A nation of cowards

[Jester]

@ jester:

Your appeal to special victim status is noted, yet you now play bait and switch, or perhaps a goal post move, pick your rhetorical term to suit, attempting to clothe it by juxtaposition, as a matter of race.

Do you see what you did there?

Was it intentional?

Could you perhaps make that slightly less gnomic?

This thread is more or less all about matters of race, isn't it?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Could you perhaps make that slightly less gnomic? This thread is more or less all about matters of race, isn't it?
-Jester

If it was, why did you drag in the other alleged victims into the discussion?

Beyond my partial agreement with Holder in the basic matter, much of this thread does not interest me enough to comment beyond what's already been said.

Occhi

[Jester]

If it was, why did you drag in the other alleged victims into the discussion?

I didn't. Those issues are from one Mr. Larry Pinkey, who Kandrathe brought up earlier in the thread. I was merely responding to that.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Could you perhaps cite another example of Mr. Holder's supposed hypocrisy? I'm really unconvinced by this first one, so maybe context would help.

Ok, Eric Holder is a product of of the last all male graduating class at Stuyvesant which is accused by ACORN in Secret Apartheid. "The most blatant illustration of the long term results of narrowing our children's options can be found in the composition of the student body at New York City's premier academic high schools: Stuyvesant and Bronx Science." The same Eric Holder who while studying law at Columbia, self segregated himself by joining "Concerned Black Men", clerking for the NAACP and played for the basketball team. Certainly, if he was courageous, would he not have sought out more integrative activities? You know break down some of those cultural race barriers, like work for a New York law firm, or join the fencing team. Here is a man who was recognized in the 4th grade for his talent, and has been given every opportunity (more so than most) to build a stellar career, and he did. It is obvious to me that his speech given during the first Black History Month during the administration of the first Black president is political grandstanding at best, and race hustling at its worst. I'm sure he's worked hard, and has struggled with many adversities during his career so far, but it is nothing compared to the hardships suffered by 99.9% of this nations blacks. Eric Holder is one of those people, like President Obama, that has discovered that in the US today, if you try to use your brain and make something of yourself, you actually can do it. So, my question to Mr. Holder, and to Pres. Obama is how do we turn from the negative to the positive in convincing our young people that opportunity exists for all races if they apply themselves. How do we deter those things that distract young people from achieving their highest potential?

The answer is not the ACORN strategy of changing the tests so that more minorities can get into Stuyvesant, but rather ask why some children are not learning the materials on the SHSAT test. Was equality in education not the reason for the vast sums of money that have been poured into government run schools for the past four decades? Where is the accountability for our efforts in this regard? The price per student has doubled, the class sizes have decreased, the salaries of teachers increased, and the number of bureaucrats has doubled and yet the literacy rates have dropped, and the number of students moving into the sciences has decreased. What went wrong?

Hypocritical at least of the justice system is the case of Holder's involvement with President Clinton in pardoning the fugitive billionaire Marc Rich. Because, you know that wealthy criminals make the best campaign contributors. The huffy post has another article relating to Eric Holder's role in getting the Marc Rich pardon.

I think Eric Holder is the wrong man for AG, because like too many other people in government, he uses racism as a political weapon, and in terms of justice he's been a part of the DOJ problem. He has already spoken out about censoring free speech on the internet, he has already declared war on the 2nd amendment, and according to this article he is also heedless in his violation of the 6th amendment.

[Jester]

