[eavesdropper]

I have a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range retrofitted for propane. I bought it for its style, but was very pleasantly surprised by its efficiency. It can preheat to 450 degrees in 6 to 7 minutes. But the surprising things is how incredibly well it holds the heat. The oven is still warm 6 hours after I turn it off. Whoever named that particular model wasn’t kidding.

Hands down, the absolutely best stove I have ever used!! Wouldn’t hesitate to buy another.

[eavesdropper]

I have a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range retrofitted for propane. I bought it for its style, but was very pleasantly surprised by its efficiency. It can preheat to 450 degrees in 6 to 7 minutes. But the surprising things is how incredibly well it holds the heat. The oven is still warm 6 hours after I turn it off. Whoever named that particular model wasn’t kidding.

Hands down, the absolutely best stove I have ever used!! Wouldn’t hesitate to buy another.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS][quote=eavesdropper] …..The last time a Philly mayor tried to put the lid on loud, violent, destructive residents, it resulted in the firebombing of an entire West Philly neighborhood that left 11 persons (incl. 4 children) dead and over 60 homes destroyed….[/quote]

you referring to osage?[/quote]

The very one: The MOVE bombing in 1985. Despite the incredible vice grip in which John Africa and his followers held Philadelphia, and especially the neighbors/homeowners (in what was a well-established close-knit neighborhood prior to the MOVE-in), it still tops the list of all-time incredibly witless cluster-fucks.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS][quote=eavesdropper] …..The last time a Philly mayor tried to put the lid on loud, violent, destructive residents, it resulted in the firebombing of an entire West Philly neighborhood that left 11 persons (incl. 4 children) dead and over 60 homes destroyed….[/quote]

you referring to osage?[/quote]

The very one: The MOVE bombing in 1985. Despite the incredible vice grip in which John Africa and his followers held Philadelphia, and especially the neighbors/homeowners (in what was a well-established close-knit neighborhood prior to the MOVE-in), it still tops the list of all-time incredibly witless cluster-fucks.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS][quote=eavesdropper] …..The last time a Philly mayor tried to put the lid on loud, violent, destructive residents, it resulted in the firebombing of an entire West Philly neighborhood that left 11 persons (incl. 4 children) dead and over 60 homes destroyed….[/quote]

you referring to osage?[/quote]

The very one: The MOVE bombing in 1985. Despite the incredible vice grip in which John Africa and his followers held Philadelphia, and especially the neighbors/homeowners (in what was a well-established close-knit neighborhood prior to the MOVE-in), it still tops the list of all-time incredibly witless cluster-fucks.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS][quote=eavesdropper] …..The last time a Philly mayor tried to put the lid on loud, violent, destructive residents, it resulted in the firebombing of an entire West Philly neighborhood that left 11 persons (incl. 4 children) dead and over 60 homes destroyed….[/quote]

you referring to osage?[/quote]

The very one: The MOVE bombing in 1985. Despite the incredible vice grip in which John Africa and his followers held Philadelphia, and especially the neighbors/homeowners (in what was a well-established close-knit neighborhood prior to the MOVE-in), it still tops the list of all-time incredibly witless cluster-fucks.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=LAAFTERHOURS][quote=eavesdropper] …..The last time a Philly mayor tried to put the lid on loud, violent, destructive residents, it resulted in the firebombing of an entire West Philly neighborhood that left 11 persons (incl. 4 children) dead and over 60 homes destroyed….[/quote]

you referring to osage?[/quote]

The very one: The MOVE bombing in 1985. Despite the incredible vice grip in which John Africa and his followers held Philadelphia, and especially the neighbors/homeowners (in what was a well-established close-knit neighborhood prior to the MOVE-in), it still tops the list of all-time incredibly witless cluster-fucks.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=ucodegen]It starts getting hard to believe what the main-stream-media is saying, particularly when they omit one very important aspect on the S&P downgrade. This is the ability of congress to get it’s spending in order and cut the debt. Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs.[/quote]

Sorry, ucodegen, but if that juvenile demonstration of digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is their chosen method (or worse, the only thing they know to do, which I suspect is the case) to get Congress to get its spending in order and cut the debt, they shouldn’t go around bragging about it.

