Beyond noting Risch's hypocrisy, I think we can all read between the lines and correctly interpret the bigotry that underlies the statements of the governor of Idaho, the white supremacy capital of the world.

Nice blog and very apropos.

I think, less eloquently, it can be summed up as "I'm alright, but stuff you" based on an inbuilt idea of privilige without obligation, complete lack of humanity, humility or sympathy, and utter ignorance of, indifference to, or ability to process the facts.

Christ! So many of them. I'm surrounded!

Or, as a similalry ignorant Marie-Therèse said, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche."

The scandal of Larry Craig was the last piece of cunning by Karl Rove. Roll Call, one of those lackey DC organizations had to get this information "leak' and the media has gone berserk since then. All this to deflect from GWBush and the Iraq fiasco for a few more days ...

I do disagree with you only on a small matter.

Racial bigotry is a small matter, csampson?

Racial discrimination has a very obvious history in the US

Ain't history.

Is now.

The worst part is that the bigotry is part and parcel of the discussion.

it is impossible to hide my skin color, my hair, my face

Don't people "pass" every day?

Isn't race misstated, misapplied, misjudged?

I have no idea what you look like, csampson. I do know that blue-eyed, blonde-haired light-skinned African-Americans exist. What is their race, csampson? Is there not discrimination within the African-American community as well as outside of it?

A Gypsy woman told a reporter that her brother, a doctor, had an advantage because he had a lighter skin and could pass. I have no idea how a Gypsy could become a doctor in the first place but there it was. In either case neither of them were of African ancestry as nearly as anyone can tell.

Gypsies' survival skills far surpass those of any other ethnic group. They manage somehow to keep an ancient, despised culture intact in the midst of hostile populations. They are attuned to prejudice in the way no other can possibly be.

What the Gypsies are not, as far as anyone can tell, African-American though their very name is African in origin - and probably wrong. [I haven't bothered with the more "sensitive" and appropriate designation of Roma - or even Rroma as one correspondent insisted on. I don't think the name Gypsy is displeasing at all to most Gypsies but rather a matter of pride. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and apologize in advance to any I might offend.]

Sexuality can be as transparent as purported race and as wrongly identified and misapplied.

Would it not be best to accurately describe what race is and is not if one wishes to discuss the prejudice that is attached to it? Or is that so impossible?

Best, Terry

I'd like to see a politician who has the courage to say "I'm not going to discuss my private personal life with the press.

That politician would be wrong, of course. :)

I agree. I always thought that the worst mistake Bill Clinton made was to answer the first question. What I wanted Clinton to say was, "Are you seriously asking the President of the United States about his sex life?!? Because, if you are, I can tell you exactly where to shove your question. Get real." It's too bad he probably couldn't have gotten away with simply saying "screw you" to his inquisitors, because some people just beg for that response and they won't quit until they get it.

Oh for Christ Sakes. This was not a LEAK. This was not an example of INTREPID JOURNALISM. This was a guy who was CAUGHT BY THE POLICE SOLICITING A BLOW JOB IN A FEDERAL PUBLIC FACILITY.

If Craig had been a tiny more circumspect in his oral proclivities, he would not have been caught, his anti-gay homophobic agenda would still be in motion, a compliant media would still be covering it up, and his Republican masters would still be using him for a cabin boy.

It is the bigger hypocrisy that is the most offensive. They live with the delusion that they are "self-made men" who don't need the federal government to help them out, bail them out or remedy their condition. Of course it never occurs to them that every person who lives or has lived in this country has been subsidized by governments. Whether through land grants, military service land grants, the homestead act, the military presence needed to secure their safety, railroad subsidies, canal and other transportations subsidies, government backed dollars, community schools, mutual fire protection and policing and dams built, everyone is subsidized.

It's their damned ingratitude, the blind selfishness, the "I got mine" mindset, that makes them climb the ladder and kick the person following them that is the most offensive. Here we have Risch who sees in the utter misery and degradation of the people of New Orleans, an entrepreneurial opportunity. It isn't the inherent racism or the hypocrisy, although that is bad enough, it's the happy willingness to prey on the defenselessness of others and go to church each Sunday that defines conservatism in this country and makes them hypocrites.

