ZZZZzzzzz.....*snort* Huh? What?......zzzzzZZZZZZNever fear, good old Tucker stood up for poor little Matty...And btw what exactly do you know about the weasel you're so fired up to defend? I mean he may claim that it's political prosecution by the Dems, but the whole investigation into Gaetz's activities involving sex with minors started last summer under Trump, following the arrest and indictment of Joel Greenberg...
"Greenberg was first indicted last summer on two counts, and prosecutors have added more than 30 charges since then, including sex trafficking of a minor, fraud, and conspiracy. It was during the course of the investigation into Greenberg's activities that prosecutors are said to have turned up evidence that led them to scrutinize Gaetz as well.
In court papers accompanying the plea agreement, Greenberg admits to paying women for "commercial sex acts" with him and other men, who are not identified in the documents."
Gaetz Associate To Plead Guilty To 6 Counts, Cooperate With Investigators
Joel Greenberg will plead guilty to sex trafficking of a minor and other offenses, according to court documents. His friend, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., could become ensnared in the investigation.www.npr.org
Now Greenberg has pled guilty to among other charges sex trafficking of a minor and agreed to cooperate. Given how much his relationship with Gaetz is intertwined in his being the (former) Tax collector in Seminole, many people view the plea deal as bad news for Gaetz. We'll see...
So did you miss Tucker's attack on Milley? No doubt you won't see the response from Gen McCaffrey as a smackdown either, but when Carlson makes assertions which McCaffrey knows from personal experience aren't true and actually disproves them I'd label that as a smackdown. And I'm guessing Tucker will be forced to strategically walk back calling the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs a "pig" and coward, but we'll see...
So far Milley's been attacked by Carlson, Ingraham, and had an earlier row with Steven Miller. If you're looking to be seen as a "good guy" probably no three more despicable people to have oppose and attack you... Btw, Tucker doesn't seem to realize that Milley is a Trump appointee- he was the one embarrassed by the church clearing fiasco...
Tucker- now this is an (uneducated) rant (just to get your terminology corrected)
This is a smackdown, exposing someone's BS...and outright lies
Daily Show on Critical Race Theory
- Thread starter TommyCracker
- Start date
Rick has already brought the issue of an unequal starting point to light. At some point, you just have to do the decent thing and right wrongs. This story points out that while the unfairness may have occurred a century ago, the ramifications have negatively affected this family for generations...
"A beachfront property in Manhattan Beach that was seized from a Black family 97 years ago may be returned to the family's descendants.
In 1924, the city of Manhattan Beach used eminent domain to force Willa and Charles Bruce off their land where they lived and ran a resort for Black families. The Bruces were among the first Black landowners in the city."
Not only was this a crime against the Bruce family itself. But in a broader sense, it was a reflection that a Black-owned Beach resort was not welcome in Manhattan Beach. And over the years this particular stretch of property has come to be worth $75 Million, while the Bruce family basically had to leave California...
"Manhattan Beach resident Kavon Ward has been petitioning and raising awareness about the history of Bruce's Beach.
"They need to pay for the stripping of generational wealth," says Kavon Ward. "This family could have been wealthy, they could have passed on wealth to other family members. Manhattan Beach could have been more culturally diverse... there would have been more black people here."
Manhattan Beach land seized from Black family may be returned to descendants nearly a century later
A beachfront property in Manhattan Beach that was seized from a Black family 97 years ago may be returned to the family's descendants.
This article/video is from March and I'm pretty sure (happily) that the city has decided to award the land back to the Bruce family. I know I saw a feature on the news a month or so back...
Well one truth about the anti-CRT movement is beginning to emerge. Newsmax is feeling threatened by Fox's ability to get out front on this issue and is launching their own crazies in an attempt to grab that mantle back...Rick has already brought the issue of an unequal starting point to light. At some point, you just have to do the decent thing and right wrongs. This story points out that while the unfairness may have occurred a century ago, the ramifications have negatively affected this family for generations...
"A beachfront property in Manhattan Beach that was seized from a Black family 97 years ago may be returned to the family's descendants.
