Best blog ever...... Enough said

What struck me most about when I posted about racism throughout "liberal" Park Slope in relation to the CD-11 race, I was struck that the vast majority of posts defended Yassky's "right to run," which had nothing to do with my diary, or attack Chris gratuitously. What almost NO ONE commented on were the actual, glaring discrepancies. No one seemed to care, at least not verbally, that there is a playground in Park Slope that had no gates to prevent children from running into the streets. I felt like my main point was missed and all I succeeded in doing is beat an already dead horse.

Liza said, "why is it not okay for a black man to protect his own with a gun?" New York City has very restrictive gun control laws. To have a concealed weapon permit, you have to pretty much be a licensed security guard or own a business where the city agrees that you need one on premises. This isn't Texas where its the wild west and anyone can carry a gun on their person. We have way too many gun deaths in the city as it is, I would hate to see an incident of police brutality like this be used as a reason to relax gun control laws and get more private citizens (regardless of race) walking around carrying concealed weapons. We need fewer guns on the street, not more.

re: mole's post. I think the issue in the cd 11 race was that in a district that is 28% white, you can't expect that there won't be white candidates running. If it wasn't Yassky it would have been someone else. I recall one columnist in the Amsterdam News saying that if Yassky won, there should be a congressional investigation, which was tantamount in my mind to saying that he thought voters in the district shouldn't have complete freedom of choice. I think Yassky was villified to such an extent just for running that it could and did excacerbate racial tensions. This was not the way to build racial harmony in the area. I think any candidate who puts their careers and reputations on the line by running for public office should be respected. We don't get enough qualified people to run for office these days, and villifying and hounding those few quality people who do run serves no good purpose. What did we end up with in the 11th? The guys (Yassky and Owens) with the best qualifications didn't win, instead the person who won was the one who lied about her education. Yet somehow the race issue is more important than the quality of and qualifications of the candidates? Yassky was white, Chris was half-white. Yvette was 100% black caribbean. That mattered more than anything else? All things being equal, I'm all for such a district being represented by an african american. But if we don't have quality candidates, and we can't judge those candidates on things other than race, voters aren't making the best most informed decisions.

I would argue that problems with crime and economic disparities, and unprotected schoolyards as you mention, are caused by the lack of quality elected officials. QUALITY. We need the best candidates elected. Instead we get corrupt machine pols continually re-elected, like Diane Gordon in the 40th AD. If minority representation was all you need to fix these problems, the 11th shouldn't have these issues you mention after decades of minority leadership. The problem is institutional as much as it is racial.

I read that the Machine leaders in the brooklyn party met with Spitzer the week before the election, and requested he set up an Office of Black Brooklyn. Is having segregated government agencies the only way to get anything done? Is there no way to have racial harmony and have agencies that reflect the whole community? I think such things might cause the same racial hostilities that Yassky running did. Brooklyn is gentrifying. People of various races are learning to live together, and I think part of that living together is coming to accept that we can share our interests, and join behind community leaders regardless of race.

many don't get it.

I am crying with you and for this young man and his family. Because it could be my husband, or one day one of my two boys, or one of our friends, and it makes me angry.

I am always worried for my husband who is African-American, and I am always worried for my two beautiful boys. It always seems that they have to be better behaved, smarter, and work harder than their co-workers or classmates, respectively, just to achieve the same level of respect.

I don't have the answer to your question. Because: We shouldn't even have to ask this question! That is what is so perverse about this, black men should not have to justify the fact that they have the right to exercise the 2nd amendment.

Yes, it is 2006 but there are many things that haven't changed even in "liberal" Park Slope. Some white kids at my sons school are told by their parents not to play with the black kids (one mom told me this a few months ago); one white girl at my sons' school was "suspended" (that is she was placed in another classroom) because she called one of her African-American classmates the n-word.

One of my best friends who is Mexican-American, and who has three beautiful boys with her (white) husband was one day stopped on 7th Ave by a white man in business attire, and asked if she was still available for nanny duty since she was doing such a beautiful job with those three boys.

