Friday Highlights

Oooh, goody. A chance to link more stuff, make comments, and be misinterpreted.

  1. A few comments here on bikes on roads might work. Uhm, I have been stopped by a cop riding a bike, in my case, because he felt “stopping” by doing a track stand (the bike stopped … but I didn’t “put my foot down”, which apparently for the cop means I’ve actually stopped). I’ll add that bike trails along side roads might be nice, but there are two problems, I think when they cross roads they are less, not more safe in that the cars/bikes aren’t really as cognizant of the other’s presence at intersections because they are on separated on the main path and second, lots of roadies are traveling a whole lot further than that short section of bike path. I used to take an 80 mile ride up to my mother-in-laws. Several sections of the path paralleled bike paths for about 2-3 miles of the whole trip. While that path might have made sense for the subdivision along side it, not so much for me.
  2. Wheaton stands with the Roman Catholics.
  3. Liberals like to point out how much more multiculturally sensitive and aware and open they are. It just ain’t so, just observe these two leading liberal public intellectuals.
  4. Courage recognized.
  5. I think if you back that question up a bit you’ll find the “what constitutes healthy” a thorny enough question in and of itself without qualifying it.
  6. While we’re in the business of thorny definitions, how about defining manufacturing.
  7. The wonders of Obamacare and that whole “find out what’s in the law after you pass it”.
  8. So, go ahead, follow Ms Warren’s example and check the “African American” section any application or employment form. And while your at it, check the “Cheerful” spot in the sexuality section.
  9. Admission of guilt a bit?
  10. Full assault mode. Attack attack attack!!!
  11. Of economic opportunity and height.
  12. Well, don’t worry, “reset” didn’t mean anything to anyone not in Russia either.
  13. Well, no. I don’t think it is ever correct to hire a less qualified candidate. Who would? Now, I think the left would tell you that aff/action is to have preferences between equally qualified candidates. But, when they tell you that, alas, they are lying.

7 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. 8.So, go ahead, follow Ms Warren’s example and check the “African American” section any application or employment form. And while your at it, check the “Cheerful” spot in the sexuality section.

    You guys really gotta get your newfound obsession with 1980’s era identity politics right. Ms. Warren was simply being honest, she was raised being told there was native American blood in her family and when she was asked she said that. She didn’t claim to be oppressed, didn’t claim to have membership in any particular tribe, simply reported her background as she knew it. And she was correct, there is at least some Native American blood in her family tree. So what?

    I mean it was less than a week ago we were hearing over and over again from the right that George Zimmerman isn’t, in fact, white, because first he had Hispanic blood in his family and then black blood!

    It sounds like the right has constructed a very intricate chart of racial blood. One grandparent is black and you can call yourself black (25% threshold). One hispanic parent makes you hispanic (50% threshold). Native American, though, you cannot claim even a little bit if you’re 1/32nd or less which is kind of confusing becuase I believe that was the threshold under Jim Crow to consider someone black….. Before we go on might we have this race blood level chart?

  2. 7.The wonders of Obamacare and that whole “find out what’s in the law after you pass it”.

    The story: Republicans say the health care bill funded a ‘wasteful’ program to spay and neuter cats and dogs. Ohhh wait, the program they are bitching about was funded not by the law but by PetSmart Charities.

    Kind of strange someone like Mark would make a mistake like that. He, after all, loves following bloggers who claimed to have read the entire bill. Shouldn’t they have alerted him to the fact that no such provision was there and his leg was being pulled?

    While the daily links have been going on for a long time I suggest less linking and getting a bit deep into a few points.

  3. Boonton,

    It sounds like the right has constructed a very intricate chart of racial blood. One grandparent is black and you can call yourself black (25% threshold). One hispanic parent makes you hispanic (50% threshold). Native American, though, you cannot claim even a little bit if you’re 1/32nd or less which is kind of confusing becuase I believe that was the threshold under Jim Crow to consider someone black….. Before we go on might we have this race blood level chart?

