Is America a racist nation?

[get it to x]

The Congressional Black Caucus has thrown its financial support behind a white male Democratic congressman in Indiana rather than to his challenger who is looking to become the only Black female Republican in Congress.

"It’s the American people versus the DC politicians and lobbyists," Air Force veteran Jennifer-Ruth Green told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I’m with the American people. The Congressional Black Caucus is with the politicians and lobbyists, and their career politician ally Frank Mrvan. America’s poorest communities are proof Frank Mrvan and the CBC care more about power and helping themselves than helping the people of northwest Indiana. It’s sad."

So much for historic firsts for women and people of color.

well, yes, she's 100% all-in culture warrior. CRT, abortion, "America was founded as a Christian nation", etc, etc...though she's not a complete whack job.

Impressive personal background, but her views would be anathema to a Democrat...

But yes, her most recent tweet is all about not getting endorsed by the CBC.

Not pointing at you, but most of the people I know on the left generally have either antipathy or hostility towards religion. Many times it takes a mocking tone, like "Go tell it to your imaginary friend". The left is confused about what the Constitution says about religion. The government may not establish a government religion nor can it prohibit it's free exercise. It's the ultimate "Leave me alone!!" clause. You may not realize it, but those non-believers practice their own form of religion, with sacraments like abortion and "Climate Change" activism that you see your acts of charity. The need to seek what is perceived as positive change comes from somewhere. I suspect that many have a religious background in their family that made them want to help, but they have strayed from religion. I understand, as the church on Earth has not always been in alignment with the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, the fact that they want government to make decisions absent the Judeo-Christian ethos of humility and compassion will in the end lead to a crueler outcome for those that need our compassion.

I think that the reason you may have responded to me rather than over on the religion thread re your views about secularism is that I noted this particular candidate's mistaken belief that "America was founded as a Christian nation"...a common refrain among Christian Nationalists. This proposition is provably false, though certainly it winds many folks up. I don't know whether that's her actual belief or she just wants to attract Christian Nationalists votes, but...

I was objecting to that, not someone incorporating their "Judeo-Christian ethos" into their own living and practices, nor would I object to a Muslim or Buddhist etc incorporating their religious beliefs into their own living or practices.

Factually, none can claim preeminence as endorsed by the US Constitution, nor by the Founders for that matter.

My objection is utilizing the power of government to enforce one's religious beliefs and their consequences on others.

Christian Nationalists wish to impose a very particular set of religious beliefs, indeed the most 'fundamentalist' of such, on the rest of the society...big objection, thank you.

Now as to secularists, assuming that's what you mean by "non-believers" (I think that's also a mistaken construct as one can be both a believer in God and insist upon secular government), I understand why you may ascribe some of the passion some feel about a particular issue as almost or actually doctrinal, or dogmatic, and I'm sure that's fair in some people's cases. Doctrine and dogma are a short cut to values based on reason, whether religious or anything else. That short cut has some positive implications, but it also has negative.

Where I think you may be going astray is assuming that positions on topics like climate change aren't based on reason and evidence, much akin to the evolution versus creationism 'debate' between "believers" and those who think science actually matters, indeed that the higher power, however defined, endowed us with the capacity for reason...so use it.

Reason and evidence are important. Where is your evidence that we only have ten years until an irreversible, catastrophic climate situation? This has been stated time after time. New Ice Age, Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Acid Rain and on and on. Secular preachers preaching from the pulpit of fear, a la "Chicken Little". Hubris that the current climate is the most ideal for the most people, and that we must mitigate against even the slightest change, as man has somehow lost it's ability to adapt. Always with some unintended consequence, like Germany out of fuel. The sex toy of unintended consequences never comes with any lubrication. Sorry to post this here, as it belongs in the Con/Prog thread.

When you hear me making such claims as certainties you're more than free to accuse me of dogma over reason and science.

But I haven't.
Nor have I heard more than sincere warnings that failure to address the root causes will, with high confidence, ultimately lead to catastrophic outcomes.

When that tipping point will occur is a much wider spectrum of opinion, not certainty.

I suspect that you are hearing such filtered through a media process that finds the most extreme statements, or clips statements out of context, so as to make a political point...those media feeds are themselves self-interested in their immediate monetization of those wanting to see/hear such, and to bolster the politicians who are on the teat of carbon producers/users.

Big grain of salt, I'd suggest.

On the other hand, one can claim similar motivations for the extremists, though I'm way more suspicious of deeply entrenched, very wealthy, status quo interests than those sounding alarms from the scientific community.

Let's just say that I hope that the warnings are overly dire and/or we react well to the challenge.

Not sure why you're defending yourself when I went out of my way to say "Not pointing at you..." It must be a burden to have such gravitational attraction that the world revolves around you.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Congressional Black Caucus has thrown its financial support behind a white male Democratic congressman in Indiana rather than to his challenger who is looking to become the only Black female Republican in Congress.

"It’s the American people versus the DC politicians and lobbyists," Air Force veteran Jennifer-Ruth Green told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I’m with the American people. The Congressional Black Caucus is with the politicians and lobbyists, and their career politician ally Frank Mrvan. America’s poorest communities are proof Frank Mrvan and the CBC care more about power and helping themselves than helping the people of northwest Indiana. It’s sad."

So much for historic firsts for women and people of color.

well, yes, she's 100% all-in culture warrior. CRT, abortion, "America was founded as a Christian nation", etc, etc...though she's not a complete whack job.

Impressive personal background, but her views would be anathema to a Democrat...

But yes, her most recent tweet is all about not getting endorsed by the CBC.