One African-American mom one day took me aside, and told me that just because we live in "liberal" Park Slope it doesn't mean that everyone believes in racial equality.

This is what all these people who attacked you don't get, or rather don't want to get. If anything they get totally offended if you even bring up these issues. Instead of dealing with them head-on, they rather sweep it under the rug because it is just a lot easier to live in lalaland then to actually do something.

You know Mole, I resent your continually trying to make yourself come across as more of an expert authority on the race issue than myself or anyone else. Like you are the least racist person in all of Brooklyn or something. Where do you get off talking about "white liberal feelings of superiority"? You have no idea where I come from or where anyone else comes from, in regards to the race issue. You have no right to consider yourself more racially compassionate than myself or anyone else.

You arrogantly took one view on the CD 11 race, and held that anyone who didn't share that same view was less "holier than thou". Was either a racist or racially insensitive. It was and IS insulting. In fact you talk about the "actual opinions and emotions of the majority of our Congressional district", as if you KNOW what all these people are feeling. You don't! You aren't any more of a black person than I am. So don't be so pompous as to lecture me or anyone else, saying "you have a lot to learn on the race issue" You only come across as arrogant and conceited doing that. You DON'T know any more about the race issue than me or anyone else, you just have your own perspectives just as I do. I grew up in the south, I saw racism MUCH worse than you see in Brooklyn. Hell, I saw Klan rallies, and had things thrown at me when I marched in an all white county down in Georgia about twenty years ago. So don't go lecturing me about what I have to learn.

All I'm saying is based on my experiences, we cannot deal with the race issue by forcing segregation and racial polarization, and avoiding the issues that like BENEATH the race issue. The underlying issues are economic and social(class), and you aren't going to get anywhere by telling a poor white person or a poor latino person that poor black people have it worse. You will never get past racial hostilities and bitterness unless you can find that common ground that comes from looking BEYOND the surface issues.

And if we CAN'T get past the race issue, then local democratic party politics in this city is doomed. We will never elect another democrat mayor, we will always have the local borough parties controlled by ethnically centered "machines", and too much racially heated resentment for those machines to ever work together. Yet everything that you say you want as a "reformer" is predicated ON democrats working together, and that CANNOT happen unless common ground is found, unless we stop labeling and resenting each other based on racial attitudes. Mole, you hurt everything you claim to stand for by insisting on acting "morally superior" to every other democrat in this city who does not see the "race issue" in the exact way you do. I wish you could just see that.

You wonder why more black people don't join IND or CBID? They don't want to join groups where people like you treat them like martyrs or victims. Where they can't be treated exactly like the next person because you, the overly compassionate, feel all this sympathy for them. That is singling them out, just as a racist would. Making them feel different. Black people don't often join majority white progressive political groups as much because of racial hyper-sensitivity as becuase of racial insensitivity.

what the f... do you know? Quality elected officials my behind. You also live in lalaland, you if anything are part of the problem and not the solution. This following quote by one of my favorite German comedians Dieter Nuhr is befitting to answer your comment:

"Freedom of speech means that you have the right to exercise this freedom, but you don't have to.
And to prove its own stupidity by posting ignorant opinions, is like jerking off in front of the mirror, and then congratulating yourself on a job well done by sending yourself a bouquet of flowers."

The point is: We live in a racist society.

A society that denies it's racism with one hand while it clings to it with the other.

Blacks feel the heat from so many different angles its hard to calculate an orgin- The media, the police, renters, OURSELVES- We have caught looks as an interracial couple from whites and blacks alike.

The biggest problem is that we (Americans) have come to accept it in limited degrees. We were watching a show on Warren Buffet the other night and they were going to interview Bill Gates (Microsoft Genius) and Labron James (basketball star).
Under the whole promo was this nice heroic tune- 'til they got to James at the end then it became this hard rap beat.
WTF is that? Lebron's not a rap star. Sure Hip Hop IS black culture but changing the music is not necessary.