That’s simply too uncomfortably similar to a two-year-old screaming and stamping his feet until his parents give him a cookie.

[quote=ucodegen] Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs. Entitlement costs are one of the things that the “Tea Party”ers were pointing out. [/quote]

So I keep hearing. However, the Tea Party appears to be rather selective about which entitlements are reined in. That doesn’t sound like people who are concerned about their constituents and about the nation’s debt. It sounds more like individuals who are concerned about their friends and their campaign contributors.

[quote=ucodegen] The “Tea Party” group needs to find out exactly what they want to have as their position and shed the extreme elements. This will help them to keep on target. [/quote]

Whether or not they rid themselves of extreme elements, they should have established them selves as a true “party” well before this. As far as I’m concerned, their unwillingness to do this made it easier for them to change positions at will, and also to blame “uncomfortable” statements and situations on “rogue” elements that “aren’t really part of the Tea Party”.

Let me get this straight: I’m supposed to vote for the Tea Party candidate, but the Tea Party has no official goals, philosophy, officers, organization, offices, budget, etc.?

[quote=ucodegen]Both the Republicans and Democrats want the “Tea Party” to be represented as far extreme because it keeps everyone distracted from the lack of representation that the existing mainstream parties have presented to the American citizenry.[/quote]

I find it difficult to believe that the Republicans want to represent the Tea Party as “extreme”, given the way in which they totally sucked up to them a few months back. When, exactly, did the attitude change from “desirable” to “extreme”?

I’m not so worried about the Tea party approach being extreme as I am concerned about their simplistic approach to problematic issues. I find their discussions of problems and solutions shockingly one-dimensional. They appear to lack any capacity for detailed analysis and critical thinking.

I am also concerned about what I see as duplicity. They are monotonous in their repetition of the Tea Party tenets, which on paper don’t seem all that bad. But not only do I not believe that their education and skills are up to the job they are proposing, I think their intent may be a bit skewed. Once they took office in January, they immediately focused their attention on ideological targets that didn’t count for piss, budget-wise.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=ucodegen]It starts getting hard to believe what the main-stream-media is saying, particularly when they omit one very important aspect on the S&P downgrade. This is the ability of congress to get it’s spending in order and cut the debt. Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs.[/quote]

Sorry, ucodegen, but if that juvenile demonstration of digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is their chosen method (or worse, the only thing they know to do, which I suspect is the case) to get Congress to get its spending in order and cut the debt, they shouldn’t go around bragging about it.

That’s simply too uncomfortably similar to a two-year-old screaming and stamping his feet until his parents give him a cookie.

[quote=ucodegen] Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs. Entitlement costs are one of the things that the “Tea Party”ers were pointing out. [/quote]

So I keep hearing. However, the Tea Party appears to be rather selective about which entitlements are reined in. That doesn’t sound like people who are concerned about their constituents and about the nation’s debt. It sounds more like individuals who are concerned about their friends and their campaign contributors.

[quote=ucodegen] The “Tea Party” group needs to find out exactly what they want to have as their position and shed the extreme elements. This will help them to keep on target. [/quote]

Whether or not they rid themselves of extreme elements, they should have established them selves as a true “party” well before this. As far as I’m concerned, their unwillingness to do this made it easier for them to change positions at will, and also to blame “uncomfortable” statements and situations on “rogue” elements that “aren’t really part of the Tea Party”.

Let me get this straight: I’m supposed to vote for the Tea Party candidate, but the Tea Party has no official goals, philosophy, officers, organization, offices, budget, etc.?

[quote=ucodegen]Both the Republicans and Democrats want the “Tea Party” to be represented as far extreme because it keeps everyone distracted from the lack of representation that the existing mainstream parties have presented to the American citizenry.[/quote]

I find it difficult to believe that the Republicans want to represent the Tea Party as “extreme”, given the way in which they totally sucked up to them a few months back. When, exactly, did the attitude change from “desirable” to “extreme”?