Not pointing at you, but most of the people I know on the left generally have either antipathy or hostility towards religion. Many times it takes a mocking tone, like "Go tell it to your imaginary friend". The left is confused about what the Constitution says about religion. The government may not establish a government religion nor can it prohibit it's free exercise. It's the ultimate "Leave me alone!!" clause. You may not realize it, but those non-believers practice their own form of religion, with sacraments like abortion and "Climate Change" activism that you see your acts of charity. The need to seek what is perceived as positive change comes from somewhere. I suspect that many have a religious background in their family that made them want to help, but they have strayed from religion. I understand, as the church on Earth has not always been in alignment with the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, the fact that they want government to make decisions absent the Judeo-Christian ethos of humility and compassion will in the end lead to a crueler outcome for those that need our compassion.

I think that the reason you may have responded to me rather than over on the religion thread re your views about secularism is that I noted this particular candidate's mistaken belief that "America was founded as a Christian nation"...a common refrain among Christian Nationalists. This proposition is provably false, though certainly it winds many folks up. I don't know whether that's her actual belief or she just wants to attract Christian Nationalists votes, but...

I was objecting to that, not someone incorporating their "Judeo-Christian ethos" into their own living and practices, nor would I object to a Muslim or Buddhist etc incorporating their religious beliefs into their own living or practices.

Factually, none can claim preeminence as endorsed by the US Constitution, nor by the Founders for that matter.

My objection is utilizing the power of government to enforce one's religious beliefs and their consequences on others.

Christian Nationalists wish to impose a very particular set of religious beliefs, indeed the most 'fundamentalist' of such, on the rest of the society...big objection, thank you.

Now as to secularists, assuming that's what you mean by "non-believers" (I think that's also a mistaken construct as one can be both a believer in God and insist upon secular government), I understand why you may ascribe some of the passion some feel about a particular issue as almost or actually doctrinal, or dogmatic, and I'm sure that's fair in some people's cases. Doctrine and dogma are a short cut to values based on reason, whether religious or anything else. That short cut has some positive implications, but it also has negative.

Where I think you may be going astray is assuming that positions on topics like climate change aren't based on reason and evidence, much akin to the evolution versus creationism 'debate' between "believers" and those who think science actually matters, indeed that the higher power, however defined, endowed us with the capacity for reason...so use it.

Reason and evidence are important. Where is your evidence that we only have ten years until an irreversible, catastrophic climate situation? This has been stated time after time. New Ice Age, Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Acid Rain and on and on. Secular preachers preaching from the pulpit of fear, a la "Chicken Little". Hubris that the current climate is the most ideal for the most people, and that we must mitigate against even the slightest change, as man has somehow lost it's ability to adapt. Always with some unintended consequence, like Germany out of fuel. The sex toy of unintended consequences never comes with any lubrication. Sorry to post this here, as it belongs in the Con/Prog thread.

When you hear me making such claims as certainties you're more than free to accuse me of dogma over reason and science.

But I haven't.
Nor have I heard more than sincere warnings that failure to address the root causes will, with high confidence, ultimately lead to catastrophic outcomes.

When that tipping point will occur is a much wider spectrum of opinion, not certainty.

I suspect that you are hearing such filtered through a media process that finds the most extreme statements, or clips statements out of context, so as to make a political point...those media feeds are themselves self-interested in their immediate monetization of those wanting to see/hear such, and to bolster the politicians who are on the teat of carbon producers/users.

Big grain of salt, I'd suggest.

On the other hand, one can claim similar motivations for the extremists, though I'm way more suspicious of deeply entrenched, very wealthy, status quo interests than those sounding alarms from the scientific community.

Let's just say that I hope that the warnings are overly dire and/or we react well to the challenge.

Not sure why you're defending yourself when I went out of my way to say "Not pointing at you..." It must be a burden to have such gravitational attraction that the world revolves around you.

That's your response? You responded to my post about that particular candidate you'd posted about, specific to the "Christian" comment...you began with a nice nod to civility, but then went on a bit of jag...I responded I think quite civilly, and hopefully thoughtfully...you chose to then respond with "where is your evidence...", an accusation directed at me as if I was one of the "secular preachers" you find so disturbing. And then got crude.(not a problem for me, but...)

And now the insult about "gravitational...".

How about just responding to the logic/argumentation?

[get it to x]

The Congressional Black Caucus has thrown its financial support behind a white male Democratic congressman in Indiana rather than to his challenger who is looking to become the only Black female Republican in Congress.

"It’s the American people versus the DC politicians and lobbyists," Air Force veteran Jennifer-Ruth Green told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I’m with the American people. The Congressional Black Caucus is with the politicians and lobbyists, and their career politician ally Frank Mrvan. America’s poorest communities are proof Frank Mrvan and the CBC care more about power and helping themselves than helping the people of northwest Indiana. It’s sad."

So much for historic firsts for women and people of color.

well, yes, she's 100% all-in culture warrior. CRT, abortion, "America was founded as a Christian nation", etc, etc...though she's not a complete whack job.

Impressive personal background, but her views would be anathema to a Democrat...

But yes, her most recent tweet is all about not getting endorsed by the CBC.

Not pointing at you, but most of the people I know on the left generally have either antipathy or hostility towards religion. Many times it takes a mocking tone, like "Go tell it to your imaginary friend". The left is confused about what the Constitution says about religion. The government may not establish a government religion nor can it prohibit it's free exercise. It's the ultimate "Leave me alone!!" clause. You may not realize it, but those non-believers practice their own form of religion, with sacraments like abortion and "Climate Change" activism that you see your acts of charity. The need to seek what is perceived as positive change comes from somewhere. I suspect that many have a religious background in their family that made them want to help, but they have strayed from religion. I understand, as the church on Earth has not always been in alignment with the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, the fact that they want government to make decisions absent the Judeo-Christian ethos of humility and compassion will in the end lead to a crueler outcome for those that need our compassion.

I think that the reason you may have responded to me rather than over on the religion thread re your views about secularism is that I noted this particular candidate's mistaken belief that "America was founded as a Christian nation"...a common refrain among Christian Nationalists. This proposition is provably false, though certainly it winds many folks up. I don't know whether that's her actual belief or she just wants to attract Christian Nationalists votes, but...