It would be easy for me to write a diatribe about how racist Texas, Alabama, Park Slope, Arizona, Myrtle Beach- or any other place I've lived in America is but the point would be the same: We live in a racist society.

And I think that is what the OP is getting at. So, I don't really care about how much fruit was thrown at anyone by the KKK or the reasons Yassky ran or the validity of Clark's creditials.

Black people do not participate in "the system" because we are taught from a very young age that when you are black and dead in the street you are just another N----r dead.
Then you grow up and watch the news and find out that it's true.

If a group of black cops unloaded 50 bullets into 3 unarmed white guys- I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be an uproar in the community as a whole and not just the black community.

If cops then went through white neigborhoods, busting down doors and breaking stuff in innocent people's houses to find an alibi for those cops it would not be tolerated.

And I don't believe the Mayor would be chastised for saying the action was "unacceptable".

Remember. This is not the first time this has happend and we all know how the last one turned out.

anncoulter, you are misunderstanding my earlier posts. I have never said racism isn't a problem. Its a huge problem. I did not support Yassky in the cd 11th and if I were him, I would not have run in that race. But I sincerely believe that the hostile attitudes of Bouldin, Mole and others towards his candidacy turned off would be voters in that district. Why should a constituent feel welcome to vote when he/she is told if they vote one way they are a racist, if they vote the other way they are a racist too. It alienates voters. And how do we get the best candidates to run for office if we disqualify some of them based on skin color as opposed to the content of their character?

What I've been trying to say is that in this racially divided city, we cannot make race the predominant issue and get everyone across the board to unite. In an ideal world sure, but this isn't an ideal world. Its a hot button topic and it divides people. The Democratic Party can't elect a mayor in this city because of the race issue. When Mark Green was the nominee, the hispanics stayed home. When Freddy Ferrer was the nominee, many of the whites and blacks voted for Bloomberg. This is what happens when we keep having primaries where the voting is split on racial lines and the winners are subject to racial hostility. This is why we are an overwhelmingly democratic city with a republican mayor.

For the Democrats to succeed, we must find the underlying issues that can unite all these democrats of various races. This is exactly what Barack Obama, whom I am strongly considering supporting for President, says about the politics in this country-- that we need bridge the gaps in society and focus on what we have in common, NOT what we don't have in common. I believe, as Obama does, in universality. That we are all connected, every human being on this planet. We are part of one another. I believe that overemphasizing what divides us (such as the race issue) makes it very hard for people to see this. Its the same way the GOP alienates voters by overemphasizing the religion issue, and the Democrats alienate voters by underemphasizing it.

Can we get past these things and focus on the broader issues and the big picture? Thats all I'm saying.

...because it seems that every time I'm ready to give in to the impulse, strongly promoted by white liberals like Wallner, to just pretend that race doesn't exist anymore, some black dude gets shot like, fifty times. How inconsiderate, because, don't these guys realize we're just not comfortable talking about race and racism? Don't they know that we don't consider that an issue when there's baby seals getting clubbed every day in frigging Norway?

It's also not helpful when I look at my government and notice that, gee, there's not a lot of black people involved there. Maybe they need to start caring about the real issues, instead of all this divisive crap about how every available deck is stacked against them. That way, we white people wouldn't feel bad anymore, wouldn't have to talk about this icky stuff, and we could all live happily ever after.

Oh yeah, except for the occasional shooting of some black dude. Guess they need to work on their happy feelings just a little bit harder. It's not racism if you just smile hard enough and talk about serious stuff like global warming.

maybe there would be more minority elected officials if you could look to the bigger picture. What happens in this city is that in the primaries everyone gets caught up racial politics. The Bronx party machine is hispanic, the brooklyn party machine is black, and they do not work together. These groups see the party machines sadly as the only way to guarantee minority representation. The result is that the democratic party in this city is hopelessly splintered. we don't have one democratic party in this city. h of these machines is actually its own separate party with its own separate agenda. How can anyone unify the disparate factions of democrats in this city when no candidate is going to be hispanic enough for some, black enough, white enough, jewish enough for others?