I’m not so worried about the Tea party approach being extreme as I am concerned about their simplistic approach to problematic issues. I find their discussions of problems and solutions shockingly one-dimensional. They appear to lack any capacity for detailed analysis and critical thinking.

I am also concerned about what I see as duplicity. They are monotonous in their repetition of the Tea Party tenets, which on paper don’t seem all that bad. But not only do I not believe that their education and skills are up to the job they are proposing, I think their intent may be a bit skewed. Once they took office in January, they immediately focused their attention on ideological targets that didn’t count for piss, budget-wise.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=ucodegen]It starts getting hard to believe what the main-stream-media is saying, particularly when they omit one very important aspect on the S&P downgrade. This is the ability of congress to get it’s spending in order and cut the debt. Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs.[/quote]

Sorry, ucodegen, but if that juvenile demonstration of digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is their chosen method (or worse, the only thing they know to do, which I suspect is the case) to get Congress to get its spending in order and cut the debt, they shouldn’t go around bragging about it.

That’s simply too uncomfortably similar to a two-year-old screaming and stamping his feet until his parents give him a cookie.

[quote=ucodegen] Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs. Entitlement costs are one of the things that the “Tea Party”ers were pointing out. [/quote]

So I keep hearing. However, the Tea Party appears to be rather selective about which entitlements are reined in. That doesn’t sound like people who are concerned about their constituents and about the nation’s debt. It sounds more like individuals who are concerned about their friends and their campaign contributors.

[quote=ucodegen] The “Tea Party” group needs to find out exactly what they want to have as their position and shed the extreme elements. This will help them to keep on target. [/quote]

Whether or not they rid themselves of extreme elements, they should have established them selves as a true “party” well before this. As far as I’m concerned, their unwillingness to do this made it easier for them to change positions at will, and also to blame “uncomfortable” statements and situations on “rogue” elements that “aren’t really part of the Tea Party”.

Let me get this straight: I’m supposed to vote for the Tea Party candidate, but the Tea Party has no official goals, philosophy, officers, organization, offices, budget, etc.?

[quote=ucodegen]Both the Republicans and Democrats want the “Tea Party” to be represented as far extreme because it keeps everyone distracted from the lack of representation that the existing mainstream parties have presented to the American citizenry.[/quote]

I find it difficult to believe that the Republicans want to represent the Tea Party as “extreme”, given the way in which they totally sucked up to them a few months back. When, exactly, did the attitude change from “desirable” to “extreme”?

I’m not so worried about the Tea party approach being extreme as I am concerned about their simplistic approach to problematic issues. I find their discussions of problems and solutions shockingly one-dimensional. They appear to lack any capacity for detailed analysis and critical thinking.

I am also concerned about what I see as duplicity. They are monotonous in their repetition of the Tea Party tenets, which on paper don’t seem all that bad. But not only do I not believe that their education and skills are up to the job they are proposing, I think their intent may be a bit skewed. Once they took office in January, they immediately focused their attention on ideological targets that didn’t count for piss, budget-wise.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=ucodegen]It starts getting hard to believe what the main-stream-media is saying, particularly when they omit one very important aspect on the S&P downgrade. This is the ability of congress to get it’s spending in order and cut the debt. Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs.[/quote]

Sorry, ucodegen, but if that juvenile demonstration of digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is their chosen method (or worse, the only thing they know to do, which I suspect is the case) to get Congress to get its spending in order and cut the debt, they shouldn’t go around bragging about it.

That’s simply too uncomfortably similar to a two-year-old screaming and stamping his feet until his parents give him a cookie.

[quote=ucodegen] Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs. Entitlement costs are one of the things that the “Tea Party”ers were pointing out. [/quote]

So I keep hearing. However, the Tea Party appears to be rather selective about which entitlements are reined in. That doesn’t sound like people who are concerned about their constituents and about the nation’s debt. It sounds more like individuals who are concerned about their friends and their campaign contributors.

[quote=ucodegen] The “Tea Party” group needs to find out exactly what they want to have as their position and shed the extreme elements. This will help them to keep on target. [/quote]

Whether or not they rid themselves of extreme elements, they should have established them selves as a true “party” well before this. As far as I’m concerned, their unwillingness to do this made it easier for them to change positions at will, and also to blame “uncomfortable” statements and situations on “rogue” elements that “aren’t really part of the Tea Party”.