Gypsies or Roma people originated in India

That's the "rumor" but the facts are not so easy to verify. The usual tale of the origin as circus performers in India is part of the romance of the people.

Comical was the effort of a researcher to attempt to ascertain such information from the oral tradition of the Roma. Gypsies love a good story and don't care a fig whether the story has a basis in fact or not.

The ones in North America came from Europe.

The "Tinkers" from Ireland (I was long grown when I realized who my father had been talking about) are quite distinct from other European Gypsies. I presume that is true of other ethnic groupings.

What seems reasonably certain is that they did not originate in Egypt as the name implies. Of interest is that once there was a Gypsy nation in the ancient world. That indeed had to be a different world from the present.

Best, Terry

Leaving all other issues aside, I seem to have missed the part where you or Schmitt detailed how Risch wasn't largely correct. Whatever the feds should have done or did do, I don't think the response by many of the residents in NO would have been quite so chaotic if those residents had not been very used to the welfare state.

As for Schmitt's main point, perhaps he'd like to discuss how the Dems and the media helped Bush with his scheme to move the underclass out and move in illegal aliens from Mexico who worked (through layers) for connected contractors (including, allegedly, Halliburton) at a low wage and under unsafe conditions.

Didn't Nagin, Blanco, and Landrieu (all Dems) initially complain about that situation? What happened? That'd be a great thing for Schmitt to discuss at a later date, if he really is concerned about this issue.

Craig's demise was mediaworthy due to his position and his politics. I guarantee that, in the week he was arrested, the same sad tale of living a double life, suffering a public morals charge, was being played out more anonymously in other communities.

I couldn't agree with Craig's politics if I were drunk, shot full of horse tranquilizer, and had a gun put to my head. But to me, the spectacle of someone whose personality is so deeply split, who is in such exquisite and baroque denial, in order to obtain what gives him approval (a career built around repressive politics) and satisfy his sexual desires; the level of self-loathing... it's all both saddening and amazing.

I'd hope that Craig is able to find some measure of personal integration as a result of all this, but I don't think that's in the cards.

All that said, I'm glad he's gone. Idaho's politics, according to a friend up there, are run by conservatives who are one step away from being public nutters, carrying sandwich boards and pissing themselves. Risch doesn't surprise me.

Is this sort of individualistic self sufficiency applicable to all races, incomes and geographic locations by these hypocrites? I suppose not and therein lays one tentacle of this hydra of hypocrisy. If a person is rich enough, white enough and related to me then they should get some help right?

What about the millions that live on flood plains who's homes get destroyed annually. Or those that live in highly tornadic regions. Or those (like myself) that live in earthquake regions. A great majority of this country lives in unstable areas where disaster is literally right around the corner. And what happens when it does strike? Insurance is a crock and while bilking billions from people it never comes close to fulfilling it's implied purpose of protecting people in times of disaster. Katrina proved this in horrifically clear detail. So much for the "market" working things out. The only way our nation can survive, in fact it's the truth behind the "individual" lie about our nations origin, is when we work together.

So how do these places continue to be rebuilt and survive? The Federal government and our tax dollars. In other words, we all chip in to help. (So much for the whole go-it-alone thing right?) Well that's the general principle at least. The problem with the system is that it's run by people that are no less criminally reprehensible as those working for the insurance companies. So they sit back and decide who to help and who not to. They decide how much paperwork needs to be done now or how much can be overlooked for the time being. They decide how many rolls of red tape to pull out of the closet. They decide who's lives are worth helping and who's are not and they have the audacity to come out publicly with comments which say as much. It's sinister and sickening.

And these morally corrupt leaders tend to represent no less morally corrupt citizens who love to parrot the heady slogans of rugged independence and self determination while blissfully ignoring reality and our nation's history. Sure, as they sit at home watching their HD-TV's they can opine about how "those people" should pick themselves up by their bootstraps and fix things themselves because "that's what we'd do". I say bullshit. When your entire life has burnt/blown/washed away you feel very freaking small and helpless. And more so after that insurance policy that's been bleeding you dry for 10 or more years tells you to screw off. If it's never happened to you directly then I say STFU because you really have no idea what you're talking about. But I'll tell you this, if "those resourceful yet far removed people" had a mother or father living in an area stricken by disaster and their lives were in peril then you would probably see an opinionated ass that was far less callous in doling out these meaningless slogans of individuality...