I was objecting to that, not someone incorporating their "Judeo-Christian ethos" into their own living and practices, nor would I object to a Muslim or Buddhist etc incorporating their religious beliefs into their own living or practices.

Factually, none can claim preeminence as endorsed by the US Constitution, nor by the Founders for that matter.

My objection is utilizing the power of government to enforce one's religious beliefs and their consequences on others.

Christian Nationalists wish to impose a very particular set of religious beliefs, indeed the most 'fundamentalist' of such, on the rest of the society...big objection, thank you.

Now as to secularists, assuming that's what you mean by "non-believers" (I think that's also a mistaken construct as one can be both a believer in God and insist upon secular government), I understand why you may ascribe some of the passion some feel about a particular issue as almost or actually doctrinal, or dogmatic, and I'm sure that's fair in some people's cases. Doctrine and dogma are a short cut to values based on reason, whether religious or anything else. That short cut has some positive implications, but it also has negative.

Where I think you may be going astray is assuming that positions on topics like climate change aren't based on reason and evidence, much akin to the evolution versus creationism 'debate' between "believers" and those who think science actually matters, indeed that the higher power, however defined, endowed us with the capacity for reason...so use it.

Reason and evidence are important. Where is your evidence that we only have ten years until an irreversible, catastrophic climate situation? This has been stated time after time. New Ice Age, Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Acid Rain and on and on. Secular preachers preaching from the pulpit of fear, a la "Chicken Little". Hubris that the current climate is the most ideal for the most people, and that we must mitigate against even the slightest change, as man has somehow lost it's ability to adapt. Always with some unintended consequence, like Germany out of fuel. The sex toy of unintended consequences never comes with any lubrication. Sorry to post this here, as it belongs in the Con/Prog thread.

When you hear me making such claims as certainties you're more than free to accuse me of dogma over reason and science.

But I haven't.
Nor have I heard more than sincere warnings that failure to address the root causes will, with high confidence, ultimately lead to catastrophic outcomes.

When that tipping point will occur is a much wider spectrum of opinion, not certainty.

I suspect that you are hearing such filtered through a media process that finds the most extreme statements, or clips statements out of context, so as to make a political point...those media feeds are themselves self-interested in their immediate monetization of those wanting to see/hear such, and to bolster the politicians who are on the teat of carbon producers/users.

Big grain of salt, I'd suggest.

On the other hand, one can claim similar motivations for the extremists, though I'm way more suspicious of deeply entrenched, very wealthy, status quo interests than those sounding alarms from the scientific community.

Let's just say that I hope that the warnings are overly dire and/or we react well to the challenge.

Not sure why you're defending yourself when I went out of my way to say "Not pointing at you..." It must be a burden to have such gravitational attraction that the world revolves around you.

That's your response? You responded to my post about that particular candidate you'd posted about, specific to the "Christian" comment...you began with a nice nod to civility, but then went on a bit of jag...I responded I think quite civilly, and hopefully thoughtfully...you chose to then respond with "where is your evidence...", an accusation directed at me as if I was one of the "secular preachers" you find so disturbing. And then got crude.(not a problem for me, but...)

And now the insult about "gravitational...".

How about just responding to the logic/argumentation?

Okay. I made it clear I was generalizing about secularism. I was also not arguing from the general (secularism) to the specific (you). That's why I poked you, because you just assumed I was talking about you. I will admit "your" (which I meant as the collective) was a poor word choice. "The" would have been more appropriate. The gravity thing I've used it on my kids before. Take it as a gesture of friendship.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Congressional Black Caucus has thrown its financial support behind a white male Democratic congressman in Indiana rather than to his challenger who is looking to become the only Black female Republican in Congress.

"It’s the American people versus the DC politicians and lobbyists," Air Force veteran Jennifer-Ruth Green told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I’m with the American people. The Congressional Black Caucus is with the politicians and lobbyists, and their career politician ally Frank Mrvan. America’s poorest communities are proof Frank Mrvan and the CBC care more about power and helping themselves than helping the people of northwest Indiana. It’s sad."

So much for historic firsts for women and people of color.

well, yes, she's 100% all-in culture warrior. CRT, abortion, "America was founded as a Christian nation", etc, etc...though she's not a complete whack job.

Impressive personal background, but her views would be anathema to a Democrat...

But yes, her most recent tweet is all about not getting endorsed by the CBC.

Not pointing at you, but most of the people I know on the left generally have either antipathy or hostility towards religion. Many times it takes a mocking tone, like "Go tell it to your imaginary friend". The left is confused about what the Constitution says about religion. The government may not establish a government religion nor can it prohibit it's free exercise. It's the ultimate "Leave me alone!!" clause. You may not realize it, but those non-believers practice their own form of religion, with sacraments like abortion and "Climate Change" activism that you see your acts of charity. The need to seek what is perceived as positive change comes from somewhere. I suspect that many have a religious background in their family that made them want to help, but they have strayed from religion. I understand, as the church on Earth has not always been in alignment with the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, the fact that they want government to make decisions absent the Judeo-Christian ethos of humility and compassion will in the end lead to a crueler outcome for those that need our compassion.

I think that the reason you may have responded to me rather than over on the religion thread re your views about secularism is that I noted this particular candidate's mistaken belief that "America was founded as a Christian nation"...a common refrain among Christian Nationalists. This proposition is provably false, though certainly it winds many folks up. I don't know whether that's her actual belief or she just wants to attract Christian Nationalists votes, but...

I was objecting to that, not someone incorporating their "Judeo-Christian ethos" into their own living and practices, nor would I object to a Muslim or Buddhist etc incorporating their religious beliefs into their own living or practices.

Factually, none can claim preeminence as endorsed by the US Constitution, nor by the Founders for that matter.

My objection is utilizing the power of government to enforce one's religious beliefs and their consequences on others.

Christian Nationalists wish to impose a very particular set of religious beliefs, indeed the most 'fundamentalist' of such, on the rest of the society...big objection, thank you.

