RLLD

I surmise that you stand with those who are inclined to protect women, young girls and such from men then?

I think you and I share common ground on this philosophical position. This is my stance, universally as well, so to remain philosophically honest I extend this beyond any single instance. So I apply it to others, such as Trump and Biden. That way I can avoid allowing bias to drive my positions.

Brand made himself a target. Not sure if he fully understood that would be the eventual outcome, but he strode out and starting calling out the powerful. I appreciated him for his courage in doing so, but this was easily predicatable and hopefully he is as intelligent as he seems to be, and took action to shield himself from this tactic. Then again, maybe he is a pervert like Epstein. Hopefully he does not have a list of powerful people abusing kids, since we know how that turns out.

Beginning in the 1940s, deep demographic and economic change, accompanied by a marked shift in white racial attitudes, started blacks down the road to much greater equality. New Deal legislation, which set minimum wages and hours and eliminated the incentive of southern employers to hire low-wage black workers, put a damper on further industrial development in the region. In addition, the trend toward mechanized agriculture and a diminished demand for American cotton in the face of international competition combined to displace blacks from the land. As a consequence, with the shortage of workers in northern manufacturing plants following the outbreak of World War II, southern blacks in search of jobs boarded trains and buses in a Great Migration that lasted through the mid-1960s. They found what they were looking for: wages so strikingly high that in 1953 the average income for a black family in the North was almost twice that of those who remained in the South. And through much of the 1950s wages rose steadily and unemployment was low. Thus by 1960 only one out of seven black men still labored on the land, and almost a quarter were in white-collar or skilled manual occupations. Another 24 percent had semiskilled factory jobs that meant membership in the stable working class, while the proportion of black women working as servants had been cut in half. Even those who did not move up into higher-ranking jobs were doing much better. A decade later, the gains were even more striking. From 1940 to 1970, black men cut the income gap by about a third, and by 1970 they were earning (on average) roughly 60 percent of what white men took in. The advancement of black women was even more impressive. Black life expectancy went up dramatically, as did black homeownership rates. Black college enrollment also rose—by 1970 to about 10 percent of the total, three times the prewar figure. In subsequent years these trends continued, although at a more leisurely pace. For instance, today more than 30 percent of black men and nearly 60 percent of black women hold white-collar jobs. Whereas in 1970 only 2.2 percent of American physicians were black, the figure is now 4.5 percent. But while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then. Source Going back to the 1960's, the "War on Drugs" was really more of a war on minorities.....and then the movement to pay women more in benefits to not have a man in the home, raised the single parent rate from 20% to 70%. The policies were perhaps, I say perhaps because I am still highly suspicious of Democrats, employed with the best of intentions.....but the outcomes have been steadily negative. Every action has been to try to twist the world to better fit the AA situation, instead of following the remarkably successful method as employed by other minority groups to adjust their behaviors and buy into the meritocracy approach.

I infer this is at least a little tongue-in-cheek. But your point has some merit, we should not underscore the importance of diet and access to healthy foods. My son recently aged out of Boy Scouts, securing his Eagle before that point. A big part of scouting is volunteerism, which I enjoyed participation with as well. It was something we could do together and such. A big effort we supported was putting together backpacks of food for kids in Baltimore City to take home over the weekend. MANY of these kids only eat at school....and the weekend would be finding them starving.....it is a huge effort, and many churches are involved in helping get this done as well. So imagine how hard it might be for one to do anything...if they are starving.....

That is fine. My point is more broad. Where we have an individual, and perhaps all we have is someone stepping forward and accusing.... but perhaps we have some other evidence that is more suggestive than confirming, ie "its looks bad"...... we should at least look into that further, right?

I share your criticism of Krugman. But if it is true that someone, anyone, might have a position that supports the Liberal Religion, they will likely be held up as "good", "enlightened" and such. Conversely, anyone who does not foot-stomp Liberal Religious edicts, will be admonished as "stupid", "right-wing", "racist" or one of many other labels used to suppress opposing points of view

And where there is smoke, we should believe it, right? Pursue based on credible witness and/or circumstantial evidence...right?

Yes, but, what if we returned fire? What if enough people banded together, and every time there was a hit piece conducted, we used the might of the people to hit back? Investigate THAT "journalist" to the nth degree.....?

I wonder where they might have picked up on the tactic of labelling their opponents as "evil"? Did they refer to them as deplorables as well? Have they tried calling them racists yet?

I wonder. Could we find a way to turn the tables on the <ahem> "media". How can we use what is available and turn their tactics back on to THEM? Social media might afford people a way to fight back.