I guess what I'm saying that hypocrisy is far more American than any of the folk tale definitions we love to apply to ourselves (and make silly movies about). After all, for proof that we're all hypocrites you need look no further than the very name of our nation: the United States of America. There's nothing united about us. We're regional, classist, selfish, arrogant, and racist. And that's just how we treat each other! Not so picturesque or united now is it?

/end rant :p

The unique part of the New Orleans disaster is the role the federal government played in causing the disaster. Unlike where an earthquake or a tornado causes destruction, the flood in New Orleans was a result of failure of very poorly designed and built levees, where the corps of engineers did the work. That alone justifies holding all of us taxpayers responsible for fixing what was done in our names.

Another big difference is the racial mix in New Orleans, compared to so many other areas where disasters have occured, combined with the voting record of the area. I'm still not positive that the cavalier attitude of the Republicans towards New Orleans was racially based instead of just a revenge for their habit of voting for Democrats.

But, the part that really has my head swimming is that Congress is now run by the Democrats, and nothing is being done yet to accept federal responsibility for the disaster.

Hoppy in Sacramento

There is so much to say about this whole mess----from Craig to the nasty clearly bigoted man who appears to be in front of the line to succeed him.......I'm limiting my comment to one area: Gay men, lesbians, transgender people have only one choice to make---if we will or will not live true to who we are. That is the only 'preference' involved. And no one gains when anyone claims that their group has suffered more. Too many people have suffered for the race and/or religion they were born part and for their real or perceived sexuality. It is all ugly.

And, it's worth pointing out at this juncture, that Vice President Cheney NEVER would have been in line for the Halliburton job, had he not directly benefitted over the years from his own rise in politics at the Federal level—begining in the Nixon era—and the long lasting friendships he made, as an elected or appointed government official.

What a crock! That he made "…money on his own without government help."

Oh, and then there is the small matter of government granted deferments from required national service as a member of the armed forces. Grants allowing him to pursue other opportunities, and to avoid injury or death in Vietnam, a fate suffered by at least 58,186 other Americans who died, or the more than 75,000 who were severely disabled.

"That's the "rumor" but the facts are not so easy to verify."

India has accepted the rumor and granted the gypsies citizenship.

It should be possible now, by using DNA compostition of the Gypsies relative to other populations, to determine where they came from.

To quote the Wikipedia at length:

Linguistic evidence Gipsy Encampment - facsimile of a copperplate by Callot.Until the mid-late eighteenth century, theories of the origin of the Roma amounted to speculation. Then in 1782, Johann Christian Christoph Rüdiger published his research that pointed out the relationship between the Romani language and Hindustani[7]. Subsequent work supported the hypothesis that Romani shared a common origin with the Indo-Aryan languages of Northern India,[8] with Romani grouping most closely with Sinhalese in a recent study[9].

The majority of historians accepted this as evidence of an Indian origin for the Roma, but some maintained that the Roma acquired the language through contact with Indian merchants[10].

Genetic evidence

Further evidence for the Indian origin of the Roma came in the late 1990s when it was discovered that Roma populations carried large frequencies of particular Y chromosomes (inherited paternally) and mitochondrial DNA (inherited maternally) that otherwise only exist in populations from South Asia.

47.3% of Roma men carry Y chromosomes of haplogroup H-M82 which is otherwise rare outside of the Indian subcontinent[11]. Mitochondrial haplogroup M, most common in Indian subjects and rare outside of Southern Asia, accounts for nearly 30% of Roma people[11]. A more detailed study of Polish Roma shows this to be of the M5 lineage, which is specific to India[12]. Moreover, a form of the inherited disorder congenital myasthenia is carried by around 4% of the Roma population. This form of the disorder, caused by the 1267delG mutation, is otherwise only known in subjects of Indian ancestry[11].