    No, silly. We’re trying to understand your metrics. You’ve got the time ordering wrong, on the Zimmerman case. The left claimed he was a white racist and this was his motivation. The response was that he wasn’t as “white” as the left pretended. Race came up first in your camp. When it’s not tenable … your tactic seems to be that the right is “obsessed with race.” When the left cries “wolf wolf” and the right spends time looking for wolves, you can’t claim the right is obsessed with wolves as a defense against crying wolf. Or you can’t do it and be credible.

    So what?

    So, we’ve all got African blood. There ya go, check it.

    She didn’t claim to be oppressed, didn’t claim to have membership in any particular tribe,

    On employment forms, I’ve never heard of “am oppressed” checkboxes. Is that new? Cite? Which liberal decided that as necessary? Or is it one of those “reality based party” claims? Yes, she didn’t claim to have membership in any tribe, and lo and behold, she can’t actually document what she did claim? More “reality” party stuff?

  4. No, silly. We’re trying to understand your metrics. You’ve got the time ordering wrong, on the Zimmerman case. The left claimed he was a white racist and this was his motivation. The response was that he wasn’t as “white” as the left pretended.

    No some on the left did claim he was motivated by racism, it was the right who jumped up and said that since he isn’t white (as determined by some system of race measurement whose details your side refuses to reveal) he couldn’t be racist…..again not sure what the premise is behind this, maybe that only whites can be racists so if he wasn’t white he can’t be a racist. Or it might be that certain races can’t be racist so if he happens to be Hispanic or Black then he couldn’t be a racist. Again as I said the assumptions by the right seem to indicate they are just about where below-average liberals were in the 980’s in regards to thinking abou trace.

    So, we’ve all got African blood. There ya go, check it.

    Indeed we do, but we all don’t have Native American blood, she does though.

    On employment forms, I’ve never heard of “am oppressed” checkboxes. Is that new? Cite? Which liberal decided that as necessary? Or is it one of those “reality based party” claims?

    Well her Republican counterpart has accused her of insulting ‘the oppressed’ Native Americans by claiming to have Native American blood in her family. So what exactly is the standard being advocated by the right here? That if you have Native American blood but are more ‘white’ (meaning financially successful) you have to only refer to yourself as white? Again this all seems quite 1980ish to me where so much emphasis was wrapped up in categorizing everyone ‘correctly’.

  5. Boonton,

    Indeed we do, but we all don’t have Native American blood, she does though.

    Cite. From what I’ve seen she has not (can not?) produce any documentation to support her claim.

    No some on the left did claim he was motivated by racism,

    Not quite sure what you’re saying here. The left did claim that it was racism. Are you denying it or confirming it?

  6. Cite. From what I’ve seen she has not (can not?) produce any documentation to support her claim.

    Actually I believe the media cited a geneologist who looked into it and confirmed two relatives (hence the 1/32nd figure the right is screaming about). Of course there may be more as record keeping in the past was not very conscious of the needs of right wing race theoriests of the 2012 election cycle.

    Not quite sure what you’re saying here. The left did claim that it was racism.

    Racism or white racism? You said ‘white racism’ first and seem to think a person is proven innocent of ‘white racism’ if it is demonstrated he isn’t white….or you seem to be sticking up for those who so argue. After all why would it be so essential to prove the chap isn’t white? How does that prove he isn’t racist? It does if your implicit assumption is that only whites can be racists or that certain special races (i.e. Hispanics or blacks) can’t be racist. If you make so much hinge on race, then it follows that how race is defined becomes very important leading to silly debates like is one grandparent or 1/32 of a great-grandparentage ‘enough blood’ to qualify for this or that race.

  7. Boonton,

    Actually I believe the media cited a geneologist who looked into it and confirmed two relatives (hence the 1/32nd figure the right is screaming about). Of course there may be more as record keeping in the past was not very conscious of the needs of right wing race theoriests of the 2012 election cycle.

    You do realize that you do this all the time to me and claim it is insufficient. The “I saw this a few weeks ago” you constantly offer as insufficient proof. I’m not going to push you for that. But alas, that’s only half the puzzle.

    Two things are required to “check” American Indian on a form, one is ancestry, the other is a current tribe/village in the US which has one on their roles. Where is that second part? Hmmm?

    Racism or white racism?

    Are you suggesting that those who started this whole kerfuffle were thinking Mr Zimmerman was a minority acting as a racist against a minority. Surely you jest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>