We have to get past the race issue. As overwhelmingly important as it is, it is such a hot issue that it obscures all the other issues and all the other things that we have in common. This guy got shot fifty times right? Who was the candidate in cd 11 who was strongest on gun control? It was Yassky actually, its his pet cause. But noone was going to focus on a candidate being strong on gun control if he was the wrong race. Not in this city.

But I can't sit here and say these things without being called racially insensitive. This is why we need a candidate like Obama, because he can call for getting beyond racial politics and not get accused of being racially insensitive. Its a double standard, but its one that I accept.

There's much to criticize about the machines, but racial monoliths they're not. The last Brooklyn 'boss' was Clarence Norman, who was black, now it's Vito Lopez, who is Italian. In Queens, the county leader is Joe Crowley, white, and probably the number two in terms of influence is Malcolm Smith, who is black. Even in the Bronx, you have white electeds like Eliot Engel to the north.

I'm now going to do something unusual and say something nice. It seems that Wallner's heart is in the right place, because he understands that race and racism are issues worthy of concern. Problem is, we disagree about what to do about it. He says, essentially, "Just pretend it's not there, talk about something else, and it will go away". I think that's not a productive approach, because it hasn't worked in the past and is altogether too comfortable for my taste, but there you have it.

On one hand you say that racism is a huge problem and on the other you say we shouldn't overemphazise the issue. Oh man, easy for you to say. As a mother of two interracial boys and the wife of an African-American man I feel strongly that this very serious issue finally needs to be addressed because we live with it on a daily basis. One of my older son's friends who goes to the same school the other day told his mom that his teacher gives preferential treatment to the white kids. It is sad that a 9 year old boy already has to come to the realization that yes even some teachers differentiate between black and white.

In regards to David Yassky running in the 11th district here is my take on this issue:

Many (white) old-time Park Slopers were disgusted with the fact that he ran. Why: because they know the history of this district; because they know that he could not have related to the every day struggle the majority of the people who live in this district face every day. And most of this struggle is tied to discrimination.

And on the other hand I observed all the Park Slope Yuppies going googoo over him when he handed out flyers in front of the school These are the same kind of parents who will not allow their precious kids to play with my kids or any other kid whose skin just happened to be a little bit darker. These are the same kind of parents who snub us in the streets even though our children are in the same class with their kids.

Racism is a very serious issue, one that was created by white people, and not black people. For too long African-Americans have been surpressed by society, and for you to say that it pretty much is reversed racism (this is how I interpret your statement, feel free to correct me) when the black community says that since this is a overwhelmingly black district and therefore should have a black congresswo/man is pretty much a slap in the face to people like my parents-in-law who grew up with even worse shit.

Further the reason why more black people don't join local democratic groups is not because of the facts you stated (which are highly insulting BTW). It is because they see that nothing has changed, and nothing seems to be changing. No matter how much one tries. If you get beaten down over and over and over and......, one day you will not get up again because: what's the use, because you know that if you try to get up again someone is just waiting to put you in your place again. I found this quote by a guy named Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini which brings it to a point:

" We tend to be mental prisoners of the frame provided to us by the... situation."

He was quoted in a paper written by Jon Hanson & Kathleen Hanson titled: "The Blame Frame: Justifying (Racial) Injustice in America"

It describes the source of racial inequalities and the emergence of choicism. It talks about how we live in a society where we are taught that everyone has a the choice to better themselves but that we ignore the basic fundamentals needed to achieve this goal.

It is a very interesting (and long) paper, but it brings to the point, and here is a little excerpt:

As elaborated elsewhere, choice-based dispositionism, like the other dispositionist theories justifying oppression throughout our history, is badly flawed. Like a magician’s diversionary hand-waving, imagined disposition
distracts from far more influential situational forces internal and external to us all. This is not a purely innocent mistake; as Lerner’s experiment demonstrated, we see “choice” in part because it creates the appearance of justice in the face of inequality and suffering. The choice
schema allows us to blame victims and excuse non-victims, thus protecting us from the disturbing reality that variations across groups do not simply reflect a fair and merit-based allocation of resources and opportunities.
The choice schema has become dominant in today’s society. Choice, then, is the new race. And “choicism” is the new racism. Its influence
extends well beyond legitimating racial desparities, as choice has become a way of understanding just nearly everything.

It further states:

To be sure, in justifying racial inequalities, “separate and unequal” gave way to “separate but equal,” which has now yielded to “separate but chosen.” While that may seem like significant progress, in all cases, victims are blamed while non-victims are excused,
the haves and the have-nots are separated, and the persistent chasm between them (which would otherwise be seen as unjust) is legitimated.
As always, the situational influences on the oppressed remain largely ignored, and dispositions are said to determine outcomes. But, under the new frame, those situations are said to reflect people’s choices (in the form of
consuming, studying, voting, marrying, taking precautions, having children, exercising, dieting, abiding by laws, accepting Jesus, working hard, and so on). More generally, the choice frame allows our system to maintain
its legitimacy in the face of significant inequalities.

So you either get it or you don't, the choice is yours.

P.S. Once I told someone about an incident that had happened to me and my husband (we didn't get served in a restaurant while folks who were seated later got the royal treatment, plus despite our efforts to get the attention of our waiter we were completely ignored). Well this person told me that "I had chosen to marry outside my race thus I should not complain." Fucked up isn't it? The incident as well as the statement. But here we go: blaiming the victims.

I tune in to this blog because I believe that Liza, Bouldin and Mole are decent people at heart, and like myself they keep trying to work through things and sort out things in this complicated world(at times). Yes, it is a complex issue (racism)that most whites seem to want to ignore or deny; and yes it's a painful issue for black people in general; however, we will get nowhere unless blogs like this do what you guys have done: discuss the issue. I have enjoyed this thread, I just wish that more people participated.
Why do you guys think that that so few people commented on this ?

Yes, I agree with you; to call Chris Owens racist was rather absurd; even though I thought he mishandled the "Yassky" thing somewhat.

I could see from your writitngs that you have used your life-journey positively, in order to get a better perspective on race. I wish more people (both blacks and whites/ especially) would do the same. One of the things hardly ever spoken about is "reverse-racism" coming from blacks towards whites, since many blacks feel justified given the history of USA; but it's wrong nonetheless. MLK once said to return hate with love. He was so right in this regard.

As much as whites need to get off that "denial" thing, the responsibility of fixing all this lies squarely on both shoulders. I only hope that we (as a society)don't have to deteriorate into race-war before common sense prevails.

"It's a long road to Tipperary".

thanks for "starting to like me too." Though does that mean you didn't like me before? Just kidding.

You mentioned reversed racism. Well, hmmm, what I am about to write isn't intended to justify it, but and I guess I have to reach way back right now so bear with me.

I was born in Germany, and have been in the US for 13 years. Politics as well as Germany's deplorable history was always a topic when I grew up. Also, having a Belgium mom with family living in Belgium including relatives who were in the resistance this topic was even more relevant in my family than in say like my friends' homes.

I learned from a early age on that I, as a German, carry an immense amount of responsibility which is to change peoples' view about the "ugly German." Now some people might say "but it wasn't your fault because you were born way after the fact." Well, it does matter, while I wasn't responsible I do have the responsibility to learn from my country's history, and make darn sure to protest and stand up against any form of human rights violations.

Now, let's foward. I now live in NYC, and have many Jewish friends. One of my friend's mother fled Germany at a very young age. When my friend's mom learned I was German, she told me point blank:"Just to let you know, I will never ever set foot into this country again." She judged me for what had happened to her, and you know what, I totally understood where she was coming from, if anything it made me very sad, because she is a very nice person, and I would have loved her seeing me as myself.