This is considered unambiguous proof that all Roma are descended from a single founding population, originating from the Indian subcontinent around 40 generations ago, which subsequently split into the subgroups we see today.[11]

Linguistic and genetic evidence indicates the Roma originated from the Indian subcontinent.[13] The cause of the Roma diaspora is unknown. However, the most probable situation is that the Roma were part of the military in Northern India. When there were repeated raids by Mahmud of Ghazni and these soldiers were defeated, they were moved west with their families into the Byzantine Empire. This occurred between 1000 and 1050 AD. This departure date is assumed because, linguistically speaking, the Romani language is a New Indo-Aryan language (NIA)--it has only two genders (masculine and feminine). Until around the year 1000, the Indo-Aryan languages, named Middle Indo-Aryan (MIA), had three genders (masculine, feminine and neuter). By the turn of the 2nd millennium they changed into the NIA phase, losing the neuter gender. Most of the neuter nouns became masculine while a few feminine, like the neuter ????? (agni) in the Prakrit became the feminine ?? (?g) in Hindi and jag in Romani. The parallels in grammatical gender evolution between Romani and other NIA languages is proposed to prove that the change occurred in the Subcontinent. It is therefore not considered possible that the Romas' ancestors left there prior to 1000.

I agree. I always thought that the worst mistake Bill Clinton made was to answer the first question. What I wanted Clinton to say was, 'Are you seriously asking the President of the United States about his sex life?!? Because, if you are, I can tell you exactly where to shove your question. Get real.'

Uh-huh. Jesse Jackson did it. Somebody asked him about rumors of marital infidelity, and he replied, "That's none of your business." Period. And the talk went away.

By the way, I'd guess Sen. Craig was telling the truth when he said he isn't gay. I'm assuming he's bi. So what he said is technocally correct.

Peace,
Paul

I live in Idaho (Okay... it's 600 feet from Oregon) but I have no problems with Risch taking Craig's place. I believe there are now a dozen Republican Congressmen and Senators either gone, indicted, or under serious investigation... not including those who are choosing to retire.

November, 2008 elections are over a year away. At the current rate of attrition, there's a good chance Risch will be under investigation, indicted, or in prison before reelection. In fact, at the current rate, another 10 or 12 of those fine folks who brought us the Iraq War, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, etc... will be gone for one reason or another.

I just hope we don't make the mistake of voting their clones into office...

On the public / private issue I think there is ample evidence that politicians invite the fixes they get themselves into. In reference to legislation, there is the not uncommon connection between our legislators and persons or associates in the private sector. Earmarks and pork barrel politics are largely about these private associations that become grafted onto uniquely focused legislation. I would argue that it is beneficial (for citizens) to know about these things because it often reveals instances where our elected officials create or sponsor legislation that is tailor made to benefit narrowly focused private interests. Or, as we have often seen, our legislators often manage to find themselves the recipients of some sweetheart private business deals that give the unmistakable appearance of corruption.

Personally, I think it unseemly that self promotion is so much a part of what our legislators undertake and also note that public office is typically a stepping stone to accrual of private wealth. The crossover between public office and private business is rampant and I believe is the true reason for the intrusion into the private lives of our elected officials. How often do we see our public officials unabashedly deny these connections when they are right there for everyone to see and are so evident as to make our elected officials denials patently absurd?

The thing is, our public officials, almost without exception, have private motivations for everything they do under the guise of performing in their public capacity. Senator Craig is no exception to this. He (apparently) represented himself dishonestly to his constituents for the obvious purpose of garnering the significant benefits that accrue to a U.S. Senator. Our system has evolved in such a way as to promote the noted phenomenon and it will remain so unless those very persons who are members of this elite class of persons take it upon themseleves to truly restore honesty to it. And this begs the question of whether or not there was ever any intent to have it be so in the first place or if it was fully intended to be the sole province of the ethics of the members? Is it not peculiar that we have human nature as the decidedly subjective guide to the success of our republic? How foolish is that? Mankind could not, by intent or accident, devise a more supremely flawed system.

