Want Silence? It's Gonna Cost You

Town Crier -- how is the food at Balocco? The menus look extremely interesting -- and they comment on the smaller size of the portions (grazie a Dio) -- but we have been fooled into "Italian Experiences" before that resulted in banal cuisine, snotty or non-existent service, and felonious assaults on the Amex card. Thanks!

Conan

Well, that was bizarre -- my comment from 8:35 this morning, August 14, shows up at the top of the page dated July 14! Sherman! Quick! Fire up the WayBack Machine!!!

(The preview of this post is showing July 14th, too! Happy Bastille Day, Liz...

"Remember, reasoned examples of history seem lost on many Dems who seem to think that offers of plans and programs somehow equals caring, compassion and equality.""

Right on, Prof. It's the ol' process vs. progress. I deal with that all the time in the biz world.

To be opposed to a particular act, dannyboo, does not brand one as a racist for life. There was also a case to be made against sanctions towards South Africa. (I'm sure that many people who supported such are just as vehemently opposed to sanctions against, say, Cuba. For much the same reasons, too.) You're way off the wall by tagging Reagan a racist. One so morally elevated as even George McGovern has assured us Reagan was never any such thing, whatever their disagreements.

And while I'd normally suggest that your remark about dead Haitians and Nicaraguans should be beneath you, no, it probably isn't. (Did you mean those who supported the Sandinistas, by the way? Or just those who bravely opposed Ortega Saavedra's tyranny?) But it is terribly wrongheaded.

As for Jesse Helms, his most "productive" years as an opponent of civil rights were spent as a Democrat. As for Gordon Smith, do you mean the junior Republican Senator from Oregon? He was in grade school when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. As for George C. Wallace, I can find no citation that shows he ever changed his party affiliation to the Republicans. (Did you mean his son, who served as lowly state treasurer in Alabama and is a Republican? )

I also never said I had just one "black friend," now did I? (I think my experiences in the Army alone show more firsthand familiarity with "diversity" than you're likely to have had, even among members of your coven if you in fact happen to belong to one.) And my point in telling the anecdote was to hint - just hint, mind you, since you seem someone who needs blatancy in every aspect of his life, the better to bluster - that someone like Frank triumphs daily over the low expectations of folks like your smug liberal self by simply ignoring them. He lives and transcends daily the limitations by which you still wish to repress him via what you perceive as "good intentions." (He was also a helluva blocking back, something I'm positive you've never been.)

Skepticism, and pity for your low-grade thinking, thus both remain firmly ON.

"Remember, reasoned examples of history seem lost on many Dems who seem to think that offers of plans and programs somehow equals caring, compassion and equality."

Right on, Prof. It's the ol' confusion of process with progress. I see this all the time in the biz world.

I am posting in July, it seems. On Bastille Day! (The day les grenouilles celebrate the beginning of the season long ago when they began lopping off folks' heads.) And traveling through a dimension not of sight or sound, but of mind.....

.. hello darkness my old friend ..

test

But the devastation. And there Iowa and Missouri surely suffered in an equal fashion to New Orleans.

No, that's not true. My in-laws currently live in Iowa, and we were just out there in late July. From reading the papers, the flood damage most Iowans are most concerned about is soil erosion, which is far from the scale of the destruction of New Orleans.

One of the reasons I think that the damage was kept to a minimum is that flooding there is a relatively common occurence. The mighty Mississippi is pretty unruly.

In my

Danny Boo-

Excellent Post

Danny Boo-

Excellent Post

What do "Quad Gates" have to do with making things quieter?.(except for the first two letters)

i know i have to ruin everythinlg by bringing up politics but a friend of mine raised a question to me today?

in the wake of the flooding and devastation of Katrina in NO, we seem to have missed the network coverage of all of the lefty liberals and hollywood do gooders out in the midwest helping all fo the flood victims. When was the benefit concert performed by willie and mellencamp for their fellow farmers?

Now this coouldn't possibly be a race issue...could it?

Quad gates mean they dont have to blast the new louder horns. The horn or quad gate is mandated by the Feds. If we choose to save the 705k everyones taxes away from the trains will go up at the next assesment when the people close to the train get adjusted downward like people close to busy intersections. The value of quiet to Montclair and its home values is much higher than 705k.

http://www.newsunfiltered.com/archives/2005/09/farm_aid_offers.html

that is the link showing that farm aid did in fact help in this situation for iceman

Years ago, when we were looking for a house in Westchester, our realtor showed us a listing in Rye for a beautiful old house with tons of acreage at the end of a cul-de-sac. When I examined the listing, I couldn't believe what a steal this place was. Then the realtor showed us the house. It was a dream come true, with just one minor drawback: the backyard was the Hutchinson River Parkway. We couldn't even have a conversation in the driveway without having to shout over the din of the highway noise. I asked her who could possibly live in a place like this? Her answer: deaf people. Apparently, the last three owners of the house were all either hearing impaired or completely deaf. I'm not saying this is a solution to the Montclair "quiet zone," but it is a work-around.

Actually, I think Iceman's poorly worded post is querying the benefits for the floods of 2008 in Iowa and Missouri.

Mostly, I'd just like to say that my new puppy is really cute.

Too cute! Looks like a pit or a pit mix? Mine is 1/2 pit and 1/2 pointer and it all pussycat! And he is black and white as yours seems to be.

Awww, it's a peegy!

Really, really cute!

Also, puss--that was hilarious.

As far as I know, she's a pit. She could be a mix; I'm just not sure yet--she was a stray on the streets of Austin until about 3 weeks ago. Sometimes I look at her and think she could have some great dane in her, which is a little scary!

She is a total mush, and a real goofball! We're having a lot of fun with her (well, my other 2 dogs are reserving judgment, but I think it's getting better...)