Anyway, now the same goes for reversed racism. Yes it ticks me off to a certain extent. But I try to understand where this person is coming from. All these decades of surpression and violation of their basic human rights have left a toll. So it is my responsibility to show this person that I am not another white person out to get him or her, that it is just me. Does this make sense?

anncoulter you have overreacted to what I was saying. Racism is a huge problem in this country and in the world, but it is part of the larger problem of social/class divisions in society that have been created and forced on people often by organized religious groups. I have traveled extensively around the world, including in many third world countries, and you see a lot of racism, but do you know what you see even MORE of, in my experience? sexism! I have been in countries that are proudly multi-cultural and who welcome all races, but who are highly sexist. There are places where women are more repressed then men of any race.

Countries in africa where young women have their genitals mutilated as a rite of adulthood, countries in the islamic world where women have no choice in who they marry and cannot show their face in public. There are many countries where women to this day are denied an education and cannot drive a car or serve in public office. Even in this country, go into any hasidic neighborhood or amish community, and you'll see people are strongly against racism, yet practice sexism as a rule. Because its a rule of their faiths. Here in NYC, we have had a black mayor, have we ever had a female one? Will we ever? The 11th CD in brooklyn is majority black but it is also majority female. So why weren't the male black candidates who were on their high horse about the importantance of demographic representation supporting Yvette Clarke? I have heard political experts say Barack Obama has a better chance of getting elected president than Hillary, because there is more closet sexism in this country than racism, and they say this country will elect a MAN of minority race commander in chief before it will ever elect a woman as its leader.

My point is that there are MANY kinds of repression in society, and all are caused by social/class divisions. I want a world where there are NO social/class divisions, where it is recognized that we are one world and we are all connected. If you categorize one form of repression and suffering as greater than all other forms of repression and suffering, you degrade those who are just as repressed in other ways. I want to fight the overrall conditions in society that cause ANY people to be repressed, and that requires bringing people together and working towards common solutions. When you start acting high and mighty and saying that you are more compassionate than anyone else, that you or people you know have suffered more than anyone else, that turns people off. It doesn't make people want to work together. Such attitudes in fact create more resentment and more divisions. We are talking about POLITICS here, not preaching. Preaching is the problem. Biases set forth by religious doctrines are the problem. You aren't going to solve this problem by doing more preaching. To bring people together, you've got to get beyond preaching, you've got to get beyond the things that divide us, and beyond alienating some people by embracing others, beyond qualifying which person has suffered more than the next. This is akin to saying that one who has cancer suffers more than one who has AIDS. All people who have any diseases suffer. Just because you have more personal experience with one particular disease doesn't mean these other diseases aren't just as relevant.

All such posturing does is cause resentment. So you've got to, in my opinion anyway, look at the big picture, and try to focus on the root causes of these problems without creating more resentment, and consequently more social and class divisions and repression along the way. Somebody asked why more people don't post in items about race. Well why don't you think? Its because some people are so focused on and so sensitive about this one issue that anyone who posts about larger perspectives in relation to it gets blasted. I am not insensitive to the AIDS issue just because I might speak about it in terms general enough to include those who have Cancer and other diseases. And I am not insensitive to the race issue, just because I see it and sexism and other biases as part of a greater societal problem.

your comment twice, and probably will have to read it a third time. And right now I need to take a deep breath because you, my friend, don't make any freaking sense. Sorry gotta finish this later, I am really totally and utterly puzzled right now.

"This is the rant of a desperate man drowning in a sea of confusion."

Dude, the subject matter of this issue is racism:
R A C I S M.

It is not sexism (and I agree with you which is another form of horrific surpression), nor is it AIDS or Cancer (which in my book are equally horrific because people close to me either died or are suffering from either disease).

Have you read and understood the words I have written? I don't care whether you think I am acting high and mighty which actually is very flattering since it puts me in the same league with Mole333, I don't care if you think I am preaching, you want to know why I don't care? Because I have two precious boys who one day will encounter people like you who think that yes racism is a big problem, but....

But what? People like you cause resentment and not the Moles' or Anns' of this world. It's people like you who pretend to be wordly travelers, people who pretend to have seen it all, but you know what? With all your encounters you claim to have experienced you haven't grasped the essence of what is at stake, of what is happening, and of what is still to come.

