In The News Today...

What I mean is there are "set-asides." Lets say the feds want to repave all of I-79. Well, a certain part of the work is set aside so only minority or women owned businesses can bid on it.

I amended my post to say that, technically, it is not reparations for slavery

However, while AZ's point is well taken, it is the opening round in 'social justice' spending, a name chosen to avoid the word 'reparations' ala Orwell. We are going to be slow-boiled on this like the proverbial frog.

The alleged part discrimination is plausible, though since no such programs existed before FDR and we are talkiing about Federal programs, so it would not have been overt racial discrimination. But how would we know, since there was no debate? And will it be just doled out to anyone of the right skin color, whether they qualify as being discriminated against in the past or not? If you are not Black you are immediately disqualified? How can you write language that actually says that? Maybe it doesn't? How would we know if it was not debated and clarified?

It reminds me of the claim in Mississippi that I looked into. Black farming communities have been declining there for some time, with Whites gradually taking over the farms. An 'Atlantic' magazine article* of a few months ago took it for granted that this was by nefarious means. Sounds pretty bad, eh? Throw those klanners in jail! It turns out that it has happened by the normal way farms fail the way they do, with banks taking over farms due to bad loans, etc. Other people wanted those farms. Now, if you are a *real* racist, one of the real racists out there like the writer of the article, you want to know the skin color of the people who have the farms now.

Now it may be true that for complicated reasons Black farmers have less access to help, some of it due to hidden racial prejudice, that this should be told as part of the story. But today, we see articles like that instead, that just would have you believe the farmers were cheated outright.

some of the wiser conservatives are realizing now that what the liberals are succeeding with is 'narratives' and what 'fits the narrative', and succeeding especially with what is not allowed to rebut the narrative by shouting them down.

edits

*pretty sure that was the magazine

Quote: Mission146

The Ramirez thing, in my opinion, could be 100% true and I wouldn't consider it disqualifying. "Oh my God, I'm a good little Catholic girl who didn't know this kind of stuff went on at these college parties, even though I went there and got totally trashed all the same. I wasn't going to even see a penis until I got married." I mean, come on. I could puke in my mouth. If someone is REALLY that innocent and naive, what the hell are they even doing at a drinking party? I'm not, "Blaming the victim," because I don't really consider her a victim of anything...it reads like normal college party shenanigans to me...other than that he perhaps stuck his penis directly in her face, but that's not provable and some of her witnesses deny that aspect.

Speaking of college, I knew enough about frat houses that I went for the beer, but I didn’t know that after the beers and casual party atmosphere someone was going to be giving me a sales pitch trying to recruit me to become a frat member. So , hey I was under the influence for the sell. And since there was encouragement to drink freely rather than responsibly I would call it more a drunk hustle.

Was I too naive? Probably. I had the impression frats had parties to have parties. Just like I might have a party and supply the drinks. Like some of the parties I went to in high school.

Conservatives illustrate how bad it is to be discriminated against when they start thinking they will be treated unfairly and discriminated against in order to address discrimination.

Quote: rxwine

Conservatives illustrate how bad it is to be discriminated against when they start thinking they will be treated unfairly and discriminated against in order to address discrimination.

Clever

One thing to remember when cheering on discrimination, as you have just conceded, is that it sure is a lark when your side is in power and not worried about turnabout. Especially when getting away with things that you know should be unconstitutional, like writing language in a bill that flat out says you have to be a certain skin color.

It's too easy to say "radicals of the opposite political stripe are down and out and won't come back. They won't find it easy to do unconstitutional things just because we made it OK to do it"

Ya know, I'm old enough now to see things I thought would never happen. And we see black swan events all of us might have thought too far out there in other things, pandemics clobbering us, financial panics, etc. Do not assume we can't have a black swan event in our political situation. If we can't, then people who worry about right-wing extremism taking hold in this country, and there have plenty of them warning all along, well, they are all just laughable buffoons.

Quote: odiousgambit

Clever

One thing to remember when cheering on discrimination, as you have just conceded, is that it sure is a lark when your side is in power and not worried about turnabout. Especially when getting away with things that you know should be unconstitutional, like writing language that flat out says you have to be a certain skin color.

It's too easy to say "radicals of the opposite political stripe are down and out and won't come back. They won't find it easy to do unconstitutional things just because we made it OK to do it"

Ya know, I'm old enough now to see things I thought would never happen. And we see black swan events all of us might have thought too far out there in other things, pandemics clobbering us, financial panics, etc. Do not assume we can't have a black swan event in our political situation. If we can't, then people who worry about right-wing extremism taking hold in this country, and there have plenty of them warning all along, well, they are all just laughable buffoons.

Sometimes I wonder if someone suggested to give the Native Americans full gambling casinos so they might forget about addressing broken treaties.

I always think it’s a good policy to take minority rights seriously. One day you might be the minority. And hopefully someone will take your rights seriously against whatever greater powers you’re up against.

Anyway it remains to be seen what will happen and what won’t.

Quote: odiousgambit

I amended my post to say that, technically, it is not reparations for slavery

However, while AZ's point is well taken, it is the opening round in 'social justice' spending, a name chosen to avoid the word 'reparations' ala Orwell. We are going to be slow-boiled on this like the proverbial frog.

The alleged part discrimination is plausible, though since no such programs existed before FDR and we are talkiing about Federal programs, so it would not have been overt racial discrimination. But how would we know, since there was no debate? And will it be just doled out to anyone of the right skin color, whether they qualify as being discriminated against in the past or not? If you are not Black you are immediately disqualified? How can you write language that actually says that? Maybe it doesn't? How would we know if it was not debated and clarified?

It reminds me of the claim in Mississippi that I looked into. Black farming communities have been declining there for some time, with Whites gradually taking over the farms. An 'Atlantic' magazine article* of a few months ago took it for granted that this was by nefarious means. Sounds pretty bad, eh? Throw those klanners in jail! It turns out that it has happened by the normal way farms fail the way they do, with banks taking over farms due to bad loans, etc. Other people wanted those farms. Now, if you are a *real* racist, one of the real racists out there like the writer of the article, you want to know the skin color of the people who have the farms now.

Now it may be true that for complicated reasons Black farmers have less access to help, some of it due to hidden racial prejudice, that this should be told as part of the story. But today, we see articles like that instead, that just would have you believe the farmers were cheated outright.

some of the wiser conservatives are realizing now that what the liberals are succeeding with is 'narratives' and what 'fits the narrative', and succeeding especially with what is not allowed to rebut the narrative by shouting them down.

edits

*pretty sure that was the magazine

Again, I haven't looked into it deeply enough to take a firm position one way or another.

There are certainly some aspects that are pretty easy for me to accept as true:

1.) That banks (many of which would have been in the South) actively discriminated against black farmers.

2.) That the USDA (because they ADMITTED it) actively discriminated against black farmers and created policies that would actively discriminate against them.

3.) That basing the loans on credit history in the 80's and 90's was de facto discriminatory because it would have been more difficult for black farmers to have established a credit history given discriminatory practices by the aforementioned banks.

4.) That, even when the black farmers were approved for the loans, they were often the last to get them because the USDA also admitted that.

Therefore, I'm not certain I see this as reparations as much as it is remediation for an illegal tort taken against an entire class of people...which is exactly what a class action lawsuit is meant to accomplish.

Apparently, the logic is that the relief in Pigford didn't go far enough and not even all of the aggrieved parties were compensated by the relief. That's the part that I think would take some pretty heavy research for me to form an opinion about.

But, I don't have a problem with this being remediated in general terms. Also, if the wronged parties were black farmers, then it is black farmers who are entitled to the relief, just like any class action lawsuit. If the basis of Pigford was that black farmers were discriminated against, then no, white farmers would not be eligible for the relief.

My Firm Opinions

1.) Fundamentally, I don't think that the Federal Government, or any agency thereof, should be engaged in the lending of anything. It's not their money to lend.

2.) I believe that farms exist (in addition to hopefully profit) for the general public good, so that's one arena where I have no problem with giving them targeted subsidies in lean years. Not only is the continued ability to produce our own food (and other crops) beneficial for the entire country, and all citizens, but our exporting of surplus crops (such as corn and soybeans) is also good for the country as a whole.

Of course, you'll want the farmers to prove that they need the subsidies due to unexpected economic hardship related to something like weather and not just due to mismanagement of the farm.

3.) Or, in lieu of loans or subsidies, simply just don't tax farmers other than Social Security/Medicaid type taxes. No Federal or State income tax, just declare them to be entities that exist for the general public good and are therefore tax exempt. This would not apply to corporate-owned farms, only individually-owned farms, LLCs, or farms owned as a partnership.

Conclusion

Anyway, it seems like the relief is specifically targeted to parties who were wronged in the past, and not just by private entities, but actually wronged by the Federal Government. I don't know who qualifies for the relief or how many degrees of separation a person can or cannot have to a wronged party to qualify for the relief.

And, I don't care that much. I bet if I read the full bill I could find 100 things I like less than this.

Of course, I will stipulate that I can't see what possible connection to COVID-19 this has.

Quote: rxwine

Speaking of college, I knew enough about frat houses that I went for the beer, but I didn’t know that after the beers and casual party atmosphere someone was going to be giving me a sales pitch trying to recruit me to become a frat member. So , hey I was under the influence for the sell. And since there was encouragement to drink freely rather than responsibly I would call it more a drunk hustle.

Was I too naive? Probably. I had the impression frats had parties to have parties. Just like I might have a party and supply the drinks. Like some of the parties I went to in high school.

Let me give you a counter example:

Going back to high school, we had a small group partying (not uncommon) at a house belonging to the parents of a friend of mine. Anyway, we laid hands on a few bottles of good whiskey and there were perhaps eight people hanging out. We didn't really have to worry about noise because his house only had two real neighbors, one was his uncle and the occupants of the other house tended to be pretty laid back about noise...and were usually not home anyway.

So, we all get drunk and decide to go skinny dipping in his pool. Totally normal teenage behavior. Imagine if now, two decades after the fact, one of us were to rise to a prominent position (not going to happen!) and now all of a sudden one of the young ladies who was there claims that they were coerced into skinny dipping and didn't actually want to do that. Hell, let's take it a step further and say that she claims that the group actually took her clothes off of her!

I ask you this: Assuming that absolutely did not happen (and it didn't) how would any of us go about proving her account wrong?

This notion that you have to watch every single thing you do as a kid or a young adult, even those things that would generally be seen as relatively innocuous, if not normal, because they can be thrown in your face decades down the line is absurd. If for no other reason, because it attempts to hold you accountable for past actions pursuant to the standards of today...which is exactly what cancel culture does.

The most important thing to remember is that these claims don't even have to have one iota of truth to them in order to have a detrimental impact on your public perception. A person can literally make up anything they want to provided it is not something that could be proven wrong...which is pretty easy if you keep the details sufficiently vague.

If there's one lesson that people should REALLY be taking away from this whole thing it's this: If something untowardly happens to you, then document it to the fullest extent that you can and report it as soon as possible. That's what we should really be teaching people.

A very religious old friend sent me a message.
"Just checking in on you. Have you heard the good news"
My response
"Yes. We are getting 1400.00"

Senator Ron Johnson just announced he's a racist. He was not scared Jan 6
But
Same exact actions, change the color to Black
He would be very scared

WTF
At least he is honest. It's all about color, not actions