derkraut wrote: LTLFTcomposite wrote:
AndyH wrote:...and it'll happen even if all that happens is the passage of time as the old/fat/white guys die off
Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling... apparently this is the week for racist remarks.
So...AndyH's remarks above aren't racist? I'm an "old/white/(but not fat) guy; and I resent what AndyH said.
I don't consider self-deprecation to be racist. Considering I'm a 50+ year old 'natural' US citizen of Euro-mutt descent, retired military, still consider myself to be an old-school conservative in many ways (especially the type that honors conservation and are the type that fought to bring the EPA into existence), and voted R ~90% of my adult life, I put myself squarely in the potential cross-hairs. But I know that I'm not 'down range' because I think the type of behavior both on-topic and off is abhorrent.
My comment was in this vein:
Max Planck wrote:A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
It's often paraphrased as:
Science advances one funeral at a time.
The fact remains that Texas is now a 'minority majority' state and this has some of the more 'rich and powerful' (ahem...old, white, wealthy - facts is facts, amigo) citizenry in full-time fear mode. That's why they can 'justify' reducing hours for voter-ID services in 'brown' neighborhoods while expanding hours in 'white/Republican' neighborhoods, continued Gerrymandering, their war on women, and all the other BS they can try to rationalize so they can stay in power...just...one...more...year.
Talking about racial truth and discrimination isn't the same as racism - I'm shining a light on abuses of power, not advocating for slavery.
http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/08 ... ist/68632/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-c ... 97572.html
The Justice Department filed suit against Texas on Thursday, in an attempt to block the state's strict new voter identification law...At issue are new voting rules which a district appeals court dubbed "the most stringent in the country." The rules mandate a state-issued ID for anyone seeking to vote, a stipulation that would, in effect, prevent far more Latino (and probably Democratic) residents from casting votes in the solidly red Lone Star state.
Quick story: I grew up in Texas. I went with my father when he voted in the Democratic Primary for the 2002 midterms. I was 16. I should mention that he and I are unmistakably white. However you perceive "whiteness", I think, on sight, 99 percent of folks in our area would guess we're conservatives. It is what it is.
We walk up to the election worker, an old white man, who was very friendly initially until my father asked where he was supposed to vote for the Democratic primary. Immediately, the man's face went sour, pointed in the direction of the area, and said, "Don't know why you'd want to vote for Democrats."
That was us. Now, imagine a person of color attempting to vote in an environment that's hostile even to stereotypically white folks who reveal they're liberals/moderates. Is it even worth the emotional pain? Why should a person of color have to factor cultural hostility into their decision to vote?
How about it, Tom, Kraut, and LT - are you fine gentlemen in favor of Gerrymandering, voter ID laws, stereotyping, or putting the oil refinery in the 'brown' neighborhood? If so, then you've got plenty of company. San Antonio's refineries aren't located where the rich folks live, and of COURSE Rex Tillerson wouldn't want fracking happening near HIS house!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... 4O20140226