I am done here, because I have come to the conclusion that you are either:

- being difficult for difficulties sake

- or had one beer too many when you wrote this

- or are drowning in a sea of confusion (like my husband put it)

P.S. My husband agrees with every single word Mole and I have written, however, he thinks that you are in a serious state of denial, or are you going to tell him too that he is acting all high and mighty? Ohh, and he also thinks that you are scary.

for letting me blow of steam first. What do you have to say?

show me one person who isn't racist but a sexist or vice-versa. I yet have to meet such breed.

...that here's a guy who's lecturing a white woman and her black husband on how they don't get racism.

I guess the one thing I do feel I should say is I do think Wallner's heart is in the right place. We also have him to thank for this discussion. We didn't need a straw man to argue against because we had Wallner. And the result was a good discussion that even got Rock's interest.

anncoulter, I am not lecturing you, your husband or anybody else, and I am not in any way attempting to say that racism is less than the serious problem that it is. In fact I resent your saying otherwise. I resent your saying, and you have implied it loud and clear, that you think you are more sensitive than myself or others on the race issue because of your husband and kids. I post clearly and explicitly that I share a philosophy of universalism, whereby I see all people, all life, as being connected. You know that such a philosophy has no room for racism, and yet you ridicule me for making what was a heartfelt post. You have not been fair at all. Racism IS part of the larger sickness facing the world where humanity divides itself by race, ethnicity, class and other things; where kids are taught by organized religious leaders and others to hate people who are not them. Hate is not defined as racism, hate is a MUCH larger problem. A world of human beings that don't feel fully connected to each other is a much larger problem.

I was in Union Square the other day when they were cleaning up the mess caused by a rumble among rival high school students which ended with one boy dying. The specific reason for the riot was some girl got insulted. But the larger reason was clearly apparent-- one side in the rumble were black kids from one high school, the other side in the rumble were hispanic/latino kids from another school. Blacks and Latinos kids who have been taught racism from their parents and do not like each other. This is a sickness these kids have, but is it racial or it is socio/economic or is it some combination of these things? I think it is the combination of things, it is more than racial. So I want to see the larger picture because I think it is the only way to cure the sickness.

I say these things and you call me "scary"? This is unbelievable. My whole political philosophy is based on wanting to eliminate these divisions, including racial divisions, in society. It is why I am a member of the Democratic party, the party that has historically reached out to the blacks and other minorities, and not a member of lily white parties like the Republicans, the Libertarians, and yes, the Green Party. So tell me I'm scary for seeing racism as part of the larger sicknesses facing this world. I'll just call you naive, and say that for some reason you seem to be one of those who are unable to see that people who aren't as militant as you might also have a good heart and be well meaning.

I don't think I've been unclear, I think I just at times type too stridently, and things I post when I'm perfectly calm come across like I'm angry. Actually I rarely ever get angry. It is the nature of blogging that people can't automatically tell intonation in posts and someone who is only posting with a passion for a particular subject can come across as ranting when thats not the case.

I feel very strongly about a lot of things, particularly in the realm of politics, and sometimes showing my heartfelt thinking, trying to verbalize my passion for these issues, gets me in trouble. I come across evidently as tactless sometimes when I do not mean to be. I can work on this, maybe put more smileys and other intonation designations in my posts. You can blog about a million different subjects on the 'net, but on no other topics can you be as specifically misunderstood as on politics and religion. Its one reason why more people, I believe, don't post here. I know many politically active people who won't blog much because sometimes you can't say anything about politics without causing fights. It seems like the way to have more friends in a place like this is to NOT tell anyone what you think!

Mole, I might say that it also doesn't help when longtime regulars on any blog become too cliquish. This board has some fine topics and should have far more posters than it does. But this board, its regulars, are not always friendly to new users. Look at the way I have been relentlessly ridiculed and called names in Bouldin's blog simply for taking views contrarian to his and being blunt about it. You yourself just said you judge my posts based on what the "regulars" think. Its totally cliquish. We've attended enough dfnyc and other meetings together for me to know that we share more of the same views than you and anncoulter OR michael bouldin. But this is a clique. An insiders game it is only what certain people think that matters.