:)

Oooh, very cute muzzlepowshe on that pup.

How many people died in the Iowa and Missouri floods? How many were trapped in their home or city for days? Did they have to wait days for help to arrive? Just asking.

The pooch has very lovely blue eyes, although they'll probably change color as he grows up like cats' eyes do.

The pooch has very lovely blue eyes, although they'll probably change color as he grows up like cats' eyes do.

Oh yeah, there is pit in her - no two ways about it! Mine is the opposite - more white than black - he looks like a pinto horse (hence his name, Pinto). I'd post a picture but I have no clue how to - LOL!

I don't think dane, but I could be wrong.

I know there's a lot of variation among pits since that term represents several breeds. She's pretty lean compared with most full pits I think I've seen, so I wonder if something else is mixed in.

In the end it doesn't matter much, I guess--she'll stop growing when she's done! And since she's at least part pit, I'll have to make sure she's extremely well trained--we're working on it! I'm amazed by how quickly she learns.

State Street, it is not perhaps the deaths, however saddening, which are the worst part of any flood. But the devastation. And there Iowa and Missouri surely suffered in an equal fashion to New Orleans.

(Nor were there any totally spurious reports of the hungry affected eating the dead in those two states, I should add. Nor of much looting or of something like 20% of a major city's police force simply fleeing their jobs. And of course neither state seems to have as totally incompetent a politician as Ray Nagin to boast of as a "leader" of their comeback efforts.)

Kate-
Your pup will be fine. Most pits (and I do mean most) aren't crazy man eaters. They are bred to fight because of their lock jaw, but usually its more of a training thing to make them mean, and not their instinct. I had a pit/boxer mix in Providence, and she was a gentle dog. (and mine was a pound puppy fromt the seedy part of the city)
****Back to the thread***
Quad gates are important, because (obviously) when people cant hear a train, they tend to cross the tracks even when the gates are down. If we were more responsible humans, we could rely on common sense and not have to pay 705k to dummy proof the tracks, but that's life. Good news is that we wont hear the train anymore, and it will raise value to places like Pine st, which will bring in better residents, and perhaps one day M Caggiano liquors will be like Angelbecks!

JT, maybe it speaks to a little cynicism on my part that it's hard for me to imagine your vision for Pine St. coming to fruition. Although it'd be cool to have an Angelbeck's-type joint on my end of town!

I certainly don't buy into the vicious-pit-bull myth (each one I've known that hasn't been beaten/tortured by its owner has been as sweet as can be). But I do think that if I'm going to care for a dog that's a large, energetic breed, I'd better be darn sure she's well trained. I've let my 2 little dogs get away with behaviors that would look a *lot* different if the pit bull did them. We're working with all 3 of them on training now, and it's been pretty fun so far!

How I love Baristaville--and its adorable pitts--let me count the ways. Great dog parks inside even more beautiful county parks, walking distance or 15 minute drive to miles of strolling or forest trails, tons of civic organizations to join to meet new friends and make Baristaville an even better place to live (who needs match.com!),cool restaurants nearby* where you can have a glass of wine and gaze at NYC (by far the greatest city on earth), which is a 20 minute commute to work or the world's most prestigious museums, lush tree-lined streets that dress up even the most boring housing stock, large pockets of still-affordable homes in folksy Bloomfield neighbors that are just begging for new fun-loving folks, an hour to the mountains, an hour to the shore. And there are no tsunamis!

*Highlawn Pavilion & there's a tiny place off Grove Street next to the seminary in Clifton that you can see from Rt. 3. Driving to Clifton, look for sign on right side of Grove Steet past the florist near the Montclair border.

Kate - that is so true given the bad rap that the breed has.

A friend of mine has a purebred who looks menacing when she barks, but in reality is (again) a pussycat. However, given her breed, they do not take her to run free at any dog parks "just in case" something were to happen and even if she wasn't the intigator, by not allowing her access in the first place they eliminate the possibility of having someone accuse the dog simply because it is a pitbull.

Anne--that sounds like the approach most folks I know have taken with their pits. It's been interesting observing people's reactions to her so far. Most people have oohed and aahed over her, but a few have given her the stink eye after asking what her breed is.

I'm boarding her for a couple of days at a doggie day care place in a few weeks, and while they evaluated her and had her there for the day and said she's fantastic, they also told me she won't be welcome when she's full grown. Even though they allow rotties, dobies, boxers, etc.

It's really too bad that some bad seeds have treated their pits so badly that they've made it difficult for the entire breed.

Ah, well. I'll do the best I can with this one! So far she makes it pretty easy.

MSU has already been using La Quinta for dorms. The kids like the fact that there they get housekeeping once a week, fresh linens and such. Most students have cars anyway, so the drive is not inconvenient, plus I believe there are shuttle buses that run back and forth too. On the cost of parking, if you are faculty,the price tag is closer to $800 per year.

Kate-

I think Pine St will change. About 8 years ago, when my friend from Providence came looking for a place to live while commuting to NYC, he was attracted to Pine st because of the price. The Landlord told him that he was buying up all the apartment buildings on the street (at that point he owned 3 buildings. Can't confirm that he bought any more). He would hold the tenants rent checks for over 30 days in hopes that when he cashed them, they would bounce. The inside of a lot (again, Ive only seen 3 or 4 interiors) of the buildings are nice. The residents are a mix, but many of them are the yuppie crowd you would see at Egans or Culin Arianne. When the time comes for the change, the facades will get a makeover, the streets will be lined with brick walkways and trees much like the small stretch of Walnut near Egans. Will it happen while I still live in Montclair? Not a chance.

Everything is in the works though. Hartford was like this too. You saw a dilapidated shell and when you stepped inside, it was a perfectly remodeled victorian. And once the neighborhood changed hands, fresh paint went on every house within months

Kate, your new puppy is adorable. Good luck! Make sure you watch Cesar Milan BEFORE she picks up bad habits.

I agree with the poster regarding quad gates - it's a bargain for a one time expense that in the end will ensure the homes within walking distance to trains (very desirable) retain their value rather than losing the current quiet zone which will expire and then have the whistles blow at the required 4 times at each street (very undesribable).

The question Iceman is asking and the inference,if I understand correctly, that Willie Nelson and Mellencamp are racists is somewhat incomprehensible. What is the point you're trying to make?

Sorry, but what's a quad gate?

That's interesting, JT. I think it's scummy for the landlord to hold the checks waiting for them to bounce, but then I suppose if the tenant doesn't have the $$ in the account after writing the check it's their bad.

I like the diversity of Montclair and would be sorry to see it turn into a yuppie haven like so much of NYC has. I do think it should be possible to put an end to the bad behaviors that go on at the corner of Pine and Glenridge without evicting the current population of that area and replacing it with financiers. Not sure why there isn't more of a police presence in that area.

Town crier, Isn't that "cemetery" in Clifton?

Re Midwestern floods:

Willie & Mellencamp may or may not have been MIA, but by God, REO Speedwagon were out there gettin' it done.

As for Farm Aid, it's being held on Sept. 20th. You can see where last year's money went here and decide for yourself whether you think they're doing a good job.

I'm more than a little skeptical of the usefulness of Whole Foods attaching themselves to Farm Aid, but what the hey, it's the American way.

I looked up "Quad Gates". Every example I saw was just those huge arm-things that come down. Don't we already have those at every crossing? Is there some kind of way that the combination of huge arm-things and red flashing lights could NOT make it clear that there was a train coming?

Midwestern floods used to fascinate me when I was a NYC kid. I wondered why anyone would bother to live there.

No conclusions offered, this being a random thread, pertaining mostly to a cute dog.

The new FEDERAL regulations call for louder horns 3 times at all crossings or quad gates at some crossings that have certain dangerous areas. This is money well spent. When times get tough you dont just let things get run down or you get caught in a downward spiral. The new gates in front of Mt.Hebron school are another example of putting on a good face, especially important for resale values when prospective buyers drive by the school. Dont get me wrong, we need to get rid of the asbestos and clean up other waste including the completely redundant Parking Authority. If they didn't issue seperate debt, why did they create that anyway?

JP, I grew up in the Midwest (St. Louis). That I lived in NYC for 20 years before moving out to Jersey is a sign that back then I too wondered why any rational adult with the freedom to choose would live there.

However, in the last decade I've come to appreciate the lower population density & the (perhaps not concidentally) higher levels of civility out there in my homeland. I doubt that I'll ever move back there, but were I to do so, it wouldn't be the horrible fate that it seemed when I was in my 20s.

Nellie, Nah, I meant seminary, although I know the big cemetary on Grove you refer to. I just remembered the name of the restaurant. It's on Vincent Drive, Balocco. Not a bad seat in the house, which is tiny. The seminary is probably closed. My friends used to throw snowballs at the cars on route 3 from there when they were kids. Anyway, here's the link for the the restaurant:
http://www.balocco.com/AboutPg1.html

Hey, Crank, St. Louis is alright with me, being, if nothing else, the birthplace of Chuck Berry.

no jerseygurl...my inference isn't that those two are racists..my inference is that because the disenfranchised weren't of color that they got treated differently. It is a legitimate question that I truly don't know the answer to. Did those guys help the people in the floods....were there benefit concerts performed...was there outrage at the clean up attempts...i don't know. I'm merely inquiring about the apparent lack of compassion exhibited by the self proclaimed 'party of the people'...the democrats

I just got an email inviting me to "represent my industry in the Madison Who's Who Among Executives and Professionals" in the 2008-2009 "Honors Edition" of the registry. This has to be at least the tenth email I got from them reminding me that the deadline is near. I've always considered myself rather whoish, yet something about this publication seems pretty fishy. Anyone out there ever get a similar email or know anything about this company?

ice, so you are inferring that democrats only care about black people? and that's because willie nelson and john mellencamp did not perform at a benefit you are referencing that sounds like was held for flood victims? are you questioning what willie and mellecamp have done for farmers? i'm really not sure what you are saying but you seem to be mixing race, performances, flood relief in some vieled way that has some kind of meaning to you. are you saying that washington democrats don't care about the midwest floods? or are you saying that two performers who have spent years of donated performances advocating for the small farmer suddenly don't care now that there is a flood? i know there is a thread of some kind of idea you are trying to put across, but again, it's not clear.

Iceman, I suspect the Republicans are also pegging themselves as "the party of the people".
After all, American residents who are not people, such as birds and fish, don't vote.

Jerseygurl...i guess what bothers me is that the democratic party always claims to have a big tent for all Americans but in actions they are always selective. Not saying you are of course just saying that the leaders of the democratic party don't seem to be concerned about all Americans...only those who can supprot there "cause" of the moment. I'm proud to be a member of a party that treats everyone the same. If you work hard you're rewarded. Color or class isn't an issue. again these are generalities and don't include all in either party.

also ice, you should look up the meaning of the word disenfranchised. it generally means not having rights, often referring to the right to vote, or to not having the same rights as the rest of society. middle class white people are for the most part not considered "disenfranchised" although i'm sure in certain circumstances that point could be made, but not because they have been victims of a natural disaster.

Ice, I think you really need to take a look at the history of your party regarding civil rights, worker rights, OSHA, the minimum wage, health care. If you are calling anyone who is not a Republican a racist, and if you really believe that party in it's current form has any compassion for the truly disenfranchised you need to do some reading.

I have to take one more stab at this odd logic - "if you work hard you are rewarded". So, you are saying that the current party, that has pretty much be co-opted by neocons, rewards hard work? Not greed, not corporations whose ceo's walk away with bags of money after running a company into the ground and then expect tax payers to bail them out? I would like you to tell me the last time your party passsed any legislation that rewarded work rather than dirty deals, dishonesty, corruption and a lack of corporate oversight.

Jerseygurl (here I leap into the fray!), I think YOU should really look into the history of the Democratic party re civil rights.

Let's just toss out a few zingers, here, shall we? The party of Lincoln, for example, was the party of abolition and of, well, civil rights during the Civil War and long afterward. The Democrats during that same period were the party of resistance to both Reconstruction in general and to the black franchise in particular. Democrats in fact to a man opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was passed by a Republican Congress over the veto of President Johnson, a Democrat. (Lincoln was so open-hearted a politican with regard to his running mate of '64.) Democrats also steadfastly gnashed their teeth and voted against the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which among other things banned slavery, overturned Dred Scott and allowed black Americans to vote.

From 1800-1861, by the way, 7 Democratic Presidents owned slaves, but no Republican Presidential candidates did. And 6 Democratic party platforms in the years 1840-1960 supported the institution of slavery. From 1868 until a lateish 1948, 20 Democratic party platforms either supported segregation outright or were curiously silent on the subject.

Democrats also were agin' the Civil RIghts Act of 1875, passed by a Republican-dominated Congress and signed into law by Republic President Grant. The act prohibited racial discrimination in public places and accomodations.

Come 1908-1928, Republican party platforms in each of those Presidential election years specifically addressed "the rights of the Negro" and stood foursquare against the horror of lynchings. During the years 1908-1920, however, comparable Democratic platforms don't so much as mention civil rights for blacks.

Yet in 1924, at a Democratic convention held at Madison Square Garden (one which some historians called the "Klanbake"), a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated on the first ballot, while the actual choosing of a Presidential candidate, because of Klan activity (since so many hooded lads were also party delegates) took 103 ballots. Should we also go into the grief poor Al Smith, the Roman Catholic Governor of NY, endured within his own "tolerant" party when he secured the Presidential nomination?

Democrats further specifically segregated the Federal government in 1913 at the direction of Woodrow Wilson when he became President. Wilson's father was a Confederate veteran of the Civil War, and his liking for D.W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation" (the "nation" being the Invisible Empire of the KKK) is well attested to. He even, as is recorded, told Griffith personally of his great admiration for D.W.'s cinematic recruiting poster for the revived WWI-era Klan.

More recently, 3/4 of the House votes opposed to the famous Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats. An even higher 80% of the nay votes in the Senate were from Democrats. The Democrats' Senate stand against this act was led by Senators Robert Byrd of WV and Albert Gore Sr. of TN, father to the former VP and environmental pest.

Shall I go on? Shall I note that the diehard segregationist "Dixiecrats" of the late 40's and early 50's, including Strom Thurmond (long before he saw the light and became a Republican), were all Dems? That "Jim Crow" laws were in fact passed throughout the South by Democratic legislatures?

Even Bull Connor of Birmingham, who so loved turning feeling-peckish Dobermans onto civil rights marchers, was a lifelong Democrat. was a member both of the Democratic National Committee and, according to FBI informants, the Klan. And then there is of course Leander "Big Daddy" Perez of LA, Orval Faubus of MS and...gosh, so many well-known segregationists of the late modern era, all of them Democrats!

I could go on, jerseygurl, but it really appears, as per usual, that you're the one who could stand to read a little more American history. Y'all have a nice night anyway as you sputter yourself to sleep later on.

Cathar, as long as FDR and JFK were Democrats, and Bush and Coolidge were Republicans,
your history lesson seems a bit besides the point, and little more than another excuse for you to rough up Jerseygirl in the school yard and steal her lunch money.

PS: regarding another recent post of yours, where you appear to view the Crusades as some kind of noble high point in history -
You may see flags and horses, but I see dead Jews and Moslems paving the road from Europe to Jerusalem.

cathar is right in his research, however somewhere after 1965 (I'll put my money on Reagan, utterly deprived in his racism), the roles reversed and the Republican Party sold it's soul to the highest bidder. It's an empty shell and a mere shadow of it's former self.

The whole myth of meritocracy that Republicans praise nowadays is grade A horseshit. How you can marginalize non-whites for over 2 centuries, during which you elevated whites above all, make whiteness a commodity by laws such as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the 'One Drop Law', pass racially restrictive policies like the FHA and VA loans of the 50's and 60's which essentially created the white middle class and which accounts for the reason white families have a higher net worth than black families of the same family income, not to mention the GI Bill which was almost exclusively for those with white skin who fought for their country, give these non-whites their basic rights only 43 years ago while you had a 200 year headstart, and then insinuate the playing field is level and all they have to do is work hard for what they get defies logic and surely resides as one of histories great atrocities and absurdities.

Forget Iowa and Missouri. Compare Katrina and the California wildfires. The stark reality was that it took the Bush Administration 5 days to get a fresh bottle of water into New Orleans, but in San Diego they had Yoga classes and were taking account of religious dietary restrictions.

Quit the yapping about, "Well in America you deserve what you have and you deserve what you don't have.", thank whatever God you pray to that you weren't born black in this country, and take a ride down to Banana Republic to check out the end of summer khaki sale.

Cathar, that party from the 19th century is long gone. Try using some examples from the past 50 years. If you are going to defend the posts of Iceman, be honest. Who is disenfranchised, who is more inclusive, who has more concern for the average hardworking person? Do you really want to encourage the fantasies of Ice, that anyone who genuinely has any regard for the average American is a racist who only cares about blacks in New Orleans and dismisses the pain of hard working white folk in the mid-west? The fact that someone believes there are only white farmers in the mid-west is even more shocking to me, but you know better Cathar.

