't really need to, as I doubt their law is constitutional.

No, the reason I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul is because of his specific position on a specific piece of legislation and policy.

Special (negative) treatment for certain groups is what I don't want. I'm not even talking about affirmative action (where did that come from?), I'm talking about the civil rights act of 64.

"Social change comes from social elements, not the government. A person feels much more pressure from their peers than from laws."

As one example out of many, go to Mississippi, talk to anyone black over the age of 60 about life before the late 1960s. Then ask them if federal enforcement of civil rights helped at all.

As for businesses not allowing a certain group or groups to buy from them, and people putting up signs of "none of your kind here"... who cares?

You don't care because you don't think you will be turned away from buying goods or services. Not your problem.

Let that occur on the state level, if it's needed at all. Could it cause certain states to become more racist? Sure, but that would only hurt that state more in the long run.

I'm sure any brown citizen in Arizona strongly disagrees. Again, you don't care because you don't think you'll ever be affected negatively.

@Boise_Lib, bad analogy...."What would have been the result of letting Mississippi set it's own standards on letting Black people vote?". Voting is a "rights" issue and our rights come from the Constitution that apply to all citizens of this country and therefore becomes a federal issue by default. State Education is not a rights issue and therefore does not require control by the Federal government.

@heropsycho, I did not use NCLB as the "reason" to get rid of the Fed DOE. It was an example of one of it's problems and how it is not that easy to "just change the bad policy" when the power is so far removed from the people and their local schools.

Again I ask...what was wrong with our school systems pre 1980 that have been so vastly improved after 1980?

@dystopianfuturetoday

The points you made about Reagan are correct, but you left out the most insidious--and pertinent to this conversation--action of the Reaganites*.

When they found they couldn't abolish a department, or regulatory body, they appointed a lap dog to oversee that department. Reagan's head of the Department of Education was William (come on number 7!) Bennett (who went on to be the Drug Czar under Bush the First). Bennett implemented "reforms" to the Dept. of Ed. such as:

Competency testing for teachers
Opening the teaching profession to "knowledgeable" individuals who have _not_ graduated from "schools of education"
Performance-based pay
National examination of students
Holding educators accountable for how the children do on tests.
Parental choice of schools

These all sound innocent enough--but are all terrible ideas. These "reforms" are what opened the "teach to the test" mentality and started the decline of American Education.

These actions (not only in the Dept. of Ed.) also set up the guvment=bad meme.

As to @Grimm's statement, "Why do you have a problem with putting that power back in the hands of the states?" What would have been the result of letting Mississippi set it's own standards on letting Black people vote?

BTW, Dr. Paul kicked Schieffer's ass over the, "Nobody is saying Bomb Iran" fuck-up.

*I don't directly blame Ronnie.
At this point he was playing with Jelly Beans and asking, "What day is it, Mommy?"

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Phreezdryd:
Split the country in half and let the democrats and republicans do whatever they think is right in their half.

We did that once, but the two halves started shooting at each other pretty much right away.

It was either that or parallel earths.

>> ^Phreezdryd:

Split the country in half and let the democrats and republicans do whatever they think is right in their half.


We did that once, but the two halves started shooting at each other pretty much right away.

>> ^lucky760:

Happy Birthday!


Thanks. I get to spend this birthday on a business trip working at a shipyard in Mississippi! WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE