Guest column by Gerry Harbison HARBISON is a professor of chemistry.
"... plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize - only be sure always to call it please 'research.'" "Lobachevsky," by Tom Lehrer
In 1988, the Martin Luther King Jr. Papers Project made a discovery that shocked it to its core.
The Project, a group of academics and students, had been entrusted by Coretta Scott King with the task of editing King's papers for publication. As they examined King's student essays and his dissertation, they gradually became aware that King was guilty of massive plagiarism - that is, he had copied the words of other authors word-for-word, without making it clear that what he was writing was not his own.
The Project spent years uncovering the full extent of King's plagiarism. In November 1990, word leaked to the press, and they had to go public. The revelations caused a minor scandal and then were promptly forgotten.
Indeed, I had never heard of them until I read a student letter to the Daily Nebraskan three weeks ago. That letter sent me in search of the truth about Martin Luther King Jr.'s student career.
Like most graduate students, King spent the first half of his doctoral work taking courses in his degree area, theology. His surviving papers from that period show that from the very beginning he was transcribing articles by eminent theologians, often word for word, and representing them as his own work.
After completing his course work, graduate students usually write a dissertation or thesis, supposedly an independent and original contribution to scholarship. King's thesis was anything but original. In fact, the sheer extent of his plagiarism is breathtaking.
Page after page contains nothing but direct, verbatim transcriptions of the work of others. In 1990, the King Project estimated that less than half of some chapters was actually written by King himself. Since then, even more of his "borrowings" have been traced.
Calculating the exact extent of his plagiarism will require a computer analysis, but having looked over Chapter III in detail, I estimate that at least three quarters of it was stolen from other authors.
King stole from the subjects of his dissertation, the theologians Tillich and Wieman. He copied the writings of other theologians - passages from philosophy textbooks. But most unforgivably of all, thousands of words in paragraph-sized chunks, were taken from the thesis of a fellow student, Jack Boozer, an ex-army chaplain who returned to Boston University after the war to get his degree.
We even know how he did it, for King was systematic in his plagiarism. He copied significant phrases, sentences or whole paragraphs from the books he was consulting onto a set of index cards. "Writing" a thesis was then a matter of arranging these cards into a meaningful order.
Sometimes he linked the stolen parts together with an occasional phrase of his own, but as often as not he left the words completely unchanged. The index cards still survive, with their damning evidence intact.
King fooled everybody: his adviser, his thesis reader and King scholars for more than 30 years. Nor did he stop after graduation; as early as the 1970s, King scholar Ira Zepp noticed that sections of King's first published book Striding Towards Freedom were taken verbatim from Anders Nygren's Agape and Eros and Paul Ramsay's Basic Christian Ethics (sheesh!).
Zepp, as so many have done since then, remained silent.
Everything I've written above can easily be verified in a couple of hours in Love Library. None of it comes from right-wing scandalmongers who might have a vested interest in damaging King's reputation.
But if King's plagiarism is so serious and so extensive, why do we so rarely hear about it? Partly it is because the American public thinks of plagiarism as an obscure issue that only an egghead professor could get steamed up about.
And to some extent they're right. King's academic dishonesty is after all mostly irrelevant to his life's work. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s did us all a great good by ending the greatest social evil of mid-20th century America - legally sanctioned segregation and racial discrimination. That movement is not in the least diminished by the ethical shortcomings of one of its leaders.
But more than that, American culture has personified the virtues of the Civil Rights movement - tolerance, nonviolence, and insistence on the integrity of the individual - in Martin Luther King Jr. That mythic King bears little resemblance to the real, the historical Martin Luther King Jr.
It would be safe and easy for UNL to play along with this comfortable myth.
But we shouldn't.
Plagiarism isn't a mere peccadillo. It is a direct threat to our academic integrity. When a student plagiarizes, he undermines academic standards by receiving a grade for ideas or expression that are not his own, and he cheats other students who have earned their grades honestly.
When a scholar plagiarizes, he defrauds other scholars of due credit for their work, and he contaminates scholarship by making it difficult or impossible to trace the evolution of ideas.
Remember how major-league baseball banned Pete Rose? Rose gambled on games, a minor transgression to most, but one that baseball felt undermined its the very integrity. In the same way, plagiarism subverts our integrity. Surely UNL can at least aspire to the same standards as organized baseball?