Let me get this straight: I’m supposed to vote for the Tea Party candidate, but the Tea Party has no official goals, philosophy, officers, organization, offices, budget, etc.?

[quote=ucodegen]Both the Republicans and Democrats want the “Tea Party” to be represented as far extreme because it keeps everyone distracted from the lack of representation that the existing mainstream parties have presented to the American citizenry.[/quote]

I find it difficult to believe that the Republicans want to represent the Tea Party as “extreme”, given the way in which they totally sucked up to them a few months back. When, exactly, did the attitude change from “desirable” to “extreme”?

I’m not so worried about the Tea party approach being extreme as I am concerned about their simplistic approach to problematic issues. I find their discussions of problems and solutions shockingly one-dimensional. They appear to lack any capacity for detailed analysis and critical thinking.

I am also concerned about what I see as duplicity. They are monotonous in their repetition of the Tea Party tenets, which on paper don’t seem all that bad. But not only do I not believe that their education and skills are up to the job they are proposing, I think their intent may be a bit skewed. Once they took office in January, they immediately focused their attention on ideological targets that didn’t count for piss, budget-wise.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=ucodegen]It starts getting hard to believe what the main-stream-media is saying, particularly when they omit one very important aspect on the S&P downgrade. This is the ability of congress to get it’s spending in order and cut the debt. Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs.[/quote]

Sorry, ucodegen, but if that juvenile demonstration of digging in their heels and refusing to compromise is their chosen method (or worse, the only thing they know to do, which I suspect is the case) to get Congress to get its spending in order and cut the debt, they shouldn’t go around bragging about it.

That’s simply too uncomfortably similar to a two-year-old screaming and stamping his feet until his parents give him a cookie.

[quote=ucodegen] Of particular concern was the growth in entitlement costs and inability for congress to reign in those costs. Entitlement costs are one of the things that the “Tea Party”ers were pointing out. [/quote]

So I keep hearing. However, the Tea Party appears to be rather selective about which entitlements are reined in. That doesn’t sound like people who are concerned about their constituents and about the nation’s debt. It sounds more like individuals who are concerned about their friends and their campaign contributors.

[quote=ucodegen] The “Tea Party” group needs to find out exactly what they want to have as their position and shed the extreme elements. This will help them to keep on target. [/quote]

Whether or not they rid themselves of extreme elements, they should have established them selves as a true “party” well before this. As far as I’m concerned, their unwillingness to do this made it easier for them to change positions at will, and also to blame “uncomfortable” statements and situations on “rogue” elements that “aren’t really part of the Tea Party”.

Let me get this straight: I’m supposed to vote for the Tea Party candidate, but the Tea Party has no official goals, philosophy, officers, organization, offices, budget, etc.?

[quote=ucodegen]Both the Republicans and Democrats want the “Tea Party” to be represented as far extreme because it keeps everyone distracted from the lack of representation that the existing mainstream parties have presented to the American citizenry.[/quote]

I find it difficult to believe that the Republicans want to represent the Tea Party as “extreme”, given the way in which they totally sucked up to them a few months back. When, exactly, did the attitude change from “desirable” to “extreme”?

I’m not so worried about the Tea party approach being extreme as I am concerned about their simplistic approach to problematic issues. I find their discussions of problems and solutions shockingly one-dimensional. They appear to lack any capacity for detailed analysis and critical thinking.

I am also concerned about what I see as duplicity. They are monotonous in their repetition of the Tea Party tenets, which on paper don’t seem all that bad. But not only do I not believe that their education and skills are up to the job they are proposing, I think their intent may be a bit skewed. Once they took office in January, they immediately focused their attention on ideological targets that didn’t count for piss, budget-wise.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian what are your thoughts about the racial tensions in the USA. White racists in Mississippi… Black racists beating white people in Wisconsin (which seems was hardly reported in the press). (Sorry to go off subject) This really has nothing to do with the TP but it does make one wonder if disenfranchised feel more emboldened each day. Especially each day when they hear about those evil rich people.[/quote]

SDR, I know you addressed Brian with your post, so I hope you’ll forgive the insertion of my two cents.