J. Perlstein, I think the Crusaders had as much right to attempt to regain Jerusalem as the Arabs had to conquer it and enforce dhimmitude upon both Christians and Jews. The record is also clear that, given the opportunity, they were much better and fairer as administrators. The usual problem with the "Arabs" is that they still insist on dreaming of retaking lands they once bled dry. Malta, Sicily and all of Andalucia come to mind in this respect. At the very slightest, it took them 200 years or so to win back the Holy Land, which in terms of governmental legitimacy was never theirs to seize in the first place.

"Utterly deprived in his racism," dannyboo? What on earth does that mean? It also verges on derangement to term Reagan "racist." Try also to learn the difference between it's and its. Nor was the GI Bill ever designed solely for whitrs, that is simply a wild-eyed assertion. And as I tried to point out particularly for the benefit of jerseygurl, the Republican Party has consistently strived since 1863 to both enfranchise black Americans and to allow them to live as everyone else. Their main opposition in this has been Democrats. Also, to the best of my recollection, the benchmark Civil Rights Act was passed because of influence of LBJ, not JFK, who was assassinated long before the act was ever even in committee.

Now we come to jerseygurl, jerseygurl, whose mulishness knows no limitations and is matched only by her ignorance of the course if history. Who has more genuine concern for the working person? (About which you know what, exactly, now that I think of it?) Well, I'd say the committed-to-tax-cutting party of such a noted black thinker as Shelby Steele (have you ever read "The Content of Our Character?"), which is not the Democrats. We disagree there, I know. But I also seem to know a great deal more about the history of, respectively, the Republicans and the Democrats. And commitment to equality is not measured by new taxes, despite what both you and Barack Obama seem to believe. It isn't even measured by opposition to school vouchers or endorsement of affirmative action.

New Orleans and the recent floods in the Midwest were both unavoidable tragedies. Equal in scale, I think. But attenuated down South by the sheer obvious incompetency of a black big city administration and a corrupt, cut-and-run constabulary. Whoever runs either Iowa or Missouri and enforces their penal codes, they're neither Ray Nagin nor the NOPD.

So don't try an emotional appeal to me, jerseygurl, particularly since time and again you seem to completely lack any understanding of either history or just a given situation.

(And I cited examples of racism by "that party" well past the midpoint of the 20th century, its institutionalized racism and efforts to disenfranchise black Americans are not solely a product of the 19th century. Senators Bilbo, Tillman and Heflin, among many others, were segregationist Democrats of fairly recent times. Can you name any Republican counterparts? Of course you can't.)

Addendum for jerseygurl: One of the proudest moments of my life concerns a black friend and former co-worker of mine named Frank Gordon, who graduated from Colgate and spent three years with the Cleveland Browns on their practice squad and on special teams.

Some liberal idiot saw Frank studying his LSAT review guide one day at lunchtime and seriously asked him why he was hitting the books so hard after Frank told him he studied 4 hours a day. "You should be able to get in," this well-meaning leftist schmuck said. "You know, you're black and all that and there are places set aside for people like you who deserve them." (Which I think Frank already realized, especially the part about his being black.)

"I'm doing this," Frank replied cheekily, "so the white conservatives like Richard here can't say I just got in because of affirmative action. You wouldn't want him to be able to say that about me, would you?"

Four years later, I attended his law school graduation with Frank's then-fiancee, his mother and aunt to whom he'd promised he'd get them out of Bed-Stuy someday and his 18-year-old daughter, who was perhaps proudest of all of us of her father. He makes a great DOJ attorney these days, too.

and you're proud of Frank because he's black and actually studied and graduated?

I guess you think of him as "the exception"

talk about racist!

Cathar, that last post speaks volumes.

(A great morning read. Thank you cathar. And try not to dirty the cashmere gloves too much. I don't think they are listening. Remember, reasoned examples of history seem lost on many Dems who seem to think that offers of plans and programs somehow equals caring, compassion and equality.)

Well cathar, surely as someone who has thoroughly researched Democrat's opposition to black struggles throughout history, you would also have come across Reagan's vehement opposition to the Civil Rights Act, a stance which he never repudiated.

Or in his term as Governor of California, his dismissal of the struggle for fair and open housing, by saying that blacks were just "making trouble" and had no intention of moving into mostly white neighborhoods.

Remember where Reagan started his presidential campaign? It was in Philadelphia, Mississippi. In case you forgot, the only thing noteworthy about that town are the 3 civil rights workers who were murdered there in 1964. And in case you missed it, his speech that day focused on 'state's rights', which we all know is white code for rolling back civil rights gains and a wistful longing for the days of segregation. You can find that speech on Youtube.

Thoughts of Reagan and race also bring to mind how he fabricated a story about a 'welfare queen' from Chicago with 80 names, 30 addresses, and 12 Social Security cards, receiving over $150,000 in tax-free income. The choosing of Chicago as the site of this fictional woman, and not some mostly white rural area where there were plenty of welfare recipients too (indeed there are more whites on welfare than blacks), is indicative of his depravity as well.

Any chance you got around to reading the book of Reagan's Education Secretary Terrell Bell? In it, he noted how racial slurs were common among the 'Great Communicator's' White House staff, including common references to 'Martin Lucifer Coon', and 'sand niggers.'

As if those examples weren't enough, how about Reagan's supporting tax exemptions for schools that openly discriminated against blacks?

How about Reagan's opposition to sanctions against the racist South African regime? Even more glaring was his denial that apartheid was racist. His opinion on the policies of apartheid was that they were "more tribal than racial."

Or his administrations' 18% cutting of funds for community health centers which denied 750,000 people access to healthcare services, or his cutting by two-thirds of federal housing assitance which resulted in the loss of around 200,000 affordable units for renters in urban areas.