Ok, Eric Holder is a product of of the last all male graduating class at Stuyvesant which is accused by ACORN in Secret Apartheid. "The most blatant illustration of the long term results of narrowing our children's options can be found in the composition of the student body at New York City's premier academic high schools: Stuyvesant and Bronx Science." The same Eric Holder who while studying law at Columbia, self segregated himself by joining "Concerned Black Men", clerking for the NAACP and played for the basketball team. Certainly, if he was courageous, would he not have sought out more integrative activities? You know break down some of those cultural race barriers, like work for a New York law firm, or join the fencing team. Here is a man who was recognized in the 4th grade for his talent, and has been given every opportunity (more so than most) to build a stellar career, and he did. It is obvious to me that his speech given during the first Black History Month during the administration of the first Black president is political grandstanding at best, and race hustling at its worst. I'm sure he's worked hard, and has struggled with many adversities during his career so far, but it is nothing compared to the hardships suffered by 99.9% of this nations blacks. Eric Holder is one of those people, like President Obama, that has discovered that in the US today, if you try to use your brain and make something of yourself, you actually can do it. So, my question to Mr. Holder, and to Pres. Obama is how do we turn from the negative to the positive in convincing our young people that opportunity exists for all races if they apply themselves. How do we deter those things that distract young people from achieving their highest potential?

So, if I have the story straight: a talented black student is among the first to break into an otherwise race-and-gender segregated elite NY school. He plays basketball and clerks for the NAACP. He does not fence, and he does not work for a NY law firm. (He presumably has also never been to the moon, does not play Jai-Alai, has no advanced degree in comparative literature, and is not transgendered.) Presumably, he did not face the worst of the hardships that most black people in America face. He makes the most of his opportunities, and now holds one of the highest offices in the land. From that exalted perch, he makes a speech saying that Americans need to talk more courageously about race.

I'm sorry, I'm really not seeing how this is in any regard hypocritical. Should he have not succeeded? Should he have maybe taken a few years off to roll with a street gang to establish his cred? Should he have taken up activities he didn't like in order to make a point? Should he have refused to be among the first minority students to go to Stuyvesant on principle? Maybe you'll really have to spell it out for me, because I'm totally not getting it.

The answer is not the ACORN strategy of changing the tests so that more minorities can get into Stuyvesant, but rather ask why some children are not learning the materials on the SHSAT test. Was equality in education not the reason for the vast sums of money that have been poured into government run schools for the past four decades? Where is the accountability for our efforts in this regard? The price per student has doubled, the class sizes have decreased, the salaries of teachers increased, and the number of bureaucrats has doubled and yet the literacy rates have dropped, and the number of students moving into the sciences has decreased. What went wrong?

Does this have anything to do with Eric Holder, other than the incidental fact that he went to Stuyvesant?

Hypocritical at least of the justice system is the case of Holder's involvement with President Clinton in pardoning the fugitive billionaire Marc Rich. Because, you know that wealthy criminals make the best campaign contributors. The huffy post has another article relating to Eric Holder's role in getting the Marc Rich pardon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Marc Rich pardon has exactly nothing to do with race. Is this some other kind of hypocrisy? Or is anyone associated with that event automatically a hypocrite? Do you have evidence that Marc Rich donated any money to Holder? Perhaps this is all every bit as sketchy as his critics are making it out to be. Maybe he was carrying water for Clinton, or maybe there's some other force at work. But even so, I don't see how it makes him a hypocrite.

I think Eric Holder is the wrong man for AG, because like too many other people in government, he uses racism as a political weapon, and in terms of justice he's been a part of the DOJ problem. He has already spoken out about censoring free speech on the internet, he has already declared war on the 2nd amendment, and according to this article he is also heedless in his violation of the 6th amendment.

Fine and good. You don't like him, no surprise there. But that is a different thing from hypocrisy.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . He does not fence, . . .

Well, that's enough in itself to indict him for almost anything.;)

"There are fencers, potential fencers, and hopeless invalids." -- Aldo Nadi

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm sorry, I'm really not seeing how this is in any regard hypocritical. Should he have not succeeded? ... Maybe you'll really have to spell it out for me, because I'm totally not getting it. Does this have anything to do with Eric Holder, other than the incidental fact that he went to Stuyvesant?