Racial tensions are, as you pointed out, alive and well in the U.S. A lot of people believe that they are increasing, and, to some extent, I agree with them. However, I am also of the opinion that many people thought that racial bias became a thing of the past with the civil rights gains made by African-Americans by the mid to late 60s. Nothing could be further from the truth: hundreds of years of cultural indoctrination cannot be erased in a few decades. Even though the civil rights war had simply given African-Americans basic human rights accorded white Americans, many of these same people felt that special privileges had been accorded African -Americans, a sentiment that was cemented by adoption of Affirmative Action legislation. As new cultural and sociological landscapes evolved that did not automatically accord a superior role to white males, severe feelings of disenfranchisement took hold in this population segment.

For a time, it was easy to pretend that racial bias did not exist in the mainstream of society, particularly in areas of the U.S. outside of the southern U.S., and, indeed, many supressed racial bias due to fears of social ostracization. However, widespread use of the internet allowed these individuals to communicate with each other, and radio talk show hosts and political bloggers exploited the ingrained racial bias and the disenfranchisement of these large numbers of people to tap into their enormous voting potential. The unfortunate result has been the legitimacy that has been tacitly conferred on the irrational fears and misplaced blame regularly exercised by “hate” groups.

Unfortunately, an example of how this happens exists in your post. Your statement, “Black racists beating white people in Wisconsin (which seems was hardly reported in the press)…” caught my attention. I performed several searches for information regarding the incidents. Although I did find a few newspaper and television news reports that cited individual and mob violence at the Wisconsin State Fair (both on the fairgrounds, and outside the gates), I found far more “reports” of the event on blogs and message boards of far right sociopolitical persuasion. While none of the initial news reports described the violence as racially-motivated, every one of the blog/forum websites not only mentioned it, but focused on it.

I couldn’t help but notice was that, in virtually EVERY blog/forum website report, the wording was IDENTICAL. Two witnesses were quoted (only one gave his full name), and it appeared that the remarks were made to a radio station over the phone. This is the “news article” that passed from blog to blog.

While it may have been true that the attacks were racially motivated, there was no evidence of this at the time of the initial news reports; to have speculated that there was would have been irresponsible on the part of the news outlet. The investigating police chief acknowledged the speculation, stated that existing evidence did not support claims of such, and he requested that eyewitnesses make immediate contact to submit their reports. I saw nothing inappropriate in the behavior of the police chief or in the reporting of the news organizations.

I’m not saying that “black against white” racial bias doesn’t exist, or that African-Americans do not single out victims based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately, hate is alive and well throughout the world, and transcends nationality, religion, education, and socioeconomic status. It’s not that the amount of racial bias is increasing. It’s that our immunity to human violence engendered by racial bias has increased. Thanks to our flat-out refusal to censor media-based hate-mongers from the beginning, both the level of their vitriol and the numbers of people they managed to communicate it to have grown to astronomical levels.

The satisfaction afforded by going to a place where everyone agrees with you and where you can express frustration and hate without fear of being censored is very addictive. At some point, the flow of everyday events capable of eliciting outrage couldn’t keep up with the demand, and suddenly, the pundits and blogs and message boards BECAME the news. The upside for many was that that they could claim status as “entertainment”, thus relieving themselves from journalistic rules and ethics. So, once something appears somewhere – anywhere – it can be reported as “news”, and as “gospel truth”. From there it goes viral, reaching millions of people, creating a never-ending chain-reaction of outrage, and constant experiencing of disenfranchisement. And when stories appear on these rumor mills-disguised-as-news, and are not reported on the actual news media, the cries of “mainstream media suppression” can be heard across the land.

We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian what are your thoughts about the racial tensions in the USA. White racists in Mississippi… Black racists beating white people in Wisconsin (which seems was hardly reported in the press). (Sorry to go off subject) This really has nothing to do with the TP but it does make one wonder if disenfranchised feel more emboldened each day. Especially each day when they hear about those evil rich people.[/quote]

SDR, I know you addressed Brian with your post, so I hope you’ll forgive the insertion of my two cents.