In your quest for the truth, careful not to step on all the bodies of the dead Haitians and Nicaraguans.

And yes, I can name Republican counterparts. Trent Lott, Gordon Smith, George Wallace, or that ray of sunshine himself, Jesse Helms.

I would include Strom Thurmond but, much like your black friend ceases to make you racist, his black daughter and affair with his black servant surely means he is not capable of racism.

/sarcasm off

Right on, dannyboo.

"Remember, reasoned examples of history seem lost on many Dems who seem to think that offers of plans and programs somehow equals caring, compassion and equality.)"

Right on, Prof. Confusing process with progress. I see this in the business world a lot.

Danny,

I normally don't get involved in fights between D's & R's (about the only time I ever agreed with anything George Wallace said was when he said "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties"), but George Wallace was never a Republican. In fact, he had a good chance of winning the Democratic Nomination for President in 1972 before he was shot during the campaign.

What's more, he was elected to 4 terms as Governor, all as a Democrat - his last term as Governor ended in 1987, and he remained a Democrat until his death in 1998.

Thanks for the history lesson guys, but let's stop kidding each other here. We all know Wallace, we all know Byrd, but the Dixiecrats are gone and that ain't the way it is anymore and you can try to convince yourself that the GOP is the party of equal opportunity for all but that don't make it so. When I stop seeing the GOP using race as a wedge, when I stop seeing the GOP trying to disenfranchise voters of color, when I the GOP stops having "Macca" moments, when I no longer see the GOP rolling out the ads with the young white women swooning over the scary black man with the oh so symbolic obelisks in the background (yes folks, he's coming for our women), then maybe I'll start believing that the GOP really cares about every American. Until then, please stop trying to blow smoke up my ass.

SSP: The Dems use race as a wedge, too, althought it's usually done in a sneakier, more insidious fashion. Take Affirmative Action, for example. Sounds good on the surface, right? But what does it really mean? Personally, I think it's an insult to people of color. It's basically saying to them, "You can't make it on your own smarts, ambition, whatever, so we'll lower the bar a bit, level the playing field, so that you can compete, too." What a self-defeating attitude, one in which no one emerges a winner.

I guess this is where our viewpoints determine our perception Mrs. M. I see AA as an acknowledgement of the damage done by racism in the past and the racism that still exists and that keeps parts of our society from acheiving what they should be able to achieve on their own. Even with the smarts and ambition some are denied the opportunity not because of the merits but because of where they come from and what they look like. That said, I am not sure if AA still does what it was supposed to do and if it does not cause, as you say, a lowering of the bar, so I struggle with the unintended consiquences of that as well.

SSP,

You say "we all know Wallace", but clearly "we all" don't. My post was in reply to Dannyboo's post:

And yes, I can name Republican counterparts. Trent Lott, Gordon Smith, George Wallace, or that ray of sunshine himself, Jesse Helms.

So which is it? Wallace is a relevant citation (when Danny thinks he was a Republican) or he's historical (when it is pointed out that he is a Democrat).

And former Klansman and life-long Democrat Robert Byrd is not just a Senator, he's the current President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate - A position of "honor" given to him by his fellow Democratic Senators which puts him 3rd in line for the presidency - current - that's hardly history, is it?

Do not construe my statements as being pro-Republican, they are not. The Republican party is hopelessly corrupt and unworthy of my support - unfortunately, so is the Democratic Party.

That's not to say that I don't vote for Democrats, or even Republicans, unfortunately, the Democrats and Republicans who run the State of New Jersey have rigged the game so that it is impossible to win at the state level unless you have a "D" or an "R" next to your name, so here in N.J., I am often forced to play in a "fixed" game. But when I do vote for a Democrat or a Republican, it is in spite of their party affiliation, not because of it.

Without programs like AA we would not have had a Colin Powell, nor a Clarence Thomas. It is a program that may have outlived it's original intent, however that intent was not a subversive attempt to keep people of color in their place or to set the bar lower for anyone. It was really intended to give them a place at the table after so many years of racial injustice.

As far as Dems offering nothing more than "plans and programs" rather than real compassion or caring, it is those very programs that give people assitance they need. Whether it's the minimum wage, or civil rights (the titles from the 60's on in particular), the Family Leave Act, unemployment insurance, Social Security, etc.

Welfare may have turned out to be an abject failure for a number of reasons in the end, but my mother in law needed it for the first few years after her husband abandoned her with two babies to raise.

She's white by the way. And my black nephew is doing just fine at the Birch Wathen Lenox
School. The stereotypes often don't hold true.

I'm surprised to say I like Cathar's story about his black friend! Far from being a race issue, it seems to me to be a slacker vs. achiever story, where the liberal was telling Frank to take it easy and sit back, and he played it off with a joke about affirmative action.

That being said, any bets on how much forward progress we'd lose if we ditched the program? The sad sad truth is we still need it, and probably will for quite awhile.

Anyone coasting (on their race, on their class, on their good looks) should get some pride and self-respect and put it in gear, IMHO...

Affirmative action, jerseygurl, had nothing to do with the careers of either Colin Powell or Clarence Thomas. Really, where do you come up with such nonsense? Have you ever even read anything substantive about either worthy? Do you understand the inverted pyramid system of the Army in which Colin Powell excelled?(You were also a bit "up" to use 'AA' as a shortener there, those initials are generally reserved for a much different sort of process.)

The actual point of my anecdote, Newgirl (which was explained in a post that somehow got inserted up above in a timeline where it was much earlier than it'd actually been posted), is that people like Frank daily transcend the stuff and nonsense that liberals toss out at them. They're happy to work much harder than liberals ever apparently expect them to do. And they take pride in their work. That liberals don't understand this is no fault of Frank's, however; I've personally always found him rather likable indulgent in this way. (Though what he'd make of a doofus like jerseygurl is another thing entirely, I imagine Frank suggesting she volunteer as a tackling dummy for the Mounties.)