"Here in Idaho, we couldn’t understand how people [in Louisiana] could sit around on the kerbs waiting for the federal government to come and do something. We had a dam break in 1976, but we didn’t whine about it. We got out our backhoes and we rebuilt the roads and replanted the fields and got on with our lives. That’s the culture here. Not waiting for the federal government to bring you drinking water. In Idaho there would have been entrepreneurs selling the drinking water."

I remember how every year television broadcasts would show the Mississippi breeching the dikes and levees and spilling all over the flood plane, inundating farms, businesses, homes and whole towns. AND, if I remember, most, if not all were RED STATES.

The good old boys in these states would take a seat at the government table and dig right in, sucking at the Federal teat for emergency funds, subsidies of one type or another, grants, and whatever else they could milk the government for.

Yep, the same gang that hates "big government programs" would rebuild in the same flood plane knowing Uncle Sam would bail them out, all the while, railing against "socialist programs being pushed by liberals and Democrats."

I once ran into another guy who fought in World War II, went to college on the G. I. Bill, bought a house with F.H.A. loan, drove back and forth to work on the interstate highways. He got an S.B.A. loan for his business. His sons got some federal student loans. His parents were happily retired on Social Security and Medicare. And he said he was voting for Ronald Reagan to get the government off his back.

Some things never change.

The federal government spends about nine thousand dollars per capita for public goods every year or thirty six thousand dollars for a family of four. I doubt if many of those complaining about big government are paying anything near their share in taxes. If they are self interested, they should want even more government programs since they will come out ahead as long as they don’t get greedy and try to make too much money.

You are way over thinking this.

My point is that the federal government provides thirty six thousand dollars in public goods for every family of four and that almost no family of four is paying, or could pay, that much in taxes (their share of the cost). I wasn’t making a case to tax children, just pointing out that almost no one pays full price for the the public goods available to them, so they should arguably want more government “on their back” instead of less.

I'd argue that you're not thinking it through at all.

You keep talking that no one pays 'their share fo the cost'. That's an inaccurate viewpoint.

Nor is it a coherent view of taxation which has been espoused by any rational person. Taxation is a confiscation of wealth for public purposes. The basis of calculating taxation is social wealth. Dollars not bodies.

It presumes that the benefits of a state are equally and fairly distributed. This is not the case.

Public goods should be for the equal benefit of all in society and to a large extent they are: national defense, border security, space exploration, medical research, food and drug safety, interstate highways, air traffic control, and on and on and on. True, people who live in disaster prone areas may benefit somewhat more, but they are outliers.

Bull, public expenditures are always inherently unequal in their application. There is not an unlimited amount of money or resources to address every need. Therefore, there is an ongoing assessment of proportionate needs.

Agricultural policy inherently favours one crop over another, one region over another, one type of farming or group of farming over another. Manufacturing policy is the same. Defense expenditures inherently maldistribute revenues, as does social assistance.

The most obvious example of maldistribution was the American south in the Jim Crow era of segregation when poor blacks tax dollars went to subsidize rich white communities, whether it be hospitals, roads, schools, water and sewer, etc.

Your notion of equal distribution simply does not function.

Taxation of aggregate social wealth is generally constituted through taxation of income. It's a transaction based tax system.

As for the point that the people who whine most about government on their backs are often the ones with their hands deepest in the trough...

we don’t tax wealth, if I make one hundred thousand dollars a year and have a negative net worth, I still get a hefty tax bill.

We don't tax income either.

You can make a billion dollars a year and pay nothing.

Some hedge fund managers have actually expressed embarrassment over the favorable taxation of their income compared to wages of workers.

That is really something coming from those who boast about looting the meager savings of the same workers.

Best, Terry

Of course one can argue that commercial interests benefit the ecomomy as well since they employ people and produce goods and services that we all enjoy. Do you not think that the closure of a primary shipping lane on the high seas would harm everyone in some way?

So basically what you are saying is that publically speaking out about those who take problems into their own hands and NOT relying on the Federal Government thousand of miles away are fucking idiots and hypocrites instead of heroes.