In 1924, the city of Manhattan Beach used eminent domain to force Willa and Charles Bruce off their land where they lived and ran a resort for Black families. The Bruces were among the first Black landowners in the city."
Not only was this a crime against the Bruce family itself. But in a broader sense, it was a reflection that a Black-owned Beach resort was not welcome in Manhattan Beach. And over the years this particular stretch of property has come to be worth $75 Million, while the Bruce family basically had to leave California...
"Manhattan Beach resident Kavon Ward has been petitioning and raising awareness about the history of Bruce's Beach.
"They need to pay for the stripping of generational wealth," says Kavon Ward. "This family could have been wealthy, they could have passed on wealth to other family members. Manhattan Beach could have been more culturally diverse... there would have been more black people here."
Manhattan Beach land seized from Black family may be returned to descendants nearly a century later
A beachfront property in Manhattan Beach that was seized from a Black family 97 years ago may be returned to the family's descendants.abc7.com
This article/video is from March and I'm pretty sure (happily) that the city has decided to award the land back to the Bruce family. I know I saw a feature on the news a month or so back...
First, there was Savage equating CRT with the holocaust. Now comes Dick Morris claiming that in biracial kids it will bring out an Oedipal complex framed by patricide. Apparently, those kids will end up killing their (white) fathers to be able to marry their Black mothers...
For the folks who believe the anti-CRT fight is a grassroots struggle being waged by parents across kitchen tables, I sincerely hope those parents are smarter than these goobers...
Millions of people, over long periods, fought very hard and sacrificed a lot to make sure our country does not allow the government to discriminate against people based on their race. Led by people like MLK, Frederick Douglass, Wilkins etcThe question I have, do we start from an equal position? If we do, I get your point. If we do not, how do we overcome the inequality at start.
Below is a story on heirs property. If someone dies without a valid will, the property goes to the group of heirs who own percentages of the property. Most Black families in the South have lost their family farms through this law. The first way is that there si a cost, and often times the survivors could not afford the cost. The second way, if one heir decided they didn't want to farm and wanted out, the entire parcel would be forced to be sold. The family members that wanted to stay farming had to sell. The buyers were almost always White, and almost always bought the land for huge bargains. Since 1900, far far far less land is owned by Blacks today. Now the law has been changed (I believe) but a change in 2019 doesn't really change the overall dynamic. Is simply removing that law putting Blacks and Whites back entirely on equal footing?
Black Lands Matter: The Movement to Transform Heirs’ Property Laws
Legal loopholes stripped millions of acres of land from black families, but a campaign to rewrite the rules is gaining momentum.www.thenation.com
Then we get into redlining, which existed very much into the 60s legally, and has been slow to eradicate. If you look at the WIki below, banks are still being charged with, and paying 8 figure fines, for redlining. Is the race being run completely fair? If not, what do we do about it?
Redlining - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Millions from every background from abolitionists to civil rights leaders to politicians.
There's no real purpose to approaching policies with race as a qualifier other than pandering to those obsessed with race. If you think one group was disproportionately affected, then a relief program based on need would naturally end up helping that group the most.Rick has already brought the issue of an unequal starting point to light. At some point, you just have to do the decent thing and right wrongs. This story points out that while the unfairness may have occurred a century ago, the ramifications have negatively affected this family for generations...
"A beachfront property in Manhattan Beach that was seized from a Black family 97 years ago may be returned to the family's descendants.
In 1924, the city of Manhattan Beach used eminent domain to force Willa and Charles Bruce off their land where they lived and ran a resort for Black families. The Bruces were among the first Black landowners in the city."
Not only was this a crime against the Bruce family itself. But in a broader sense, it was a reflection that a Black-owned Beach resort was not welcome in Manhattan Beach. And over the years this particular stretch of property has come to be worth $75 Million, while the Bruce family basically had to leave California...
"Manhattan Beach resident Kavon Ward has been petitioning and raising awareness about the history of Bruce's Beach.
"They need to pay for the stripping of generational wealth," says Kavon Ward. "This family could have been wealthy, they could have passed on wealth to other family members. Manhattan Beach could have been more culturally diverse... there would have been more black people here."