As for ditching affirmative action programs, why the hell not? They really only impede, even as they also play to the paternalistic notions of liberals which make them feel good about themselves for no good reason. There is more than one "plantation system" out there, you might say.

I dunno. I still believe that it's possible to make it in America on your merits: intelligence, hard work, belief in oneself, ambition. If you are armed with these attributes, it's hard to go through life and not have anyone sit up and take notice, no matter what your race.

There are scores of stories about Americans--both white and non-white--who have overcome terrible hands dealt to them in life but who managed to succeed in spite.

Naturally, you cannot make the same claim for countries, such as India, where they still practice a caste system.

There is also something reassuring in the snobbishness revealed by jerseygurl when she names the prep school above. She is never content to just say, for example, "a good school" or "a good private school." Lady ("gurl", it'd take a John O'Hara to do your social pretensions justice, but if he did then it'd also be a complete evisceration.

From Colin Powell himself, in a CNN intereview, "I wish it was possible for everything to be race-neutral in this country, but I'm afraid we're not yet at that point where things are race-neutral," Powell said on CNN's "Late Edition."

"I believe race should be a factor among many other factors in determining the makeup of a student body of a university."

Powell has also publicly admitted that his promotion to brigadier general was precisely because of his race, and the military does most definitely take race into account. The Army for one, has been targeting scholarship money disproportionately to black colleges with ROTC programs. At least 7% of each class at West Point must be black.

Thanks for the correction Carl. :)

Mrs. Martta...oh dear, dear Mrs. Martta. First of all, let's let black folks determine whether or not AA is an insult to them okay? Don't you think it's a bit arrogant and presumptuous to think you know how every member of another race feels?

And in regards to AA, let's stop with the idea that racial preference were something invented in the 1960's to benefit people of color. Because whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, the entire history of this country is the history of affirmative action for white folks like myself. And unless you discuss that affirmative action and the impact it has made, you engage in a discussion that is both ethically and practically irresponsible.

It's the existence of racism which necessitated AA in the first place and which necessitates it today. Enslavement, Indian genocide, and segregation not only oppressed people of color, but elevated whites and provided us with opportunities we did not earn.

The Homestead Act allowed whites to claim over 270 million acres of land for virtually no money down at a time when folks of color could not. Today there are over 40 million white folks descended directly from those who received that land giveaway, millions of whom still live on that property. They owe their lives to affirmative action for whites.

Then there was the FHA Home Loan Program, which for the first 30 years of it's existence operated in a whites only fashion, lending over $120 billion dollars worth of government backed housing equity to whites, thereby creating the white middle class.

In large part to those preferences, the typical black couple with college degrees, starts out with less than 1/5th the net worth than the typical white couple because the latter of those has likely received the benefits of their families' prior head start, while the former are likely to have accumulated far less having had less chance to do so.

So against that backdrop, ending AA would only further cement the systemic advantages of whites that have been in place for hundreds of years. It would be tantamount to favoring those 3 laps ahead in a 5 lap race, even though those that gained their head start did so as a result of an unfair process.

But even worse, to end AA would ignore the ONGOING reality of white racial preference not only in education but in employment.

According to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, 3 out of 4 companies covered by AA regulations violate them regularly and not just that, are also in violation of basic civil rights' law. The problem is, the OFCC only has enough monitors to check up on the companies under their purview ONCE EVERY 46 YEARS, so there's no deterrent.

Those who seek to end AA ignore the recent study that found that job applicants with white sounding names have a 50% greater chance of getting a callback than applicants with black sounding names, even when credentials are indistinguishable.

They ignore the research that shows that 8 in 10 jobs are never advertised and instead are filled by networking, a process that mostly excludes people of color (and women of all colors) and elevates whites and men, not because we are better for certain jobs but simply because we know the right people. Indeed, I am proof of this as EVERY SINGLE JOB I have received since college has been through someone I know.

If AA were abolished, none of that would change for the better. If anything it would get worse.

The same is true for schooling. Those who oppose AA in regards to schooling ignore the preferences that are built in for whites. For example, in regards to a recent case, AA opponents condemned the University of Michigan for giving 20 points on a 150 point scale to minorities but they ignored the points that in practice, were essentially white only. Such as the 16 points you got if you were from Michigan's Upper Peninsula (I don't know if you've been there before but the snow is not the only thing that's white). 10 points if you went to a top high school, which means your parents live in the right zip code. 8 points for taking AP classes, which are 3 times more available in schools serving white kids than schools serving black kids. 4 points if Daddy or Mommy went to Michigan. They'll rally around a student like Jennifer Gratz as the supposed victim of reverse discrimination because the year she was rejected by Michigan, there were about 85 students of color who got into Michigan despite having lower scores and grades but they ignored the 1,400 white students with lower grades and scores who got in ahead of her. So less qualified white people are no problem but God forbid a less qualified person of color gets in...

They ignore the study done in October of 2007 that found for every 1 student of color who receives any benefit from AA in college there are at least 2 whites who also didn't meet requirements but got in anyway simply because Daddy wrote a check or Mommy made a phone call or somebody pulled some strings and got them in. But AA for rich white folks is never a problem.

So AA doesn't hold people of color to lower standards. The fact is that whites are the ones who have been held to lower standards. To wit, it is whites, and only whites, who can get C's all the way through school, brag about their mediocrity publicly, mangle the English language, and go on to become President of the United States.