More than this, as scholars we have a responsibility to separate myth from truth. For example, we insist on making a distinction between creation myths and the scientific truth of evolution. Even though some of our students adhere to the biblical story of creation - and when we teach evolution we may cause offense and do violence to their beliefs - we can't fail to teach and research the truth out of a misplaced 'sensitivity.'
In the same way, we have a responsibility to confront Martin Luther King Jr. as the man he was, not the icon some of us revere.
Our chancellor insists we can diversify UNL without compromising academic standards. But if so, how can we, in the name of diversity, declare an academic holiday to honor a man whose entire career was marred by the most blatant academic dishonesty?
I personally have had one student expelled, and flunked several others, for turning in plagiarized papers. Can we really look those students in the face, insist that what they did was seriously wrong, and then in good conscience vote for a King holiday?
I don't think so.
http://setanta.unl.edu/mlk/dn_column.html
\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd
Freedom Man
2014-01-21 13:45:32 EST
CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST
It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his cave for sex.
One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female. On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new idea.
Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began.
Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings, excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy.
Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death, not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry.
Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front of his house.
David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were "liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership list.
Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men, women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever committed such an abominable atrocity?
The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11 terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious fundamentalist mentality.
Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen, exacerbated, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within our own government to further their fascistic agenda. Two buildings were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in place BEFORE the attacks is very strong.
Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter nonsense. Look back:
Who nailed who to a cross?
Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George?
Who started our Civil War to defend slavery?
Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose abortion?
Who fought against child labor statutes?
Who fought against the concept of free public education?
Who fought against the right of women to vote?
Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation?
Who fought against workers organizing?
Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars "unsafe at any speed?"
Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40 million more?
Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years?
Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security, health care for the elderly, and minimum wages?
Who fights against environmental protection statutes?
Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle minorities?
Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering, terminally ill patients soon to die anyway?
Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections?
Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and draconian, police-state enforcement practices?
Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above the common good?
CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS?
The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST!
Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal," whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change, humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality, when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change and progress beyond "what's in it for me?"
At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and power, and willing to use any and all means to get them. Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business suit.
AND THE CAVEMENS' CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!
CC Rider
2014-01-22 15:21:56 EST
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:45:32 -0500, Freedom Man wrote:
> CONSERVATIVES VS. LIBERALS: THE NATURE OF THE BEAST
Liberal racists, both white and black, focused on separatism and racial difference. Instead of subscribing to King’s belief in a colorblind society, they wanted government policies that were color-coded. The further America progressed from the dark days of slavery, the more they insisted that slavery was present in America’s social institutions and its personal interrelationships. The U.S., they asserted, was steeped in blood and guilt: it must pay for its crimes against “people of color.”
The extent to which such views have not only entered but dominated the intellectual mainstream of America in the past three decades can be seen in the degree to which King’s notion that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin has become marginalized as quaint and naive. The racism in the left’s view primarily of blacks themselves, but also of whites, has been clear in the policies the left has pursued. Some, like the demand for reparations for slavery, have not yet prevailed. Others, like the demand for affirmative action, have become part of America’s way of doing business as a society. Although claiming to be an equitable “leveling of the playing field,” this policy has actually tilted the social landscape. It has nothing to do with equality of opportunity, and everything to do with establishing a regime that will produce an equality of results. It is a zero sum game in which some win because of skin color and others lose because of skin color. Ultimately, affirmative action has put government back into the business of playing racial favorites — even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the summary achievement of the civil rights movement, banned such action.
Liberal racists believe that neutral and objective tests for college admissions are actually rigged in favor of whites. When Asians, many of them recent immigrants with little or no cultural experience, refute this notion by outscoring whites on these tests, liberal racists say that these Asians are not really a minority at all but inauthentic, imitation whites.
Liberal racists bear a heavy burden for having helped destroy the black family and create a black underclass by their romanticization of ghetto behavior, and their insistence that blacks are victims who cannot be held responsible for what they do. They reject the idea that culture rather than race may help explain the disadvantages those in the black underclass face. It is true, as they point out, that some 40 percent of America’s black children are born poor, and that this fact affects their life chances. But it is also true that 85 percent of these poor children come from single-parent homes. It is this circumstance—studies show that children born into single-parent families are more likely to be poor, regardless of race, than children with two parents—rather than “institutional racism” that actually handicaps them. Yet in the liberal view, any policy aimed at countering illegitimacy and single parenthood among the black underclass is “blaming the victim.”