Daily Gotham does not have a welcoming environment. It seems to exist more for some people than for others. I never get any grief when I post on room eight, daily kos, and a whole host of other boards. But here, where ironically I actually know more of the posters in real life, I get raked over the coals. There is little tolerance here for new users, and not nearly enough tolerance for contrarian views, or different perspectives. I am too strident and I need to be less confrontational in my posts, I admit that. But this is a board that is way too cliquish, and such attitudes in my view run contrary to what I thought was the purpose for a "daily gotham" in the first place-- to encourage political debate, not simply be a podium for the very few insiders to preach.

'Philosophy of universalism' my little white ass.

In practice, Wallner's above-it-all view translates into a refusal to address any single component of his multi-faceted anguish. Concerned about racism? Get to the back of the bus, because that's only one issue.

His proposed solution, which is so hackneyed 1960s Yoko Ono that it makes me want to puke, is basically to call for a more elevated consciousness that addresses every single societal ill at the same time, each at the same time, in a neat and orderly fashion that is not upsetting to a neat and orderly little mind.

In short, dross. Wallner is uncomfortable, as are many white hippies of yhe Ono school and generation, with talking about race. That's what these novellas are all about. And at the same time, of course, he can't stand it that anyone thinks otherwise, which gives that 'universalism' drivel an altogether different twist. It's because Wallner believes, in that solipsistic way that characterizes a certain generation and Weltanschauung, that his beliefs are 'universal' (or should of right be), that he spends inordinate amounts of time screeching at those with different opinions. He's right, you see, not you unwashed little twerp with yur less than universalist aspirations.

so what bouldin is saying, is that its okay for HIM to say he's right on this or that, but if anyone else shows the same level of conviction on some issues, he'll put them down as conceited egomaniacs. Bouldin is a hypocrite pure and simple. He has room for his views, he does not have room for anyone else's. I post about my honest and heartfelt personal philosophies and he spits all over my words.

[Ed. note]: I prefer the term ''stomping them into little tiny itsy bitsy shreds'. But there's room for disagreement on that.

See this is what I mean about Daily Gotham not being an open, inviting environment where discourse is nourtured and encouraged. I mean on this board the moderators do more of the cussing, flaming and rules violating than most of the other users. For people who claim to be progressives, I see very little tolerance and compassion around here.

[Ed. Note]: It should be noted that commenter Wallner, here, is the same guy who said, re: Mole's account of his daughter being in tears about playground taunts related to CD-11:

If your stepdaughter was in tears she needs to disregard playground taunts. Those little kids couldn't have known much about the election.

Tolerance and compassion in action, and oddly enough always about race. One might be tempted to think that Wallner has a problem with it.

Bouldin is a hypocrite who can just go ahead and delete your account if he is thusly inclined. Given that this has not happened, Bouldin really suggests that whining be limited, arguments be made less personal, and that this crap of "I'm right, and you're not" be considered solipsistic drivel.

I would also suggest that it's possible to have differing opinions in a civilzed way.

In closing, I would simply note that what had started out as a productive discussion about race and the Sean Bell incident turned, as usual on this subject, into a rehash of Wallnerian traumas about other people talking about race. We saw this before re: CD-11, and there are literally hundreds of pages devoted to that subject. It is becoming impossible to have such a discussion here - much as with the Presidential race - due to the disruptive behavior of one single commenter.

Zap. Tedious.

All I've really been saying is that you can link all forms of racism and other forms of suppression together as part of a larger overrall sickness. Isn't the average gay man in the world discriminated often just as much or more as the average black man? I've known gay guys who had the crap kicked out of them. You could argue that homosexuals are more discriminated against in this time than blacks are. Or at least just as discriminated against. The only way I think to be fair to all those who are discriminated against, be it becuase of sex, race, sexual orientation or whatever, is to look at the big picture. If you qualify one form of suffering or repression as greater than other forms, you demean all involved. You can't solve these problems without dealing with a broad approach, with the big picture.