Now as to secularists, assuming that's what you mean by "non-believers" (I think that's also a mistaken construct as one can be both a believer in God and insist upon secular government), I understand why you may ascribe some of the passion some feel about a particular issue as almost or actually doctrinal, or dogmatic, and I'm sure that's fair in some people's cases. Doctrine and dogma are a short cut to values based on reason, whether religious or anything else. That short cut has some positive implications, but it also has negative.

Where I think you may be going astray is assuming that positions on topics like climate change aren't based on reason and evidence, much akin to the evolution versus creationism 'debate' between "believers" and those who think science actually matters, indeed that the higher power, however defined, endowed us with the capacity for reason...so use it.

Reason and evidence are important. Where is your evidence that we only have ten years until an irreversible, catastrophic climate situation? This has been stated time after time. New Ice Age, Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Acid Rain and on and on. Secular preachers preaching from the pulpit of fear, a la "Chicken Little". Hubris that the current climate is the most ideal for the most people, and that we must mitigate against even the slightest change, as man has somehow lost it's ability to adapt. Always with some unintended consequence, like Germany out of fuel. The sex toy of unintended consequences never comes with any lubrication. Sorry to post this here, as it belongs in the Con/Prog thread.

When you hear me making such claims as certainties you're more than free to accuse me of dogma over reason and science.

But I haven't.
Nor have I heard more than sincere warnings that failure to address the root causes will, with high confidence, ultimately lead to catastrophic outcomes.

When that tipping point will occur is a much wider spectrum of opinion, not certainty.

I suspect that you are hearing such filtered through a media process that finds the most extreme statements, or clips statements out of context, so as to make a political point...those media feeds are themselves self-interested in their immediate monetization of those wanting to see/hear such, and to bolster the politicians who are on the teat of carbon producers/users.

Big grain of salt, I'd suggest.

On the other hand, one can claim similar motivations for the extremists, though I'm way more suspicious of deeply entrenched, very wealthy, status quo interests than those sounding alarms from the scientific community.

Let's just say that I hope that the warnings are overly dire and/or we react well to the challenge.

Not sure why you're defending yourself when I went out of my way to say "Not pointing at you..." It must be a burden to have such gravitational attraction that the world revolves around you.

That's your response? You responded to my post about that particular candidate you'd posted about, specific to the "Christian" comment...you began with a nice nod to civility, but then went on a bit of jag...I responded I think quite civilly, and hopefully thoughtfully...you chose to then respond with "where is your evidence...", an accusation directed at me as if I was one of the "secular preachers" you find so disturbing. And then got crude.(not a problem for me, but...)

And now the insult about "gravitational...".

How about just responding to the logic/argumentation?

Okay. I made it clear I was generalizing about secularism. I was also not arguing from the general (secularism) to the specific (you). That's why I poked you, because you just assumed I was talking about you. I will admit "your" (which I meant as the collective) was a poor word choice. "The" would have been more appropriate. The gravity thing I've used it on my kids before. Take it as a gesture of friendship.

Taken and received as offered.
I appreciate differing opinions, points of view, perspectives, experiences, expertise...as long as we discuss with some mutual respect and civility, and a general intention to look for truth best we can.
Thanks for that effort.

[youthathletics]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

[Farfromgeneva]

The Congressional Black Caucus has thrown its financial support behind a white male Democratic congressman in Indiana rather than to his challenger who is looking to become the only Black female Republican in Congress.

"It’s the American people versus the DC politicians and lobbyists," Air Force veteran Jennifer-Ruth Green told Fox News Digital in a statement. "I’m with the American people. The Congressional Black Caucus is with the politicians and lobbyists, and their career politician ally Frank Mrvan. America’s poorest communities are proof Frank Mrvan and the CBC care more about power and helping themselves than helping the people of northwest Indiana. It’s sad."

So much for historic firsts for women and people of color.

well, yes, she's 100% all-in culture warrior. CRT, abortion, "America was founded as a Christian nation", etc, etc...though she's not a complete whack job.

Impressive personal background, but her views would be anathema to a Democrat...

But yes, her most recent tweet is all about not getting endorsed by the CBC.

Not pointing at you, but most of the people I know on the left generally have either antipathy or hostility towards religion. Many times it takes a mocking tone, like "Go tell it to your imaginary friend". The left is confused about what the Constitution says about religion. The government may not establish a government religion nor can it prohibit it's free exercise. It's the ultimate "Leave me alone!!" clause. You may not realize it, but those non-believers practice their own form of religion, with sacraments like abortion and "Climate Change" activism that you see your acts of charity. The need to seek what is perceived as positive change comes from somewhere. I suspect that many have a religious background in their family that made them want to help, but they have strayed from religion. I understand, as the church on Earth has not always been in alignment with the teachings of Christ. Unfortunately, the fact that they want government to make decisions absent the Judeo-Christian ethos of humility and compassion will in the end lead to a crueler outcome for those that need our compassion.

I think that the reason you may have responded to me rather than over on the religion thread re your views about secularism is that I noted this particular candidate's mistaken belief that "America was founded as a Christian nation"...a common refrain among Christian Nationalists. This proposition is provably false, though certainly it winds many folks up. I don't know whether that's her actual belief or she just wants to attract Christian Nationalists votes, but...

I was objecting to that, not someone incorporating their "Judeo-Christian ethos" into their own living and practices, nor would I object to a Muslim or Buddhist etc incorporating their religious beliefs into their own living or practices.

Factually, none can claim preeminence as endorsed by the US Constitution, nor by the Founders for that matter.

My objection is utilizing the power of government to enforce one's religious beliefs and their consequences on others.

Christian Nationalists wish to impose a very particular set of religious beliefs, indeed the most 'fundamentalist' of such, on the rest of the society...big objection, thank you.