The effects of liberal racism can be seen in the way black students taunt those among them who strive for achievement as sellouts who are “acting white.” Liberal racism can be seen in the unholy alliance between the Democrat Party, the National Education Association and other teachers’ unions, and black spokesmen such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to maintain their power by opposing school choice for black children trapped in violent and failing public schools. Liberal racism can be seen in the way black voters are kept on the proverbial “liberal plantation” through scare tactics and attacks on “race traitors” such as Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who have defied the party line. Liberal racism can be seen, paradoxically, most clearly in the way anyone straying from its premises is immediately branded as a “racist.” This is a powerful sanction that liberal racists use like a bludgeon to control the public discussion about race.
> It all began a hundred thousand years ago on a ledge in front of a > cave. A female homo sapiens walked by, attracting the attention of > a male. The male stepped forward and smacked her over the head with > his club. WHACK! He then dragged the unconscious female into his > cave for sex. > > One day there were two males standing in front of a cave when a > female walked by. The first raised his arm to club the female, but > the second male communicated to him that clubbing females over the > head to have sex was not nice. WHACK! WHACK! The first male stepped > over the unconscious second male and proceeded to rape the female. > On that day the first liberal paid the price for expressing a new > idea. > > Things didn't change much for thousands of years until the advent > of projectile weapons. This was first symbolized by the David and > Goliath story in the Bible, where the big strong brute was laid > flat by the small but smarter boy. Once brute strength was no > longer the controlling factor in social interaction, liberal ideas > slowly gained a foothold in human culture, and civilization began. > > Throughout human history, the price for advocating tolerance and > progressive change has been paid in threats, beatings, > excommunication, incarceration, torture, murder, assassination, and > execution. Countless liberals have paid the ultimate price for > their humanity. Though Jesus Christ is the most famous, names in > recent history that come to mind are Gandhi, Martin Luther King > Jr., John Lennon, and Robert Kennedy. > > Today there are many conservatives - individuals, groups, and > nations - who use threats and violence to silence the voices of > reason, tolerance, and progress. Here in America it is seen in > racists and homophobes beating blacks and gays, sometimes to death, > not for money or out of anger generated by interactive cause, but > because of religious or racial intolerance and secular bigotry. > > Alan Berg on talk radio was a strong voice against a conservative > organization called the Aryan Nation. For thus exercising his > freedom of speech, he was shot dead while walking his dog in front > of his house. > > David Rice is a man on death row in Washington State who has no > remorse whatsoever for entering the home of a family of four and > carving out their living hearts only because he heard they were > "liberals." He got their names from a Democratic Party membership > list. > > Right-wingers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed 168 men, > women, and children as an act of protest. What liberals have ever > committed such an abominable atrocity? > > The most abominable atrocity in several decades is the 9/11 > terrorist attacks in which thousands of innocent civilians were > murdered. The alleged perpetrators, Osama Bin Laden and the al > Qaeda-Taliban terrorists, epitomize the right-wing religious > fundamentalist mentality. > > Some believe that the 9/11 attacks were deliberately allowed to happen, > exacerbated, or even perpetrated by radical right-wing elements within > our own government to further their fascistic agenda. Two buildings > were hit by planes, but THREE collapsed. The evidence that the three > collapsed buildings were brought down with demolition explosives put in > place BEFORE the attacks is very strong. > > Arguing that such horrendous crimes are not political in nature or > that they are not done primarily by conservatives is utter > nonsense. Look back: > > Who nailed who to a cross? > > Who were the Loyalists to the totalitarian monarchy of King George? > > Who started our Civil War to defend slavery? > > Who fought to keep women as property, and now fights their > sovereignty over their own bodies in the freedom to choose > abortion? > > Who fought against child labor statutes? > > Who fought against the concept of free public education? > > Who fought against the right of women to vote? > > Who fought against anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation? > > Who fought against workers organizing? > > Who fought against government controls on manufacturers of cars > "unsafe at any speed?" > > Who killed several thousand innocent civilians in the 9/11 > terrorist attacks? > > Who started WW2, murdered 13 million and caused the death of 40 > million more? > > Who defended Jim Crow for a hundred years? > > Who fought against voting rights, civil rights, social security, > health care for the elderly, and minimum wages? > > Who fights against environmental protection statutes? > > Who opposes equal rights for gays and other free-lifestyle > minorities? > > Who cruelly opposes physician-assisted dying for suffering, > terminally ill patients soon to die anyway? > > Who is sabotaging the separation of Church and State, and all our > other Constitutional rights, freedoms, and protections? > > Who are the moralizing hypocrites forcing their puritanical > inhibitions and prohibitions on ALL Americans via legislation and > draconian, police-state enforcement practices? > > Who always puts personal gain and corporate wealth and power above > the common good? > > CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS? > > The historic, undeniable truth is that these evils are THE NATURE > OF THE CONSERVATIVE BEAST! > > Conservatives have distorted and demonized the word "liberal," > whose true political meaning is favoring progressive change, > humanistic values, and opposition to authoritarianism. They > identify it with governmental waste and tolerance of criminality, > when in fact they themselves are guilty of abuses such as corporate > welfare bail-outs and tax evasion, fraud against investors, and > other white-collar crime. Conservatives fear and oppose all change > and progress beyond "what's in it for me?" > > At the core of conservatism is the Machiavellian bully - the > despotic practitioner of "might makes right," craving wealth and > power, and willing to use any and all means to get them. > Conservatism is the philosophy of the caveman wearing a business > suit. > > AND THE CAVEMENS' CLUBS CAN NOW DESTROY OUR EARTH!