But those corrupt assholes who have taken more than 44 billion dollars from that same Federalized Government over the last 30 years to improve the levy systems and corruptly pocketed it for themselves, are now bitching and moaning after a massive NATURAL calamity ruined their city because they never rebuilt those levys! And the poor people in that community, instead of drawing together to rebuild their community, are still today just sitting around waiting to suck on the giant titty of the Feds and are pissed because the hundreds of billions in tit milk isn't freely flowing their way!

Even the majority of the billions that are pouring into the Katrina flood region now is going to the corrupt Louisianians for drugs, booze, bigger houses, and Cadallic Escalades!!!

I live in Idaho (Okay... it's 600 feet from Oregon)

A wondrous, magical place to live.

How can that possibly be what with all those primitives beginning with the white supremacists and extending to the voters that put Bill Sali in office?

Perhaps you will be so kind as to take a look at the electoral map of Oregon's Congressional District 2 here.

District 2 in Oregon is vastly larger in area than the rest of the state with its remaining 5 electoral districts. It is not an unreasonable cipher for Idaho I hope Larry will agree:

[From a Biker's Tale:]

I continued away from the bustling metropolis of Parma, Idaho westward along Hwy 20. If I have come away from today's adventure with any impression at all it would have to be that Oregon is big! I mean really big. You wouldn't believe how vastly, hugely big it is. (Thank you, Douglas Adams).

I am not here to do a travelogue though I would love to bore everyone to death with tales of a wonderland like no other on earth.

All you need to know is how "vastly, hugely big it is."

You might also like to know that the Republican representative took 66% of the vote in the last election. I know nothing about him but assume he is probably somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney.

But in my lifetime this district has gone from ultra-right to so Democratic that the entrenched Democrat was around long enough he was able to take Wilbur Mills place as Chairman of House Ways and Means after Mills took a midnight swim with a hooker. And back again it went to the rightwing fringe.

The electorate is quite persuadable, even eager to discuss matters in this vast, lonely land but you've got to do the hard work of talking about things. TV jingles won't quite do the job where there are some that don't even have TV.

Lots of room to grow out West in a grand mystical high desert country that few flatlanders know anything about.

Best, Terry

I'd mainly like to ask you to not read into what others write and simply read what they write.

I not only read what you wrote but copied and pasted it.

You can complain what I selected was taken out of context, that you meant something else, that you have changed your mind, that you stand by what you wrote, that you wish to explain more fully but you can't, with any kind of truth, state that I did not read what you wrote when I even copied it back to you.

I don't believe in race.

Now you see that is nonsensical.

Are you going to tell us that you could be suddenly transported to a city such as Lagos or Stockholm or Tokyo and not be able to make any sort of guess what continent you were on by simply observing passers-by?

Race is very real.

So is the blind racism which insists on what is not true through determined ignorance.

An African-American appearing on Nightline had been driven to drink when a DNA test could find no evidence of Sub-Saharan African heritage.

Was an African-American with no African ancestry within the usual parameters of statistical significance really an African-American?

The answer is an unqualified yes.

Because you see African-American describes an ethnicity that needs no scientific foundation, no rationale besides acceptance or exclusion by those inside or outside.

There is a very surprising bit of software that can predict European nationality by the admixture of race.

A swarthy Sicilian that may be frowned upon by northern Italian as being of "mixed" blood is most likely to show no admixture of non-European ancestry at all while a "pure" Swede will almost surely show admixture of East Asian ancestry.

If you want to know why this is important, consider that the FDA warns doctors that "Asians" are particularly susceptible to the muscle-wasting side effect of anti-cholesterol drugs like Lipitor. Would it not be of interest to know what this "Asian" might be beyond what a reporter or politician thinks it is? If the African-American who has no African heritage has a heart problem, should a doctor consider prescribing Bi-Dil that the FDA approved for Americans of African heritage only?

You are, of course, free to believe in anything you wish or not believe as you desire.

I prefer to know what little I can as best I can.