Now as to secularists, assuming that's what you mean by "non-believers" (I think that's also a mistaken construct as one can be both a believer in God and insist upon secular government), I understand why you may ascribe some of the passion some feel about a particular issue as almost or actually doctrinal, or dogmatic, and I'm sure that's fair in some people's cases. Doctrine and dogma are a short cut to values based on reason, whether religious or anything else. That short cut has some positive implications, but it also has negative.

Where I think you may be going astray is assuming that positions on topics like climate change aren't based on reason and evidence, much akin to the evolution versus creationism 'debate' between "believers" and those who think science actually matters, indeed that the higher power, however defined, endowed us with the capacity for reason...so use it.

Reason and evidence are important. Where is your evidence that we only have ten years until an irreversible, catastrophic climate situation? This has been stated time after time. New Ice Age, Population Bomb, Peak Oil, Acid Rain and on and on. Secular preachers preaching from the pulpit of fear, a la "Chicken Little". Hubris that the current climate is the most ideal for the most people, and that we must mitigate against even the slightest change, as man has somehow lost it's ability to adapt. Always with some unintended consequence, like Germany out of fuel. The sex toy of unintended consequences never comes with any lubrication. Sorry to post this here, as it belongs in the Con/Prog thread.

You’re confusing advocates with the average/median of a group. Your examples are promoted by advocates and that’s their job. Like a Ralph Reed. But Reed isn’t an elected politician. See the difference?

The hubris part I don’t actually get that’s not what I’ve ever heard - belief that “the current climate is most ideal for most people”. Talked to a lot of folks across the spectrum including a bunch of my sisters crazy hippy Bay Area friends (who mean well but can be totally out of touch) and have never once heard it expressed that way.

[Farfromgeneva]

Hubris that the current climate is the most ideal for the most people, and that we must mitigate against even the slightest change, as man has somehow lost it's ability to adapt. Always with some unintended consequence, like Germany out of fuel.

The path you advocate has downsides, too. The free market didn't create our complete dependency on gas....the people (government) did.

Keep that in mind. Every choice has downsides.

We protect FL, LA & TX sugar industries 16 ways to Sunday and get fatter, just all the corn based foods out of Iowa etc. because of this

https://gro-intelligence.com/insights/h ... ar-markets

How Big Ethanol Plans Will Rock Global Corn and Sugar Markets

Some Relief for US Ethanol

The United States began its so-called Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program in 2005 to help reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil. The program lays out a plan to increase the amount of renewable biofuel—including ethanol, biodiesel, and other types—to be blended with gasoline and other petroleum fuels, until 2022 when total biofuel blending was to top out at 36 billion gallons. As gasoline consumption has stagnated in recent years, that limited the amount of ethanol needed. Due to restrictions on blending ethanol into gasoline above 10%, or E10, ethanol consumption has been effectively capped at about 14.5 billion gallons a year. Last year, the US consumed 14.42 billion gallons of fuel ethanol, the Energy Information Administration says.


US ethanol production (green bars) and consumption (blue bars) shot up with the introduction of the Renewable Fuel Standard program in 2005. New government proposals aim to keep that momentum going.

In recent years, oil refineries increasingly have claimed financial hardship to be exempted from ethanol blending, which farmers and ethanol producers say has cut into demand. Ethanol prices hit a 13-year low in November 2018 and haven’t recovered much since. Both ethanol consumption and its blend rate declined in the US in 2018 from the previous year, believed to be the first such declines in some time.

In response to the ethanol market distress, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a plan to exceed the 15 billion-gallon blend cap established by the RFS. The plan has pleased neither the oil companies, which prefer to sell gasoline over ethanol, nor farmers, who argue the assistance doesn’t go far enough. Demand for ethanol would increase by an estimated 770 million gallons under the EPA proposal, just over half what farm groups had hoped for. The additional blending amounts would be allocated among petroleum refineries that hadn’t been granted ethanol-blending exemptions.


The amount of US corn diverted to making ethanol has flattened in recent years. Corn farmers and ethanol producers want to see growth restored; oil interests are opposed.

In another offering to corn farmers and ethanol producers, many of which are located in Iowa and Nebraska, the Trump administration proposed rolling back barriers to producing gasoline blends with as much as 15% ethanol, or E15. The move would also allow the use of more advanced biofuels as prescribed by the RFS law, such as cellulosic ethanol and ethanol derived from sugarcane, blending of which has been limited by the E10 blend wall. (Brazil’s ethanol, made from sugarcane, is considered an advanced biofuel and is imported by California to satisfy that state’s stricter environmental rules.)

It’s unlikely E15 will become universal in the US in the near future, even though vehicles manufactured since 2001 are supposedly able to handle the higher ethanol content. More probably, ethanol concentrations that are incrementally higher than 10% will be marketed in some parts of the country, such as the Corn Belt, where gasoline stations are outfitted to dispense the more highly volatile fuel.

What will be the impact of these various plans to boost ethanol use on corn markets? The US currently processes 5.4 billion bushels of corn into ethanol, representing some 35% to 40% of all corn produced. Another 770 million gallons of ethanol would require 287 million more bushels in corn feedstock, which represents 13.5% of US corn 2018/19 expected ending stocks.

Increasing the blend rate above 10% ethanol also could consume more corn—270 million more bushels for each 0.5 percentage point increase. Were the US to advance to E15 nationwide, the impact on corn would be vast. This would require a nearly 20% increase in corn production, above the 2019 crop estimate, an additional 16 million acres dedicated to growing corn, and an allocation of 59% of the expanded crop to ethanol processing. The additional corn acreage requirement would necessitate a shift in area away from crops like soybeans, wheat and cotton, limiting the supply of those commodities.


The US exports about 1.7 billion gallons of its ethanol, or about 10.5% of the total. This tree map shows the principal destinations broken down by continent (colored sections) and countries.

US ethanol processing capacity, currently at 16.87 billion gallons, also would need to increase to supply E15 nationwide. After accounting for current excess capacity of about 2.45 billion gallons, the industry would still need to find a way to produce an additional 5.6 billion gallons. Alternatively, the US could fill some of its E15 requirements with imports, including from Brazil, which also would satisfy some of the RFS law’s requirements for advanced biofuel use.

