"If you think racism isn't part of the conservative mindset,

LW, can handle that definition very well. I stand as a Centrist - so I guess that means I like the ones I got and am looking for a bunch of new ones!

PDiddie has not accused me of anything, least of all of being a racist, on this or any other forum. While we continue to disagree on all manner of political issues, this is not my level of discussion, nor hers. I prefer not to see the suggestion again.

You might be interested in reading an interview with, and article about, J.C. Watts, the recently retired republican rep from Oklahoma. He discusses racism as it concerned him.

It's in the magazine section of the Washington Post, 5 January 2003. If pressed, I will try to get the proper id, but I got it by pulling up the Washing Post on google, and then, in the left hand column, clicking on magazine.

He talks about growing up, disillusionment when he played pro ball, and then what happened from the time he was first approached by the republicans until the time he left the House. It reads, between the lines, about betrayal, being used, a warning.

Well, Washington Post.

Anyone who thinks "most" conservatives are racist has shown that he or she is haphazard in applying the term. If you write that you think most conservatives are racist, that means any given conservative is under greater suspicion of being racist in your eyes, casting the pall of the racist "net" over anyone who calls himself or herself conservative.

It's also an ignorant, cowardly thing to write.

Just a quick procedural note. I'm feeling my authoritarian oats this morning and after looking high and low for infractions, could only come up with this disappointingly minor example.

Previously, Lash and roger have both pointed to the generalization lounging comfortably up there in the thread title - "conservative mindset".

Let us, from this day forward, pledge solemn allegiance to the specific (pledging, of course, ought to be done in the name of something sacred, so I'll offer up BC Bud) and shun utterly from our midst those universe-wide brush strokes which Republicans always rely upon.

Generalization, as used here, of course, would specificially exclude "universe-wide brush strokes which Republicans always rely upon"?

Blatham, you know you are going to get caught; why do you try this stuff?

rog, dear friend

It was meant as a humorous example of precisely what I was indicting. But I confess that I am, in recovering from a simple if painful surgical procedure yesterday, on medication and am feeling unusually light-hearted. I will repost when the pain-killers wear off.

i knew that

My doctor called you? Normally, he just calls my lady friends to issue community health alerts. (Thread will now resume it's normal course.)

Blatham:

You are feeling frisky with those med's!!

Anon

Here's an excerpt from a fine essay by Diane Dees ( and I will begin a new thread with more of her larger point, which is the distinction between 'patriotism' and 'citizenship'):

"If we believe that other Americans are not as good as we are, then we will not be bothered to afford them the courtesy and respect that we think is our right from birth. At the very least, we will not intervene when we know that others have acted to deprive them of their human and civil rights. The government needs to do more, but destroying bigotry is the job of all Americans. It is a job we do as individuals--in the workplace, the neighborhood and the community.

The White House tells us not to consider all Muslim-Americans as evil, and it condemns the loose lips of Trent Lott. But this is the same White House that is steadily appointing and nominating individuals who have made careers of destroying the rights of women, people of color, and gay Americans. And it is the same White House that transmits a clear message that Christianity--and a certain type of Christianity, at that--is the favored religion."

Facts please? Which individuals have made careers of destroying rights and how specifically did they do this?

Surely a man who writes for a living would know what is being referenced in the essay by Ms. Dees...surely you don't need THAT much proof, do you, tres?

Shall we begin with John Ashcroft? And end with the latest, Charles Pickering?

Really, I've ridden this merry-go-round with others as many times as I care to. It's not just my, or someone else's opinion, that this bigotry exists. It's only your refusal to acknowledge its existence that's being questioned.

Accept it or don't, but it's not opinion.

If we are going to challange trespassers will to substantiate general statements with specific authorities, I suppose we should expect to be challenged in turn. Tossing out a few names doesn't quite meet the challenge, does it?

How many more names would suit the forum, roger?

How many links?

I have not the time to do this research again now.

And if the truth lies only in the proving of it, then I expect at least two conversions to come out of the labor. Is that unreasonable?

Again, you don't have to believe it or accept it. Just don't dismiss it as inaccurate, or as opinion.

PDiddie - My point--which is harder to make since you won't provide specifics--is that for most if not all cases you might point to, it is a matter of biased opinion that the actions taken were taken with the intent of "destroying" someone's rights.

Affirmative action makes a good example. Many liberals will point to any legislator's vote against affirmative action as proof that the man or woman is a racist. You might point to such a vote as "proof" that he or she wishes to "destroy" the rights of minorities. Of course, the reality is that it is at least possible, if not much more likely, that the legislator voted against affirmative action because using race as a determining factor for hiring and promotions is wrong.

You see, I happen to believe that it is possible to vote against well-intentioned measures that are championed by a minority group for reasons other than hatred of that group. Some people seem to believe that the only possible reason for voting against affirmative action is racism, that only those who hate gays vote against gay rights initiatives, that anyone who votes pro-life is anti-woman.

That's why I made the challenge I did, as I did. I suspect that you would attempt to assert that a vote against special rights for a group is evidence of an intention to "destroy" the rights of that group, rather than an act taken in support of the Constitutional mandate for equal protection under the law.

Lastly, you throw out names as if you expect me to gasp and say, "Oops, I forgot about him!" John Ashcroft's record seems quite positive where it pertains to minorities, though those who only listened to the Democrats' attempted smear campaign likely wouldn't know that.

Are there racists who are Republicans? Certainly. Are there racists who are Democrats? Absolutely. I live in the South. The only people I've known who were openly bigoted were elderly and set in their ways. They were also Democrats, to a man and woman. Would it be right for me to infer from this that all Democrats are bigots?

I find that people who think for themselves rarely claim to know the hearts of others, and rarely make statements like "most conservatives are racists".

PDiddie

I sympathize with frustration that comes when one has previously posted multiple instances of some argument or substantiation. But it is a necessary part of this endevour, otherwise threads and discussions become mere sequences of conflicting claims.

There is a nice range of opinion in this particular crowd (I share many of your values and notions of how policy ought to be formed, for example) and those folks who cripple themselves with fixed ideas tend to stand out fairly quickly, whereupon we can all throw tomatoes at them.

So, it is not unfair to label a post or claim that lacks substantiation as 'opinion'. To not put too fine a point on it, the burden is properly placed on the writer rather than the reader.

No volumn of names is going to do it, PDiddie.

Sorry for the delay. I check in during work breaks, usually between the completion of one chore and the beginning of another. In this case, take trespessers' answer as representing my own.

Conversions? In advance of the evidence, I think not. I will read and consider what you post of course, unless you slug me with a link to the entire OED.

*heavy sigh*

A speech by Ashcroft in which he praises an instance of religious intolerance suggests that, as Attorney General, he would pursue a supremacist ideology, threatening the civil rights of many Americans: "No King But Jesus"

Arbitrary detentions. Violation of due process. Secret arrests. Illegal interrogations. The Bush administration is using police-state methods that would shame some of the world's cruelest dictators. That's the finding of a report by Human Rights Watch of Attorney General John Ashcroft's witch-hunt of immigrants following the September 11 attacks. Ripping Up Civil Rights

Ashcroft's Relentless Assault on Civil Liberties

Legal and civil rights groups predicted court challenges Friday to a new Justice Department rule that allows federal authorities to monitor communications between lawyers and some clients jailed in connection with terrorism investigations. Civil rights advocates promise fight on eavesdropping order

But enough about the AG...