Manhattan Beach land seized from Black family may be returned to descendants nearly a century later
A beachfront property in Manhattan Beach that was seized from a Black family 97 years ago may be returned to the family's descendants.
This article/video is from March and I'm pretty sure (happily) that the city has decided to award the land back to the Bruce family. I know I saw a feature on the news a month or so back...
Do you think we have eliminated racism? Those banks paying 8 figure fines in the last decade suggest otherwise.
The other issue is the nature of government programs. Look at the funding to keep mom and pop stores in business last year. Big companies with great lawyers and great accountants snagged more than their fair share. I think we all know that happens.
Then we are hit with what Lee Atwater said, Whites will cut programs that help them if the cut hurts Blacks more.
I would love to believe we could be race blind but evidence suggests we are not there. We know undeserving Whites get into Harvard because of legacy admissions. But we do not let undeserving Blacks in because that would be racism, and of course we did not let their grandparents in because of racism.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I am a parent who is fighting this at a grassroots level. I'm not some secret agent for the conservative media.
Is it so hard for you to believe that there are many groups who are anti-CRT, including those on the left? That those of use who think liberalism is good for the world think CRT and antiracism are bad for the world precisely because they are illiberal?
Whatever the merits of some of your arguments, I'm still getting a chuckle out of the number of times I'm seeing people on this forum claim that "antiracism" is bad for America. Jesus Christ, people.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Can you name a place on earth that meets your definitions of having eliminated racism or that is race blind?
No, "we" have not eliminated racism. Is that something the government is able to do? I really don't know. But I am kinda partial to Chief Justice Roberts' statement that the way we stop discriminating based on race, is to stop discriminating based on race.
So what if he can't? What's that possibly mean? We should ignore the problem because no one else fixed it first?
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
No, it does not. It means that many argue as if the US is the most racist place on earth. It is not.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I've written this several times: antiracism doesn't mean what you think it means. It is a term of art, defined by Kendi in his books. Have you read them?
No one has, but the answer isn't to pretend we have made it. I am an extreme optimist, that Gene Roddenberry Star Trek vision is possible. We won't get there today or tomorrow, bit we will. So we just keep moving the ball. The old leave our kids a better world than we had thought.
So just picking on the elite private universities. They discriminated for generations. Because of that, White kids that do not qualify get in but God forbid we cannot allow them to equal the playing field for Blacks. Why is it not discrimination to let in a wealthy White just because their grandfather could get in and the Black kid's grandfather was legally blocked from admission?
No, I haven't read Kendi, but I know he doesn't have a monopoly on defining "antiracism." You're falling into the trap of finding people you don't like, and letting them define the conversation so that you can dismiss difficult topics as worthless.
how do elite private universities discriminate? i understand legacies but the demos of elite private U's are very diverse. hell if you look at just the US i would guess Asians make up about 5% of the pop and are certainly north of 20 percent at your prestigious schools. i bet blacks are 5-10%. but what's hte applicant pool of blacks that are qualified? what's more i bet whites are only half or less despite being over 60%
it's no different in my view than bitching about black fed judges. you have to look at the applicant pool before a fair determination can be made
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
A monopoly? No. But he's the one that coined it, and it is his definition that has gained currency in these debates.
I would really like to discuss this with you in a meaningful way, and I don't mean this in a negative way, but I can think of no better way to put this: you are ignorant on this subject. You haven't read enough and are just arguing based on what you think the word antiracist means. If you won't spend some time educating yourself, our discussions can't really go anywhere. I'm trying to give you links, give reading material, etc. but if you won't listen or read it, what good can come of these postings?
Last edited by a moderator:
of course he did. and that's the point. we're always backward looking or we speak in this kind of generalized amorphous systemic racism language that ignores the reality of where we are today and the strides that have been made
I'm familiar with the fact that Kendi plays an important role in the discussion. I haven't read his books, but I have listened to interviews with him on NPR, so I'm not entirely ignorant of his message.
My understanding is both the concept and the term greatly predate him, though. If you have some reading material for me, I'll be happy to read it.
You seem to have missed his point. He was asking, essentially, why it's okay to call out affirmative action as racist, but not okay to call out legacy admissions as the same.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Because his question "Do you think we've eliminated racism?" assumes that's a goal we can realistically achieve. We haven't eliminated it, but we've made pretty good progress, more than many nations on earth.