China Struggles to Reach E10

China, currently the fourth-largest ethanol producer and consumer, has big expansion plans. Its most recent five-year plan for the nation’s economy, announced in 2017, targeted blends of 10% ethanol in gasoline supplies nationwide by 2020. While some areas of the country have claimed to be in compliance, China as a whole can only hope to achieve an average national blend rate of 3% to 3.5% by next year.

The reasons behind China’s drive to ethanol are the same as in other countries—reduce rampant air pollution, achieve greater energy independence, and support domestic agriculture. In addition, China last year revised higher its corn-supply estimates to suddenly show a huge stockpile of the grain—the USDA estimates Chinese corn stocks will be 196 million tonnes at the end of 2020, four times as much as in the US—which could be put to use as feedstock for making ethanol. Slowing that momentum, in part, is China’s reluctance to allow foreign investment and ownership in grain ethanol production, which has limited capital available to expand production, storage, and distribution infrastructure.

Ethanol production capacity is currently 5.258 billion liters, but will need to reach at least 19 billion liters—which would eat up 39.6 million tonnes of corn per year—to meet the nationwide E10 goal. The USDA estimates Chinese ethanol production will be 4.311 billion liters this year, its highest level so far.

Until 2015, ethanol imports were banned in China, and trade continues to remain rocky. The ongoing trade dispute with the US has pushed up import duties on denatured ethanol to 70%. Imports of fuel ethanol are expected to reach only 103 million liters in 2019, down significantly from the 759 million liters imported in 2018, mainly due to tariffs on US ethanol and expanded domestic production.

Increasing imports from the US or Brazil could help fill the gap in Chinese ethanol supplies. Still, it remains to be seen whether Beijing will place a higher priority on getting to E10 as quickly as possible, which would likely involve greater imports and foreign capital investment, or if the country prefers to go it alone by building out its domestic industry.

Brazil Ready to Expand Ethanol Production

Brazil, which primarily uses sugarcane to make ethanol, has become the second-largest producer and exporter of the alternative fuel, after the US. Persistently low world sugar prices has encouraged this growth, and last year Brazil allocated a record 65% of its sugarcane for ethanol production.

The country’s new RenovaBio national biofuel program is intended to draw additional investment into the sugar-ethanol industry through tax incentives and loosened regulations. This could spur even more sugarcane planting—Brazil already is the world leader in sugar—and an expansion of ethanol processing infrastructure. RenovaBio incorporates CBios, a carbon-credit-trading system modeled after California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, to help draw investment.


The bulk of Brazil’s ethanol is used domestically, mainly as fuel. This chart shows monthly consumption levels for 2019 (blue line with markers), compared with previous years’ levels (other blue lines).

The bulk of Brazil’s ethanol is for domestic uses, but that could change, especially if China should decide to boost imports. Flex-fuel vehicles make up most of Brazil’s national vehicle fleet, including cars that can run on 100% hydrous ethanol (E100). Gasoline in Brazil is routinely blended with 27% ethanol (E27). Some 34.4 billion liters of ethanol are currently produced, of which over 90% is used for fuel, and production could as much as double over the next decade, according to some industry estimates.

Ethanol expansion could increase Brazil’s competitiveness on the international ethanol market. Sugarcane ethanol is cheaper to produce than corn ethanol, and sugarcane is seven times as efficient as corn in terms of the energy required to produce it compared to the energy delivered by consumption. In 2019, Brazil’s ethanol exports totaled 1.8 billion liters. Included in that is about 245 million gallons (927 million liters) that Brazil sent to California to meet fuel standards. The production of sugarcane-derived ethanol has a lower greenhouse gas impact than the production of corn-derived ethanol.


About 5% of Brazil’s ethanol is exported. This tree map shows the major destinations by continent (colored sections) and countries. Plans to increase investment in Brazil’s ethanol industry are expected to boost the country’s competitiveness on the international ethanol market.

If China were to turn to Brazil to supply ethanol, the South American country would need to increase its own production by about 14.1 billion liters, an amount that seems doable given the country’s major investment plans for the industry. That would require Brazil’s sugarcane crop to increase by 45%, or some 281,000 tonnes, assuming the share of the crop allocated to ethanol processing remains at 65%.

Conclusion

The US, China, and Brazil are the major players in the global ethanol industry, and as they adopt pro-biofuel policies we can expect more processing of both corn and sugarcane into ethanol globally. (The EU also is a big biofuel producer, mainly biodiesel, but is mostly self-sufficient.) Additional market growth also can be expected as smaller parties like India further integrate biofuels into their economies.

In the coming years, the US will continue to grapple with contending interests between the ethanol and oil industries, which could hold significant consequences for corn production and trade. In China, the success of the biofuel sector will rest upon the government’s ability to attract investment and deliver the infrastructure required to produce enough ethanol to meet the country’s E10 goals. Otherwise, the country would need to import ethanol from the US and Brazil, but this wouldn’t have the added advantage of drawing down China’s big stockpiles of corn. Big ethanol expansion plans in Brazil could position that country to fill China’s demand, should the occasion arise. As Brazil’s RenovaBio program gets underway, the South American country seeks to expand ethanol production, which would increase its competitiveness in the international market.

Related Insights from Gro Intelligence:



Sugarcane vs. Corn Based Ethanol

Sugarcane-based ethanol has an energy balance that is 7 times greater than that of corn-based ethanol. Energy balance is the difference between the energy expended to convert the crop into ethanol and the amount of energy released from its consumption. There are several reasons why this occurs. First, unlike sugar, only 50% of the dry mass of corn kettles (the starch) can be converted into ethanol. Once this is done, that starch must me converted into sugar before it can be distilled into ethanol. There is no need for these first steps when using sugarcane-based ethanol, for obvious reasons. This significantly reduces the operation costs of sugar-based ethanol compared to corn-based ethanol. The chart below shows the total costs of producing a cubic meter of ethanol in both Brazil and the United States. At the current exchange rate of R$1.91 for every dollar, the total domestic costs to produce a cubic meter of ethanol in Brazil is $450. This is $80 less than the costs to produce a cubic meter of ethanol in the United States, which was calculated to be $530 without the co-product credit. I decided not to count the co-product credit for the U.S. because Brazil has a similar co-product credit (bagasse), which is not accounted for in this study.