.
Topaz
2014-01-22 17:59:15 EST
"I was listening to a speech that he gave in Sweden. You can listen at the Url below if ya want. http://www.davidduke.com/
Anyway, the guy made an analogy that sums it all up.
He said, lets look at Iceland. They have one of the worlds lowest crime rates, and have some of the worlds highest test scores.
He then went on to say: Haiti is rich in natural resources, they have great weather, beaches etc.. Yet its a murder, rape capital of the world. etc, etc.
He went on to say: If we were to take all of the people from Haiti & Move them to Iceland, Well, they would soon die.
Take those from Iceland and move them to Haiti and within one generation Haiti would be paradise on earth.
He explained it better than I did. But you should get the gist of the Iceland / Haiti analogy. Better yet, listen to the Stockholm speech and hear it for yourself.."
"Liberal racist" is an oxymoron. There are people labelled as liberals that bear the scars of racism or other forms of discrimination, and as a result act out accordingly, but they are not truly liberal. They often are radicals - to an irrational degree. The scars of slavery and other abuses "trickle down" (to use a favored KKKon$ervative term) for generations.
CC Rider
2014-01-23 14:32:57 EST
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:49:32 -0500, Freedom Man wrote:
> "Liberal racist" is an oxymoron. There are people labelled as liberals that > bear the scars of racism or other forms of discrimination, and as a result > act out accordingly, but they are not truly liberal. They often are > radicals - to an irrational degree. The scars of slavery and other abuses > "trickle down" (to use a favored KKKon$ervative term) for generations.
Don't confuse today's moonbat liberals with the classic liberals, i.e., the Founders to whom today's conservatives bear a close resemblance. They embrace freedom and personal responsibility vis-a-vis the big, controlling govt., dependency, and sense of entitlement that today's libs worship.
The scars of slavery are pure bullshit, just a card for you folks to keep reaping the preferential treatment policies you have enjoyed since the 60s. The only institutional racism today is directed toward the white man in the form of those preferential treatment policies for you folks, e,g, dumbed-down stds. for "protected" minorities, double-std. in prosecuting hate crimes, set asides, quotas .... under the generic name "affirmative action."
Freedom Man
2014-01-24 14:11:09 EST
"CC Rider" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message news:4ytg0eie7nh7$.106y31tji49bm$.dlg@40tude.net... > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:49:32 -0500, Freedom Man wrote: > >> "Liberal racist" is an oxymoron. There are people labelled as liberals >> that >> bear the scars of racism or other forms of discrimination, and as a >> result >> act out accordingly, but they are not truly liberal. They often are >> radicals - to an irrational degree. The scars of slavery and other abuses >> "trickle down" (to use a favored KKKon$ervative term) for generations. > > Don't confuse today's moonbat liberals with the classic liberals, i.e., > the > Founders to whom today's conservatives bear a close resemblance. They > embrace freedom and personal responsibility vis-a-vis the big, controlling > govt., dependency, and sense of entitlement that today's libs worship.
People tend to define things to fit their prejudices -
> The scars of slavery are pure bullshit, just a card for you folks to keep > reaping the preferential treatment policies you have enjoyed since the > 60s. > The only institutional racism today is directed toward the white man in > the > form of those preferential treatment policies for you folks, e,g, > dumbed-down stds. for "protected" minorities, double-std. in prosecuting > hate crimes, set asides, quotas .... under the generic name "affirmative > action."