I don't see the qualitative or quantitative difference between prejudices like racism and homophobia. Both are based on mythology divorced from scientific knowledge. Both pretend to know much and know nothing. Or perhaps that judgment is only my own blind prejudice speaking. I hate both.

Best, Terry

d

Now you see that is nonsensical.

No it isn't.

Race is very real.

Only in a sociological sense, not a genetic grouping. The differences among humans does not rise to the level of classification by race as science does with species.

If you want to know why this is important, consider that the FDA warns doctors that "Asians" are particularly susceptible to the muscle-wasting side effect of anti-cholesterol drugs like Lipitor

This is not important. Consider that the vast majority of drugs brought to market are primarily used in males. Yet, females take them and they are effective. Even though gender accounts for more variance in absorption, distribution and metabolism which impacts therapeutic efficacy much more so than 'race' ever has. The genetic differences with "Asians' are about enzyme metabolism. That a specific enzyme deficiency is more common among certain groups of humans does not support classification of humans by race. As the genetic variance between groups is less than the genetic variance within groups of humans and not significant  enough to be a separate species. i.e. homosapiens cannot be subdivided by race as we when we classify the animal kingdom by species. There are no species (races) of homosapiens.

We are all flowers, even though we might be yellow, orange, red, or blue. We are all flowers. No tulips and roses.

So a direct payment to a New Orleans family for rebuilding which allows a local worker to be on the local workforce is indirectly helping your other family.

Ther are many unmeasured resource demands that the wealthy exact. Simply using more water runs up the price for everyone, ditto electricity. Large, heavy cars, that are Americans' right to drive, also punish the road surface considerably more than a high-mileage compact car. Private airplanes cost the same in airport services as large airplanes, per unit, but way more per passenger.

In general, the typically larger personal demand for goods and services by the wealthy drives up the cost for everyone. I my business, when wealthy doctors started buying Stradivari violins for the simple pleasure of owning a fine antique, the cost skyrocketed and all fine Italian fiddles went well past six figures to buy.

The costs induced by the resource demands of the wealthy spread out on the rest of us, and I haven't mentioned the environmental degradation associated with those large houses (yeah, I know Edwards has one but he's not arguing against taxes, is he).

And when we look at businesses, it is trivial to point out that we all benefit from their continued existence (well, maybe), but it should be equally trivial to point out that the owners benefit more than the clients. So at a minimum taxes should be a percentage, and since, as I argue, the high-demand users exert price pressure disproportionally to the low demand-user, taxes should be scaled.

Just remember, the poor would still be poor, absent the wealthy, but the wealthy would not be rich without the poor. Labor precedes capital.

Wow! You have issues.

My simple point was that the money spent on New Orleans, while part of the some thirty six thousand dollars my family of four is allocated in public goods, will not be see by them as a direct benefit. But to the extent that it keeps commerce flowing it will be of indirect benefit to them. I don’t think they benefit from rebuilding an individuals house unless they can drop their private insurance and rely on the government in times of disaster.

I’m not here to advocate a tax policy or proclaim my hatred for those who have more economic success than I.

By the way, do not those wealth doctors that you despise ensure that rare violins are meticulously preserved?

One does not need professional training to diagnos your issues, you telegraph them quite clearly.

"Race is very real." Only in a sociological sense, not a genetic grouping.

See here for openers. A more extensive and objective publication is one here.

Even a casual reader should be able to notice that the sociological basis for racial classification is bunk. Throwing in the enormous number of genes races have in common is like claiming all humans are baboons because there is also much in common.

The perverted prejudice against science and enshrinement of sociological prejudice is costly in terms of lives, health and advancement of science.

In plain fact we are all a mixture of races instead of boxed in separate categories. Why does that disturb you?

Best, Terry

Terry, WRB has demonstrated elsewhere that s/he is a Christian fundamentalist. I urge more pity than scorn, and that you not attempt to reason with him/her.

deleted by klutzy poster

Tank, what is your problem with WRB? Individuals who have posted here far longer than you can tell you that WRB is not a fundamentalist anything. You can search the comments and learn that WRB does not in fact even beleive in religion.