Hypocrisy is calling out one thing (e.g. that we are a nation of cowards who choose self segregation due to our inherent racism), while at the same time living the life he condemns in others. It's more than the obvious race baiting during his black history month speech, it's that his entire life has been one of privilege and pre-paved success although his rhetoric is an attempt to be another of the anointed disciples of Dr. King. I'm glad he is successful, and that our system works for people who are smart and apply themselves to learning. It is hypocrisy to point at the very practices he derides, while his career has been rife with the same, and his playing the race card whenever he needs it. There are many, many people who were not born to the silver spoon fed elite who are bright, industrious, and eventually make something of their lives. I live in one of the most vibrant immigration communities in the US. For some reason, Minneapolis has been a target destination for resettling vast immigrant populations for over 100 years. This includes my own grandparents. I've watched first generation, and 2nd generation Hmong families work hard and grow very big and successful businesses, while at the same time multi-generation welfare families continue to struggle for jobs and rent money. I live in one of the most socialist, progressive, and liberal (in the sense of handing out money) in the entire USA. And, we have the same problems in the black community here that are experienced around the nation.

Are there problems in the Black community in the USA? Most definitely. Has Eric Holder had the guts to really address the causes? Certainly not. Rather, he barks the tired old civil rights refrain that has been handed down for 3 or 4 generations, racism and now institutional racism. This is the hypocrisy. What Eric Holder should be saying is "Look at me! Look at Barak Obama!" "America is changing for the better, so you too should work hard, study hard, and invest yourself in America".

I don't have the means to investigate the slurry of dirty money that fuels the Democratic machine. Let's just say that Denise Eisenberg Rich continues to successfully use her 5th amendment rights, and her ex-husband has elected to remain in exile where the banks, and government do not ask questions. Holder has not sought elected office, but has been a rising star of political appointment going back to the Reagan era. I wouldn't be surprised to find the trail of political corruption in Washington doesn't lead through NYC and Chicago.

[Hammerskjold]

Hi,
Well, that's enough in itself to indict him for almost anything.;)

"There are fencers, potential fencers, and hopeless invalids." -- Aldo Nadi

--Pete

Hmm, so what you guys want is a courageous man, who can fence (presumably to cut the red tape strangling government) and who does not have an irrational fear and loathing of firearms. Being black doesn't hurt either.

Gentlemen. I believe I know of one such candidate for the AG.




Pros:

- Forget fencing. This man can wield the blade in real combat.
- Does not play the mug's game of pistols=bad, hunter's shotgun=good. He has used both in the fight against the Vampire Nation, so you can rest assured he's going to respect the 2nd Amendment.
- Not just a black man, but a Daywalker. So when he talks about vampirism, he's got cred.

Cons:

- Need for daily blood serum injection can, and will be misconstrued by the MainStreamMedia as a drug habit.
His supporters needs to counter that nasty rumour by stating the truth. His blood serum is the equivalent of an insulin shot. And comparatively speaking, the amount of blood he needs is still low next to most other vampi..I mean politicians.

- Currently has a small problem with taxes.

Counterpoint:

- A small problem with taxes never hurt other political candidates chances. See T. Geitner.

Possible bonus solution:

Nominate this brave Daywalker for both AG and Treasury Czar.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pros:

You left out that he's played by an actor, and nowadays acting is almost a perquisite for a successful political career.

- Forget fencing. This man can wield the blade in real combat.

I've seen the movies. He needs a much better fight choreographer. Unless the fights are meant as humor, that is.

--Pete

[Jester]

Perhaps I will simply have to remain confused, then. Nothing you have said makes any sense to me, least of all to defend an accusation of hypocrisy.

There are many, many people who were not born to the silver spoon fed elite who are bright, industrious, and eventually make something of their lives.

The idea that Eric Holder has led a life of pre-paved success is simply patent nonsense, and that appears to be the only cogent hook for your argument. His father migrated from Barbados. He grew up in a predominantly immigrant area of Queens. Where's the elite? Where's the silver spoon? The privelege? The pre-paved success? Sounds to me like he got where he is because he was smart, he worked hard, and he channeled his ambition into a successful career.

The rest is just a jumble of red herrings, alongside the perplexing argument that people are hypocrites when they disagree with you on matters of race.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't have the means to investigate the slurry of dirty money that fuels the Democratic machine.

So why assume there is any at all?

Holder has not sought elected office, but has been a rising star of political appointment going back to the Reagan era.