I'm starting to speak too much for Marvin, who types slower than I do in his old age, but I don't think his question required us to think the goal was realistic, at least not anytime soon (Marvin is an optimist, so I'm sure he believes it's possible in the distant future, at least). I think the question more was targeted toward those would prefer to ignore the fact the problem still exists.
it's essentially the same as the difference between disparate impact vs treatment by way of analogy. again it's always backward looking and rarely specific and present. i am one far from denying racism exists but as long as it's backward looking gripes and doesn't pinpoint specific institutions and fields in need of reform it's just shaming and handicapping imo
In a vacuum, you might have a point. But in the context of people suing universities for being racist against whites (and Asians*), looking backwards can be an important counter.
* I remember someone recently asking what "white adjacent" means. As far as I can tell, it's code for "Asian-American."
where does it exist? because i don't deny it but unless and until we begin to discuss the precise locations of same it's just more cultural politics
Right, Legacy admissions reward people who got in under the old system over people who did not. Therefore they are an extension of said racism.
Earlier I mentioned how the heirs' laws hurt Blacks. We VERY recently changed the law but that doesn't mean Blacks immediately caught up from the problems the law caused. It is sort of like the guy who was wrongfully imprisoned for 30 years. Just releasing them does not mean they now face a completely level playing field with everyone else looking for jobs.
and with heirs as marv recognizes the law has been changed. so now universities aren't discriminating presently, but historically ostensibly have by way of legacies, so what's the remedy today? admit blacks with lower scores/credentials to atone for the discriminatory practices of years ago? so merit is no longer the measure but instead atonement?
Ending legacy would be a start. And maybe that would be enough. But if we do not end legacy, for every legacy admission they should admit someone from a group that were historically blocked (which would include Native Americans and Latinos and yes, Asian).
Legacies aren’t dispositive. the Legacies credentials as compared to minority credentials are what’s meaningful. Do you have those stats?
Which would, ironically, punish non-elite whites in favor of their elite racial brethren.
Historically blocked. Why? Asians make up 5 percent of the pop and rep 20 percent or more of elite universities student pop
I had a good article on my phone, can't find it now, but this summary suffices to show that, yes, legacies have a huge advantage in admissions:
Legacy Admissions - The Impact on Your College Application
This blog contains statistics on legacy admissions. We discuss legacy applicants in 2022-23 who have familial ties to a given school.
www.collegetransitions.com
Which is a problem of its own but I have no perfect solution. Ending legacy would be my first choice, but if they are going to continue it there must be an offset somewhere as clearly legacy rewards people who benefitted during legalized racism
Again how do you know that? What if the legacy had better grades and scores than the minority applicant
I am not sure what the elite universities did with Asians historically. I am not sure they were let in at the amounts they deserved pre 1970 or so. If they were not, there should be more Asian legacy students today
Actually, I think your first choice is the solution, and I think presenting it to the anti-AA types will show us where we all stand. State it like this: There will be no more racial, gender, ethnic, etc. preferences in admissions, but there will be ZERO legacy admission preference whatsoever. Judge everyone on merit alone.
See what everyone says about that.
My guess is, the schools would hate it. Legacy admits exist because they equal donations. Affirmative action works for them, because it allows them to diversify their campuses without giving up that sweet, sweet money.
I had a good article on my phone, can't find it now, but this summary suffices to show that, yes, legacies have a huge advantage in admissions:
Legacy Admissions - The Impact on Your College Application
This blog contains statistics on legacy admissions. We discuss legacy applicants in 2022-23 who have familial ties to a given school.
I had a good article on my phone, can't find it now, but this summary suffices to show that, yes, legacies have a huge advantage in admissions:
Legacy Admissions - The Impact on Your College Application
This blog contains statistics on legacy admissions. We discuss legacy applicants in 2022-23 who have familial ties to a given school.
That still doesn’t speak to legacies’ vs minorities’ qualifications. Asians score higher than whites who score higher than blacks. Unless you have evidence that a similarly situated white was chosen over a black bc of legacy you’re speculating
Similar threads