In addition to Brazil’s lower operating costs, sugarcane-based ethanol is also more productive. On average, an acre of sugarcane-based ethanol produces about twice as much ethanol as its corn-based counterpart.



Aurelie Mejean & Chris Hope. “Modeling the Costs of Energy Crops: A Case Study of US Corn and Brazilian Sugarcane”. Energy Policy 38 (2010) 547-561.

M.R.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

Edit: I watched a bit more, he "explains" that the only reason race gets involved in the enslavement of Africans brought to America was because the Declaration of Independence declares that "all men are created equal"...etc, so in order to justify this position blacks must be less than "men"; so the ideology of white supremacy only happened because of the Declaration...this is historically incorrect as this ideology preexisted the era of the American Revolution. The concept of 'scientific' difference was articulated in the 1600's in the terms of race and species, with some believing mongenism (all humans from one) best described reality versus polygenism, each race being a separate species, with intellectuals seeking to explain differences...and those seeking to exploit relative power using race to justify doing so...this was expressed all over the world in the justification of colonialism, which certainly was way before the Declaration or even it's philosophical progenitors.

Again, straightforwardly dishonest.

[youthathletics]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying? It is my understanding that it dates back BCE? Maybe you are taking a myopic POV, or viewing the discussion as it applies to 'only America'.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Furthering the discussion, it could very easily be part of a CRT curriculum, of which you are for in school education. Yet, you shoot down anything from his lips, while also saying he is a smart man.

EDIT: looks like I was typing while you were. my points still apply, after reading your last comment.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying? It is my understanding that it dates back BCE? Maybe you are taking a myopic POV, or viewing the discussion as it applies to 'only America'.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Furthering the discussion, it could very easily be part of a CRT curriculum, of which you are for in school education. Yet, you shoot down anything from his lips, while also saying he is a smart man.

EDIT: looks like I was typing while you were. my points still apply, after reading your last comment.

No, he's not.
He's responding to a specific set of statements, the context is clear.

I don't need to say he's lying, simply that his argument is fundamentally intellectually dishonest...he knows better, yet he uses a fallacious argument. That's intellectually dishonest.

Of course slavery preexisted the slavery in America. But he's addressing racism and its connection to slavery in the United States, ancient slavery is not relevant to the ideology that was used to justify slavery in America...he then tries to pretend that this ideology only arose when the Declation declared a seemingly different ideology, the only way to explain this contradiction was to create an ideology of racial superiority...sorry, that preexisted for over 100 years and was used all over the world in European colonial expansion.

and no, I'm not "for" CRT in the school curriculum... CRT is a very specific legal analysis and is properly dealt with in law school and/or perhaps some college courses. What I'm "for" in "school curriculum" is an honest examination of world history and in American History in specific, an honest examination of the various choices made, and their implications both then and now, with no shying away from the unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Sowell breaches that honesty right off the bat, then as I watched further, he did it again...he's a grifter.

Now, if you said you wanted to have a class devoted to the topic of race and slavery and its legacy in America, say a senior level HS elective even, or more likely a college elective, and you wanted to use Sowell's argumentation as a way to examine how fallacious argumentation has been used throughout our history, ok.

I took a terrific course in preparation for an Honors thesis in college, fall of '79, examining the work of 1956 Nobel winner William Shockley when he turned to the relationship of race and IQ...fascinating exercise in critical thinking and writing. But I was fully educationally prepared for that level of analysis by then. And I recall the argument that I'd had with my dad on the same topic and his retort "you think you are smarter than Nobel scientists?" Shockley's Nobel was in electronics, he was a racist eugenicist using his fame and intellectual credibility to truly evil purpose. It was later found that he'd even falsified his data. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... m-shockley

[youthathletics]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying? It is my understanding that it dates back BCE? Maybe you are taking a myopic POV, or viewing the discussion as it applies to 'only America'.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Furthering the discussion, it could very easily be part of a CRT curriculum, of which you are for in school education. Yet, you shoot down anything from his lips, while also saying he is a smart man.

EDIT: looks like I was typing while you were. my points still apply, after reading your last comment.

No, he's not.
He's responding to a specific set of statements, the context is clear.

I don't need to say he's lying, simply that his argument is fundamentally intellectually dishonest...he knows better, yet he uses a fallacious argument. That's intellectually dishonest.

Of course slavery preexisted the slavery in America. But he's addressing racism and its connection to slavery in the United States, ancient slavery is not relevant to the ideology that was used to justify slavery in America...he then tries to pretend that this ideology only arose when the Declation declared a seemingly different ideology, the only way to explain this contradiction was to create an ideology of racial superiority...sorry, that preexisted for over 100 years and was used all over the world in European colonial expansion.

and no, I'm not "for" CRT in the school curriculum... CRT is a very specific legal analysis and is properly dealt with in law school and/or perhaps some college courses. What I'm "for" in "school curriculum" is an honest examination of world history and in American History in specific, an honest examination of the various choices made, and their implications both then and now, with no shying away from the unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Sowell breaches that honesty right off the bat, then as I watched further, he did it again...he's a grifter.

Now, if you said you wanted to have a class devoted to the topic of race and slavery and its legacy in America, say a senior level HS elective even, or more likely a college elective, and you wanted to use Sowell's argumentation as a way to examine how fallacious argumentation has been used throughout our history, ok.