As have been many of all political stripes. For one thing, many believe that the true power is behind the scenes (possibly true, I don't know) especially since the professional bureaucrat doesn't have to spend most of his time sucking up to the voters. For another, with the prevalence of TV, politics has become mostly a beauty contest and a popularity contest in which looks trump ability and charisma trumps all. Which probably accounts for so many actors getting into politics.

Back room deals and dealers have been with us, probably, since the first proto-human group followed a leader. Why is it now, under a Democratic administration, that it bothers you so much?

I wouldn't be surprised to find the trail of political corruption in Washington doesn't lead through NYC and Chicago.

Given that the Libertarians will not control any part of the government for our lifetimes (and I plan to live forever), why have you been so much less critical of the Republicans over the past eight years than you have of the Democrats over the last two months? Wouldn't a sense of fairness at least force you to wait till they've f**ked up the country by, say, a quarter as much as Shrub and the Texas Oil Mob did? And given the mess left by S&TOM, shouldn't you give the Dems, at the very least, the traditional 100 days before dumping on them?

Other than that, you seem to be trying, in this thread, to find something to be pissed about. And each time your claims are, if not rebutted, at least trivialized, you, as Jester put it, 'move the goalposts'. Now, no one familiar with these fora doubts my love to sink my teeth into an argument. And I keep searching for something of substance in this thread, but all I find has the consistency of warm Jell-O.

--Pete

Totally non sequitorial aside: Charmed, muted, is on TV in the background. TNT insist on 'broadcasting' it in 16:9 format in spite of the fact that it was 'filmed' in 4:3. The stretching effect really emphasizes the 'talents' of the three (?) main 'actresses', especially in profile.

[NuurAbSaal]

Charmed, muted

Ah, fond memories of my youth /sigh

Sorry for the offtopic reply;)

take care
Tarabulus

[kandrathe]

... shouldn't you give the Dems, at the very least, the traditional 100 days before dumping on them?

Well, no. My style is to get pissed as they make their early mistakes and they dash all hope against the political rocks, then ignore them entirely hoping they don't do too much more damage or completely sink the ship of state near the end of their tenure.

This is a squishy topic, and it's too hard to completely define why the "Nation of cowards" comment set me off. I guess I'm just sick to death of people such as Mr. Holder labeling people like me racist by default of not being a racial minority. It's pretty white here in Minnesota(89.3%), with the black population hovering around 4.5%. I mean, egads, we really can't help that we can't be more racially integrated. Perhaps we should trade some folks geographically with Alabama or Mississippi?

[Jester]

This is a squishy topic, and it's too hard to completely define why the "Nation of cowards" comment set me off. I guess I'm just sick to death of people such as Mr. Holder labeling people like me racist by default of not being a racial minority. It's pretty white here in Minnesota(89.3%), with the black population hovering around 4.5%. I mean, egads, we really can't help that we can't be more racially integrated. Perhaps we should trade some folks geographically with Alabama or Mississippi?

The 'nation of cowards' wasn't just a comment, though. It was the opener from a speech, and if you look through that speech, Mr. Holder is pretty careful to say that what needs to happen is integration from all sides. Everyone needs to put down their racial preconceptions, to "truly become one America." He isn't calling any one group racist, he's saying that racial divides endure, and that America has to take the next steps towards being a genuinely integrated society. I don't think he's saying Minnesotans need to swap spots with anybody, and I don't think he's calling you in particular a racist.

-Jester

[whyBish]

Excuse me for being dense. Having been raised not to hate any particular group (OK, Sicilians *were* put down, but I've overcome that and the only Sicilian I know is one of my dearest friends:))

--Pete

I've come to love defending the Sicilians, it sure beats 1.. e5 </chessRef>

[kandrathe]

So, please clarify why this particular omission is an injustice and an hypocrisy.

His particular hypocrisy is living the life he decries in his speeches. It's the classic case of pots and kettles.

[Chesspiece_face]

I've come to love defending the Sicilians, it sure beats 1.. e5 </chessRef>

You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!