Racial tensions are, as you pointed out, alive and well in the U.S. A lot of people believe that they are increasing, and, to some extent, I agree with them. However, I am also of the opinion that many people thought that racial bias became a thing of the past with the civil rights gains made by African-Americans by the mid to late 60s. Nothing could be further from the truth: hundreds of years of cultural indoctrination cannot be erased in a few decades. Even though the civil rights war had simply given African-Americans basic human rights accorded white Americans, many of these same people felt that special privileges had been accorded African -Americans, a sentiment that was cemented by adoption of Affirmative Action legislation. As new cultural and sociological landscapes evolved that did not automatically accord a superior role to white males, severe feelings of disenfranchisement took hold in this population segment.

For a time, it was easy to pretend that racial bias did not exist in the mainstream of society, particularly in areas of the U.S. outside of the southern U.S., and, indeed, many supressed racial bias due to fears of social ostracization. However, widespread use of the internet allowed these individuals to communicate with each other, and radio talk show hosts and political bloggers exploited the ingrained racial bias and the disenfranchisement of these large numbers of people to tap into their enormous voting potential. The unfortunate result has been the legitimacy that has been tacitly conferred on the irrational fears and misplaced blame regularly exercised by “hate” groups.

Unfortunately, an example of how this happens exists in your post. Your statement, “Black racists beating white people in Wisconsin (which seems was hardly reported in the press)…” caught my attention. I performed several searches for information regarding the incidents. Although I did find a few newspaper and television news reports that cited individual and mob violence at the Wisconsin State Fair (both on the fairgrounds, and outside the gates), I found far more “reports” of the event on blogs and message boards of far right sociopolitical persuasion. While none of the initial news reports described the violence as racially-motivated, every one of the blog/forum websites not only mentioned it, but focused on it.

I couldn’t help but notice was that, in virtually EVERY blog/forum website report, the wording was IDENTICAL. Two witnesses were quoted (only one gave his full name), and it appeared that the remarks were made to a radio station over the phone. This is the “news article” that passed from blog to blog.

While it may have been true that the attacks were racially motivated, there was no evidence of this at the time of the initial news reports; to have speculated that there was would have been irresponsible on the part of the news outlet. The investigating police chief acknowledged the speculation, stated that existing evidence did not support claims of such, and he requested that eyewitnesses make immediate contact to submit their reports. I saw nothing inappropriate in the behavior of the police chief or in the reporting of the news organizations.

I’m not saying that “black against white” racial bias doesn’t exist, or that African-Americans do not single out victims based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately, hate is alive and well throughout the world, and transcends nationality, religion, education, and socioeconomic status. It’s not that the amount of racial bias is increasing. It’s that our immunity to human violence engendered by racial bias has increased. Thanks to our flat-out refusal to censor media-based hate-mongers from the beginning, both the level of their vitriol and the numbers of people they managed to communicate it to have grown to astronomical levels.

The satisfaction afforded by going to a place where everyone agrees with you and where you can express frustration and hate without fear of being censored is very addictive. At some point, the flow of everyday events capable of eliciting outrage couldn’t keep up with the demand, and suddenly, the pundits and blogs and message boards BECAME the news. The upside for many was that that they could claim status as “entertainment”, thus relieving themselves from journalistic rules and ethics. So, once something appears somewhere – anywhere – it can be reported as “news”, and as “gospel truth”. From there it goes viral, reaching millions of people, creating a never-ending chain-reaction of outrage, and constant experiencing of disenfranchisement. And when stories appear on these rumor mills-disguised-as-news, and are not reported on the actual news media, the cries of “mainstream media suppression” can be heard across the land.

We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=SD Realtor]Brian what are your thoughts about the racial tensions in the USA. White racists in Mississippi… Black racists beating white people in Wisconsin (which seems was hardly reported in the press). (Sorry to go off subject) This really has nothing to do with the TP but it does make one wonder if disenfranchised feel more emboldened each day. Especially each day when they hear about those evil rich people.[/quote]

SDR, I know you addressed Brian with your post, so I hope you’ll forgive the insertion of my two cents.