It sounds to me like you are a sore loser, and unable to accept that when you get into a dialogue with WRB you need facts to prevail.You did not do that dispite issuing a challenge. Your posts were primarily emotional screeds and focused on WRB instead of the topic.

What I object to you is your need to mischaracterize and villify a poster personally when you were unable to come to the board with any real facts to demonstrate the positions and assertions that you stated were accurate or factual. That is not WRB's fault. The onus was on you.

We do not need sore losers at TPMcafe who choose to harass posters in multiple threads. It is unecessary and the site is much better off without this type of adolescent behavior. The adult response is to either present your argument as best you can and if you are uanble to prevail. Move on. This grudge thing on your part is unwarranted and unecessary.
No one goes around from thread to thread harassing one poster. Perhaps, you learned this intolerable adolescent habit at other sites I don't know. I simply do not want this type of adolescent behavior to infest the Cafe.

My suggestion is to present your views, support them with facts and if you are unable to agree...agree to disagree..then move on. Don't carry over your losing argument to multiple threads. That is thread corruption. It isn't approrpiate nor appreciated by the TPMcafe community overall.

At the very least you need to use the private message system to vent your personal angst with WRB and not corrupt multiple threads.

The presumption that there are a number of different races within the human species implies that there is a different genetic code for these separate races.  King explains, the degree to which the genetic makeup between individuals in different racial categories varies is 6%.  However, within any certain race there is the same degree of difference between individuals.  The development of varying skin pigmentation is not an influential enough of a difference to divide the human species into races.  Skin color is merely a reaction to a dangerous environment.  The same instances have been documented in immunity to diseases.  A people who are endangered by a virus develop a way to survive (Boyd 45).

It can also be argued that the geographical factors stated above are the same factors that have been responsible for the evolution of all species.  Nature and its woes had an influence on the variations that were experienced by the people.  But the amount of time that it takes for a new species to develop is immense.  Human beings started to expand out into the world about 25,000 years ago.  This leaves little space for the evolution of separate species.  At this same time, the people were beginning to develop technology.  It was rather primitive, but its purpose was to make survival easier.  Humans are the only animals that do not adapt to the environment, but rather adapt the environment to fit their needs.  So, with a brief period, being subject to nature, humans adapted to their environment physically, but with the quick advancement of technology the impact of nature became minimal (Dunn 48-51).

 

Race can also be examined from the angle of interbreeding.  For example the Drosophila. A species of flies. Has a number of documented strains.  When these strains are interbred, fully fertile and sometimes even larger flies are produced.  Yet, when these hybrids reproduce, their offspring are prone to genetic defects and infertility. Further breeding of these offspring leads to more extreme cases of the same.  This scenario has been documented in many different animal species (King 118).

This type of genetic divergence is nonexistent in the human species.  To be classified as separate races, humans would need to possess this hybrid disability.  The “races” of the human species are variable in degrees of melanin, which does not qualify them to be called as such.

Race is a concept of society that insists there is a genetic significance behind human variations in skin color that transcends out ward appearance.  However, race has no scientific merit outside of sociological classification.  There are no significant genetic variations within the human species to justify the division of “ races.”

 where is the personal insult to the writer you refer to?

Here: 

 In the first place, Mr. Schmitt, from your picture up there, you look to be old enough

You have a propensity for misinterpreting what you read here, constantly finding insults and ad hominum attack where it doesn't exist.

False. Care to prove your assertion with anything other than your subjectivity? Your failure to understand what I read the same does not mean I misinterpreted anything. It simply means that we have different experiences and views.

That you accuse others of being reading comprehension challenged is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

Really? Well how about you find something in  Schmitt's origninal post to support that racial distortion by IBJoshin? Tell me what Schmidt wrote to support this inference/deduction:

Also, your article reads like you think it is somehow worse to discriminate against people of color than it is to discriminate against homosexuals. It isn't

. I'll be waiting as I do not want to presume that you were making an ad homium attack as opposed to having an honest difference of opinion. So, please provide the words that support  Joshin's deductive reasoning above. .  I should note, the original poster couldn't do so, but you are welcome to try and/or acknowledge that you too have made an error in judgment based on reading comprehensive skills.