But your point remains....poverty. Of course that is one of the main drivers and it impacts a large swath of people. THis eventually becomes circular. I point back to when the socieconomic progress for the AA was proceeding rather well. And then they were struck by policy, and those policies halted that progress, fomenting a negative feedback loop. I would suggest it is more important to fix than to worry about offending, that is my main point here. And I sumbit that to forthrightly fix the problem government has created, we need to risk offending.... But hey, maybe we just keep doing what we have been, how is that working out?

Maybe not. Kids are typically taught to read, at first, by their parents. Parents read to them, and then should be worked with their children to read as well. Holding them accountable to reading some minimal amount, before they ever reach school. If that does not happen, I think it could be a rather large ask for a teach to be able to teach 20+ kids in a room to all read......we are then not setting the kids OR the teacher up for success. Without that strong parental involvement, kids have less potential.....

I bet some of those college professors who are so very concerned about the plight of the less fortunate will happily donate their time to help these kids improve their skills....right?

They absolutely can! All kids have the ability to learn, and some are better than others of course. We are not all equally positioned in terms of ability. So then how do we help these kids? I think the first move should be to invest some of that money into remedial learning. Let's get some specialists engaged, one-on-one, with the kids who actually want to learn..... and THAT is another key piece, in order to succeed one simply has to try..... Still, until we deal with the cultural elements that celebrate criminality, where achieving is "selling out", and where being "street" is some kind of honorable disctiction etc....

Incorrect. This has been rather well-evaluated and we know that Hitler was actually something else entirely, now if you were to instead assert that he enjoyed support from conservatives then you would be more in line with reality. Social Stratification and 'Right-Wing Extremism' , Seymour M. Lipset, The British Journal of Sociology Vol. 10, No. 4 (Dec., 1959), pp. 346-382 (37 pages) No, Hitler was not "right" or "conservative", but neither was he really "left". Now if we look at Stalin, he was considered (at least by his contemporaries at the time) to be more right-leaning. example Socialism is, well, "socialism". It is a leftist/progressive movement. Socialists today look back and say...."no, that is not real socialism" or "no, that is conservatism" to try to explain away the consistent failures. They even look at early Marxism and refer to it as "ugly" Marxism....

Non Sequitor

I like the point you have raised, beacuse I think it really helps bring the point home. There are plenty of communities of people in this nation who can lay claim to econonic hardship. So then, why is there no special allocation or awareness raised toward THOSE groups? Appalacians? Native Americans, notably Alaskans, Hispanics....all can lay claim to elevated levels of poverty.... We make our own decisions of course, each person is more or less exactly where they deserve to be, not an absolute but a reliably true statement. No nation or system in the history of the word has raised people up to prosperity as we have seen in this nation. And when people simply try, often it works out for them....

To ignore the source, is to pretend. It is an ineffective approach. But I get it, rather than be honest, you want to pretend.....and thus ensure the problem continues...

I tend to disagree. Have you ever hear the term Generational Trauma? I think we have to accept that the mistakes, well....criminal activities, of those folks back in time has a footprint today that needs to be addressed. You did not answer my question because you know it will force you into an admission you cannot make, because your hypocrisy is as always....on full display.

I think that is their tilt, and their infiltration into the Democrat party does not simply bother me for the damage they are doing there....but also for its potential to feed the rise of something commensurate on the right..... I think you and I can agree we absolutely want to avoid that....

The paying back part is for others to worry about later. Politicians worry about the next election, and how to best buy votes. Who cares if the country eventually fails...so long as they have power today.... Warren Buffet once said he could fix this problem in a day.....just deny any individual currently in political roles to run for election unless they balanced their spending against revenues.....brilliant.....

I am less invested in that assertion. I think it goes back much farther in time. Sure, the Democrats have failed, and continue to fail, this community of people. They elevate feelings and perception above honest solutions. But we have to accept that the origins of this cultural cancer goes way...way...back. The attempts by Democrats to pretend it away, avoid the hard truths, throw money at it are naturally ineffective. They are not solutions.

I am assiduously opposed to a shutdown. Firstly, because it is bad for the nation overall. I DO expect debate, contentious debate, to arrive at the best possible outcome. But that requires some level of cooperation. Secondly, I am opposed because it would imperil the impeachment investigation. I believe the Democrats, being feindishly good politicians, are hoping for a shutdown. They will weaponize it for political advantage, but it could also help them in protecting Joe Biden from having his crimes further exposed.

That is not an answer. Moreover, it could appear to be a dodge. So I ask again..... Do you deny that the primary abuser of AA's in our history were Democrats? Or do you deny that the remants of that abuse linger today?