So Mrs. Martta, when you lament AA because it's preferential aspect, in your estimation, supposedly causes people of color to question their own abilities, ask yourself why you don't have the same concern for the image and mental health of white Americans who have been being preferred for 400 years, and by your logic, must be the most self-doubting and self-hating people on the face of the Earth.

And no, AA doesn't place people of color into positions which they are unqualified. Once we control for economic status, comparing only people of color and whites from families of the same income and wealth profile, there is no difference in college graduation rates and only an insignificant difference in grades. And black students at the most selective schools actually do better in relation to their white counterparts than those in less selective schools.

Furthermore, according to over 200 different studies on the subject, not just 1 that I'm pulling out of my ass, but 200, employees that have benefited from AA perform equal to or better than their white male counterparts once given a chance to prove themselves.

So unless you have some alternative mechanism for addressing the legacy of white racial preference and the ongoing advantages extended to whites in this country, unless you have an alternative means by which TRUE equal opportunity can flourish, to oppose AA is to engage in an act of irresponsible racial aggression and ignore the wisdom of Martin Luther King, Jr. who said:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory preferential treatment is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race 300 years after another man, the second would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."

By the way, in regards to that Michigan case, UoM also gave 20 points to those whose economic status warranted it. However stipulations are in place that dictate you cannot receive points based on both race and economic status; meaning, people of color who were also poor couldn't "double up" on the points and receive 40. They either had to accept the 20 points for not being white or the 20 points for being poor. The end result is that those 20 points based on economic status went mainly to whites.

I would love to be able to live in a society one day where this stuff didn't matter.

As per your condescending comments that I speak for the whoe black race, really! Did you even read what I wrote? Those comments are my opinion, no one else's.

To that end, a web site called BalancedPolitics.org, says it beter than I can:

When you apply for a job or fill out a college application, how often are asked about things like your hair color, eye color, or height? Unless it's for a modeling or athletic position, probably never. Why? It's because hair & eye color or height don't have any effect on your ability to do a job or succeed at a school. There's no association between hair/eye color and intelligence, discipline, ambition, character, or other essentials. Thus, it's useless to even ask about the information. Conversely, there's no association between skin color and intelligence/discipline/etc. So why do we keep drawing attention to it? Wouldn't it be great if we one day lived in a society when skin color was ignored as much as hair & eye color?

As for the Michigan case (I am well-acquainted with the Yooper population, by the way), I think that was wrong, too, for the same reasons.

Simply put, what's wrong with getting by on your merits? What's wrong with giving it that extra push? If I am a high school student, why should I push for a 4.0 GPA if I can get into an Ivy League school with a 3.2?

I don't feel privileged having grown up white, by the way. I was raised by a single mom, we were far from wealthy, and I had to work my ass off to earn my way in the world. Never got any handouts but didn't expect any. Never felt that my being a woman was a detriment, either.

Jerseygurl, you still don't appear to have anything resembling even half-familiarity with the armed forces of this country. In generalships, by the way, the first star is always the easiest. (They're frequently given to retiring colonels as a way of upping their pensions.) And although 7% of spaces in a West Point class may be "reserved" for minorities, you still have to qualify for them physically and mentally. (And then you also have to secure a Congressional nomination or stand out that much from other competing soldiers in the RA for those slots.) That isn't quite how affirmative action programs have worked elsewhere, now is it?

Dannyboo, back to the covenstead or wherever you hang out. That you use the occasion of a screed upon affirmative action (again, the discerning reserve "AA" to describe something else entirely) to also hit upon President Bush shows your real interest is in sticking your thumb into some sort of pie and then proclaiming, to the "already committed" here who love such nonsense, what a good boy you are. Whatever George Bush is however, Al Sharpton also is. (Dare I add "in spades," with no offense intended save to a nitwit like mikey?) And Jesse Jackson is no great shining intellect either? Nor quite a few Kennedys I could cite, speaking of proponents of affirmative action whose own admission to elite schools is always guaranteed. Have you ever even listened to Congressman Pascrell wheeze his way through a speech, for that matter? The man was not elected because of his clear intellectual sophistication.

So show trying to show off as you surely once did in grade school, dannyboo.

To "cite" 200 studies, however (though without sourcing even this rather sweeping assertion), truly only implies, given your own intemperate language, that you have, or perhaps even are, a very big anal opening.

Mrs. - something that labels itself as balanced yet is run by someone with an admittedly conservative viewpoint is hardly balanced, it is extremely biased. Yes, it would be great if we lived in a society in which color did not matter. But it does. And there is a long history here of slavery followed by segregation that puts color in different context than merely asking about the color of one's hair on a job application. That is why there are people around the country handing out buttons that say "If Obama wins will the Whitehouse still be white?"

Do you insult and vilify everyone who disagrees with you and puts up such a good argument that you find yourself flailing to counter and instead use abstract words that no normal person uses in everyday conversation to derail the topic and focus on personal insults rather than the matter at hand?

What religious denomination you think me is of no consequence to the conversation other than to stamp a label onto me according to the stereotypes you subscribe to and satisfy your own compulsive need to put the world into little labeled shoeboxes in your mind to make it easier to sort out. In short, you don't challenge your own thinking, considering it impervious and anything which challenges it as mere conjecture. You believe what's been force fed to you in school and the media. When faced with overwhelming evidence pointing to what you believe as wrong, you change the subject and resort to name calling and belittlement. I'm half waiting for you to stamp your feet and cry out that you're taking your ball and going home.

You can say all you want about my comment regarding Bush but the truth of it still stands on it's own merit. Neither you or anyone else here can deny that if a minority were running for President with Bush's resume and speaking skills (or lack of them), you would probably be leading the parade crucifying that person and insisting that this country deserves to be lead by a man of intelligence and ability.

And here's a little clue for my fellow whites: if you're so sick of if seeing Jackson and Sharpton out front whenever white racism rears its ugly head, there's an