Racial tensions are, as you pointed out, alive and well in the U.S. A lot of people believe that they are increasing, and, to some extent, I agree with them. However, I am also of the opinion that many people thought that racial bias became a thing of the past with the civil rights gains made by African-Americans by the mid to late 60s. Nothing could be further from the truth: hundreds of years of cultural indoctrination cannot be erased in a few decades. Even though the civil rights war had simply given African-Americans basic human rights accorded white Americans, many of these same people felt that special privileges had been accorded African -Americans, a sentiment that was cemented by adoption of Affirmative Action legislation. As new cultural and sociological landscapes evolved that did not automatically accord a superior role to white males, severe feelings of disenfranchisement took hold in this population segment.

For a time, it was easy to pretend that racial bias did not exist in the mainstream of society, particularly in areas of the U.S. outside of the southern U.S., and, indeed, many supressed racial bias due to fears of social ostracization. However, widespread use of the internet allowed these individuals to communicate with each other, and radio talk show hosts and political bloggers exploited the ingrained racial bias and the disenfranchisement of these large numbers of people to tap into their enormous voting potential. The unfortunate result has been the legitimacy that has been tacitly conferred on the irrational fears and misplaced blame regularly exercised by “hate” groups.

Unfortunately, an example of how this happens exists in your post. Your statement, “Black racists beating white people in Wisconsin (which seems was hardly reported in the press)…” caught my attention. I performed several searches for information regarding the incidents. Although I did find a few newspaper and television news reports that cited individual and mob violence at the Wisconsin State Fair (both on the fairgrounds, and outside the gates), I found far more “reports” of the event on blogs and message boards of far right sociopolitical persuasion. While none of the initial news reports described the violence as racially-motivated, every one of the blog/forum websites not only mentioned it, but focused on it.

I couldn’t help but notice was that, in virtually EVERY blog/forum website report, the wording was IDENTICAL. Two witnesses were quoted (only one gave his full name), and it appeared that the remarks were made to a radio station over the phone. This is the “news article” that passed from blog to blog.

While it may have been true that the attacks were racially motivated, there was no evidence of this at the time of the initial news reports; to have speculated that there was would have been irresponsible on the part of the news outlet. The investigating police chief acknowledged the speculation, stated that existing evidence did not support claims of such, and he requested that eyewitnesses make immediate contact to submit their reports. I saw nothing inappropriate in the behavior of the police chief or in the reporting of the news organizations.

I’m not saying that “black against white” racial bias doesn’t exist, or that African-Americans do not single out victims based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately, hate is alive and well throughout the world, and transcends nationality, religion, education, and socioeconomic status. It’s not that the amount of racial bias is increasing. It’s that our immunity to human violence engendered by racial bias has increased. Thanks to our flat-out refusal to censor media-based hate-mongers from the beginning, both the level of their vitriol and the numbers of people they managed to communicate it to have grown to astronomical levels.

The satisfaction afforded by going to a place where everyone agrees with you and where you can express frustration and hate without fear of being censored is very addictive. At some point, the flow of everyday events capable of eliciting outrage couldn’t keep up with the demand, and suddenly, the pundits and blogs and message boards BECAME the news. The upside for many was that that they could claim status as “entertainment”, thus relieving themselves from journalistic rules and ethics. So, once something appears somewhere – anywhere – it can be reported as “news”, and as “gospel truth”. From there it goes viral, reaching millions of people, creating a never-ending chain-reaction of outrage, and constant experiencing of disenfranchisement. And when stories appear on these rumor mills-disguised-as-news, and are not reported on the actual news media, the cries of “mainstream media suppression” can be heard across the land.

We will never go back to being the country we were until we can compromise and work together, which means actively seeking to breach the polarization that has infected us on every level. It is essential that we start taking the time to research things for ourselves, and not let others with vested interests to dictate the truth to us. Yes, we have been lazy and complacent and short-sighted, but we are still a great nation because we have the good fortune to be built upon a foundation laid by men of significant wisdom and foresight.

[Author]

Posts