I took a terrific course in preparation for an Honors thesis in college, fall of '79, examining the work of 1956 Nobel winner William Shockley when he turned to the relationship of race and IQ...fascinating exercise in critical thinking and writing. But I was fully educationally prepared for that level of analysis by then. And I recall the argument that I'd had with my dad on the same topic and his retort "you think you are smarter than Nobel scientists?" Shockley's Nobel was in electronics, he was a racist eugenicist using his fame and intellectual credibility to truly evil purpose. It was later found that he'd even falsified his data. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... m-shockley

TS is responding to a question, after the interviewer read a passage from his book. I'd assume, if we are both locked in on the same topic, our thought process would be in the context of the topic....hence the title of the YouTube Clip (Solution To ELIMINATE RACISM Completely). As discussed at the 3:35 mark.

In the end, my takeaway was that racism exists in the mind of the individual, and discrimination is the outward action. And b/c of this, we should be sure to draw the distinction between the two before labeling. The vision, is that racism would eventually eat itself alive, b/c we have made such large strides to avoid discrimination through moral and legal law.

Heading out for the remainder day.....appreciate the back and forth.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying? It is my understanding that it dates back BCE? Maybe you are taking a myopic POV, or viewing the discussion as it applies to 'only America'.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Furthering the discussion, it could very easily be part of a CRT curriculum, of which you are for in school education. Yet, you shoot down anything from his lips, while also saying he is a smart man.

EDIT: looks like I was typing while you were. my points still apply, after reading your last comment.

No, he's not.
He's responding to a specific set of statements, the context is clear.

I don't need to say he's lying, simply that his argument is fundamentally intellectually dishonest...he knows better, yet he uses a fallacious argument. That's intellectually dishonest.

Of course slavery preexisted the slavery in America. But he's addressing racism and its connection to slavery in the United States, ancient slavery is not relevant to the ideology that was used to justify slavery in America...he then tries to pretend that this ideology only arose when the Declation declared a seemingly different ideology, the only way to explain this contradiction was to create an ideology of racial superiority...sorry, that preexisted for over 100 years and was used all over the world in European colonial expansion.

and no, I'm not "for" CRT in the school curriculum... CRT is a very specific legal analysis and is properly dealt with in law school and/or perhaps some college courses. What I'm "for" in "school curriculum" is an honest examination of world history and in American History in specific, an honest examination of the various choices made, and their implications both then and now, with no shying away from the unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Sowell breaches that honesty right off the bat, then as I watched further, he did it again...he's a grifter.

Now, if you said you wanted to have a class devoted to the topic of race and slavery and its legacy in America, say a senior level HS elective even, or more likely a college elective, and you wanted to use Sowell's argumentation as a way to examine how fallacious argumentation has been used throughout our history, ok.

I took a terrific course in preparation for an Honors thesis in college, fall of '79, examining the work of 1956 Nobel winner William Shockley when he turned to the relationship of race and IQ...fascinating exercise in critical thinking and writing. But I was fully educationally prepared for that level of analysis by then. And I recall the argument that I'd had with my dad on the same topic and his retort "you think you are smarter than Nobel scientists?" Shockley's Nobel was in electronics, he was a racist eugenicist using his fame and intellectual credibility to truly evil purpose. It was later found that he'd even falsified his data. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... m-shockley

TS is responding to a question, after the interviewer read a passage from his book. I'd assume, if we are both locked in on the same topic, our thought process would be in the context of the topic....hence the title of the YouTube Clip (Solution To ELIMINATE RACISM Completely). As discussed at the 3:35 mark.

In the end, my takeaway was that racism exists in the mind of the individual, and discrimination is the outward action. And b/c of this, we should be sure to draw the distinction between the two before labeling. The vision, is that racism would eventually eat itself alive, b/c we have made such large strides to avoid discrimination through moral and legal law.

Heading out for the remainder day.....appreciate the back and forth.

The passage of the book is his, Sowell's, claim that these statements (made by others) are fallacies. It's a dishonest construct, because he answers the question he himself has created, with an irrelevant argument in the context of American racism and discrimination...straight on through, dishonest.

But to your point about Sowell's views, the interviewer described Sowell's position as just "ignore" racism, as it's simply something in people's minds, as if it has nothing to do with the "overt" discrimination that he described. Ignore it, problem "solved".

There's no solution he says to racism (contrary to the YouTube title description) rather we should just ignore it...it's inevitable, so don't bother.

And then he blithely makes comments about "construction workers" in the South being hired almost exclusively (by non-union shops- yes unions were highly racist at the time) and going up north to compete...until laws in the 20's were passed to stop this...he ignores that the workers were being hired at wages whites weren't willing to work for...an extension of the economics of slavery...same phenomenon in apartheid South Africa...until laws stopped the hiring...well sure, the laws were overt acts of discrimination, but so too was the prevailing economic system paying blacks less than whites...not because their work was inferior, but rather because they had the power and could get away with it.

And the heck with Jim Crow, lynchings, etc as being based in racism, ignoring all of the pseudo intellectuals who propagandized about racial superiority,...no, this is just people looking out for their own economic interests...

It's a hell of a position to take that the "solution" to racism is to ignore its existence and its impact on decisions made, whether overt or systemmatic.

But it's a heck of a grift.

[Typical Lax Dad]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Here we go again…. For credibility, find a black guy to downplay….“Slavery”. The American form of slavery was a novel invention. You haven’t down your homework. Can’t believe Thomas hasn’t either… We can give “slavery” a pass in this country and just focus on policies and social constructs post emancipation with regards to governments at local, state and federal level not providing equal protection or equal rights for black folk. You are shameful.

[NattyBohChamps04]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

[Typical Lax Dad]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

[NattyBohChamps04]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

[Farfromgeneva]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g

[Typical Lax Dad]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

That’s just basically calling black people a shovel because theu often used that tool to do work. Nothing wrong with calling someone a Spade. The word spade isn’t racist.

[Typical Lax Dad]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g