Bullshit? Though my skin is white, I grew up in the South Bronx. Psychological scars are just as real as physical ones. I suspect you have ZERO experience with such an environment and history, and are pontificating from a very priveleged position. I agree there are injustices in "affirmative action," and there has been reverse discrimination, but these are understandable reactions to the past horrors of slavery and Jim Crow.
CC Rider
2014-01-24 14:34:31 EST
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:11:09 -0500, Freedom Man wrote:
> "CC Rider" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:4ytg0eie7nh7$.106y31tji49bm$.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:49:32 -0500, Freedom Man wrote: >> >>> "Liberal racist" is an oxymoron. There are people labelled as liberals >>> that >>> bear the scars of racism or other forms of discrimination, and as a >>> result >>> act out accordingly, but they are not truly liberal. They often are >>> radicals - to an irrational degree. The scars of slavery and other abuses >>> "trickle down" (to use a favored KKKon$ervative term) for generations. >> >> Don't confuse today's moonbat liberals with the classic liberals, i.e., >> the >> Founders to whom today's conservatives bear a close resemblance. They >> embrace freedom and personal responsibility vis-a-vis the big, controlling >> govt., dependency, and sense of entitlement that today's libs worship. > > People tend to define things to fit their prejudices - > >> The scars of slavery are pure bullshit, just a card for you folks to keep >> reaping the preferential treatment policies you have enjoyed since the >> 60s. >> The only institutional racism today is directed toward the white man in >> the >> form of those preferential treatment policies for you folks, e,g, >> dumbed-down stds. for "protected" minorities, double-std. in prosecuting >> hate crimes, set asides, quotas .... under the generic name "affirmative >> action." > > Bullshit? Though my skin is white, I grew up in the South Bronx.
As the blacks would call you .... whigger.
South Bronx? That doesn't have anything on Bawlmer (Baltimore).
I grew up in a zoo too.
> Psychological scars are just as real as physical ones. I suspect you have > ZERO experience with such an environment and history, and are pontificating > from a very priveleged position. I agree there are injustices in > "affirmative action," and there has been reverse discrimination, but these > are understandable reactions to the past horrors of slavery and Jim Crow.
Then answer this moonbat: why is it that despite a half century of Civil Rights and "affirmative reverse discrimination" black crime, STDs, and out of wedlock/single parent rates are worse today than during Jim Crow when blacks were truly oppressed and their anti-social behavior could be at least understood? E.g., in 1963, black out of wedlocks were 25%, today 70%.
Freedom Man
2014-01-25 13:38:24 EST
"CC Rider" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message news:1xim3d1p2dpns$.fj6eh9vqcrgp.dlg@40tude.net... > On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:11:09 -0500, Freedom Man wrote: > >> "CC Rider" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message >> news:4ytg0eie7nh7$.106y31tji49bm$.dlg@40tude.net... >>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:49:32 -0500, Freedom Man wrote: >>> >>>> "Liberal racist" is an oxymoron. There are people labelled as liberals >>>> that >>>> bear the scars of racism or other forms of discrimination, and as a >>>> result >>>> act out accordingly, but they are not truly liberal. They often are >>>> radicals - to an irrational degree. The scars of slavery and other >>>> abuses >>>> "trickle down" (to use a favored KKKon$ervative term) for generations. >>> >>> Don't confuse today's moonbat liberals with the classic liberals, i.e., >>> the >>> Founders to whom today's conservatives bear a close resemblance. They >>> embrace freedom and personal responsibility vis-a-vis the big, >>> controlling >>> govt., dependency, and sense of entitlement that today's libs worship. >> >> People tend to define things to fit their prejudices - >> >>> The scars of slavery are pure bullshit, just a card for you folks to >>> keep >>> reaping the preferential treatment policies you have enjoyed since the >>> 60s. >>> The only institutional racism today is directed toward the white man in >>> the >>> form of those preferential treatment policies for you folks, e,g, >>> dumbed-down stds. for "protected" minorities, double-std. in prosecuting >>> hate crimes, set asides, quotas .... under the generic name "affirmative >>> action."
>> Bullshit? Though my skin is white, I grew up in the South Bronx. > > As the blacks would call you .... whigger.
The blacks I know would never say that. Only YOU are saying it.
> South Bronx? That doesn't have anything on Bawlmer (Baltimore). > > I grew up in a zoo too.
It shows.
>> Psychological scars are just as real as physical ones. I suspect you have >> ZERO experience with such an environment and history, and are >> pontificating >> from a very priveleged position. I agree there are injustices in >> "affirmative action," and there has been reverse discrimination, but >> these >> are understandable reactions to the past horrors of slavery and Jim Crow.
> Then answer this moonbat: why is it that despite a half century of Civil > Rights and "affirmative reverse discrimination" black crime, STDs, and out > of wedlock/single parent rates are worse today than during Jim Crow when > blacks were truly oppressed and their anti-social behavior could be at > least understood? E.g., in 1963, black out of wedlocks were 25%, today > 70%.
Not true, Nazi. There is no crime in having a kid out of wedlock if it is taken care of responsibly. People are not naturally monogamous, but through marriage society tries to force them to be.
Welcome to my killfile, bigoted asshole KKKon$ervative! PLONK!
CC Rider
2014-01-25 14:28:40 EST
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 13:38:24 -0500, Freedom Man wrote:
> "CC Rider" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message > news:1xim3d1p2dpns$.fj6eh9vqcrgp.dlg@40tude.net... >> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:11:09 -0500, Freedom Man wrote: >> >>> "CC Rider" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message >>> news:4ytg0eie7nh7$.106y31tji49bm$.dlg@40tude.net... >>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:49:32 -0500, Freedom Man wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Liberal racist" is an oxymoron. There are people labelled as liberals >>>>> that >>>>> bear the scars of racism or other forms of discrimination, and as a >>>>> result >>>>> act out accordingly, but they are not truly liberal. They often are >>>>> radicals - to an irrational degree. The scars of slavery and other >>>>> abuses >>>>> "trickle down" (to use a favored KKKon$ervative term) for generations. >>>> >>>> Don't confuse today's moonbat liberals with the classic liberals, i.e., >>>> the >>>> Founders to whom today's conservatives bear a close resemblance. They >>>> embrace freedom and personal responsibility vis-a-vis the big, >>>> controlling >>>> govt., dependency, and sense of entitlement that today's libs worship. >>> >>> People tend to define things to fit their prejudices - >>> >>>> The scars of slavery are pure bullshit, just a card for you folks to >>>> keep >>>> reaping the preferential treatment policies you have enjoyed since the >>>> 60s. >>>> The only institutional racism today is directed toward the white man in >>>> the >>>> form of those preferential treatment policies for you folks, e,g, >>>> dumbed-down stds. for "protected" minorities, double-std. in prosecuting >>>> hate crimes, set asides, quotas .... under the generic name "affirmative >>>> action." > >>> Bullshit? Though my skin is white, I grew up in the South Bronx. >> >> As the blacks would call you .... whigger. > > The blacks I know would never say that. Only YOU are saying it. > >> South Bronx? That doesn't have anything on Bawlmer (Baltimore). >> >> I grew up in a zoo too. > > It shows. > >>> Psychological scars are just as real as physical ones. I suspect you have >>> ZERO experience with such an environment and history, and are >>> pontificating >>> from a very priveleged position. I agree there are injustices in >>> "affirmative action," and there has been reverse discrimination, but >>> these >>> are understandable reactions to the past horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. > >> Then answer this moonbat: why is it that despite a half century of Civil >> Rights and "affirmative reverse discrimination" black crime, STDs, and out >> of wedlock/single parent rates are worse today than during Jim Crow when >> blacks were truly oppressed and their anti-social behavior could be at >> least understood? E.g., in 1963, black out of wedlocks were 25%, today >> 70%. > > Not true, Nazi. There is no crime in having a kid out of wedlock if it is > taken care of responsibly.
That's the problem, moonbat, they aren't.
> People are not naturally monogamous, but through marriage society tries to > force them to be.
Even the black leaders of the Civil Rights industry bemoan single-parent households and the lack of father figures. If blacks had more than two-digit IQs they'd realize that liberals have kept them on the victim plantation of self-pity, anger and a continuing sense of entitlement, all for votes of course, and they would rise up and kill all of you.. It all began when LBJ told the mammies not to chase down the baby daddies for support because the govt. would support them. That got the welfare state ball rolling. And it has been all downhill ever since.
"I'll have them niggers voting democrat for 200 years," -- LBJ
> Welcome to my killfile, bigoted asshole KKKon$ervative! > PLONK! .