Both of them rant (ironically, Kathy recently referred to the “ranting” of someone else, who did nothing of the kind), but at least Kathy isn't vicious or pathological, just a lefty activist who believes in that stuff.

I'm still surprised Shaun didn't come back to post something about McNamara, glorify wrongly the often-degenerate as well as subversive and even treasonous opposition to the Vietnam war, and somehow cast Code Pink and Move On (along with, say, the Militant as a media “beacon”) as modern-day anti-Iraq-Bush-and-Cheney heroes.

[grin] Careful about that remark, J. West. It's similar to what boorish Boortz once said, pretty much the same thing. As it implies non-liberals do not, do you see the inherent problem with “Liberals…”?

What matters here is that while people make innumerable destinctions between themselves and Others of all kinds, and even react defensively to the unfamiliar, that is perfectly normal, and is not the same as “racism,” “sexism,” and all the rest. And, yes, charges of “racism” and “sexism” continue to be taken to the most ludicrous extremes by extremists (name befitting) on the Left, who explain every event that happens in the universe as “racist,” “sexist,” “classist,” “occurring due to the domination of the evil heads of the established privileged-group hierarchy-patriarchy,” and other related ridiculous lies and nonsense.

Which is to say there's no such thing as a completely level playing field. Studies do indeed confirm that minorities, the ugly, and the bald all have to work harder to do as well. The short will be severely disadvantaged to play professional basketball, the fat to be fashion models, and the crippled to be track stars.

So liberals want to extend blacks extra help, but I disagree with jwest's characterization that it's because of genetic disadvantage. It's because the inertia built into the system makes it hard to shake the legacy of the past. It's harder for Da'Wan to get hired because the last three superstars were Josh, Steve, and Alexei, not Shaquanda, Kshawn and Tyrone. And those last three never applied, because they got diverted earlier in their careers, maybe because of the same pattern, maybe for a hundred reasons. It's inertia, but it's not fair to whites to call it racism.

The disagreement is over what to do about it. In my mind, the answer is clear: demolish the legal structures keeping minorities back. But then stop, and be clear that the onus is on them to go the rest of the way–and they're going to have to work extra hard to accomplish it. It's not fair, but anything more the government tries to do ultimately works against them in the long run.

Ebonics is English. It's a dialect of English spoken by millions of people that has historically been centered in the black community. It is not made-up, irregular, stupid, or uneducated. It has it's own rules of grammar and phonology, just like every dialect of English does. Non-native speakers trying to speak Ebonics can speak it incorrectly just like people can speak other dialects incorrectly.

Most common dialects of English differ from one another in the sounds they use, typically in the vowels. That's the biggest difference. Some dialects also differ by grammar a bit as well. Southern English has patterns like “I might could do that” and “I'm fixing to do that”. Those grammatical patterns don't exist in Standard English. Ebonics also has a few different grammatical patterns, such as the use of the double negative, and the use of the word “be” for certain types of habitual patterns.

But these are all just different grammatical and phonological (sound) choices and they are all simply dialects of English. Moreover, this isn't simply an opinion. People have been studying the dialects of English for several decades now, including Ebonics. The primary grammatical structures are documented and clear. It's not political correctness. It's information.

That said, I did read almost all the posts on this site and as a linguist I found it… amusing? ironic? that jwest attacks liberals for having disdain for one dialect of English, often called a Southern accent (I've got in several similar arguments myself over this issue, though the prejudice against southern accents is not exclusively a liberal one), and yet on the other hand attacks a different dialect of English, known as Ebonics (it's also called African-American Vernacular English or sometimes Black English). In fact, his disdain for this centuries old dialect, spoken by rural people and urban people, youths and parents, workers and farmers and store owners, is so great that he seems to think if an employer has a hint that someone speaks this dialect, then they should think twice about hiring them.

“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”

”How?”@@

And you call yourself a liberal? You ought to be ashamed.

3 syllable girl's name with accent on the second.

Out of vogue white boy's name, beginning with a hard consonant, contracted and with an accented second syllable.

From your Chicago study:

“Bertrand cautions that employers may infer not just the race of the applicant, but also social class, assuming that certain African-American sounding names are associated with having more underprivileged backgrounds.”

Social class equals speaking ability. Just ask Eliza Doolittle.

Kathy,

“Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language.”

”How?”

How? How? Let me pause for a moment because the oxygen was temporarily sucked from my body by the shear mass of the stupidity of that question.

(sigh)

There. I seem to have recovered. Let’s pass on the particulars of this item so that I’m not accused of saying something unkind.

You weight all the words equally, where as I weight the punchline heavier.

No matter………as is typical, the government has since (since the 60's) issued a bunch of bureaucratic and formulaic red tape regarding affirmative action and, is also typical, we have learned how to competently comply with the letter and totally ignore the spirit. Life goes on.

I did read your article, though, and I liked it a lot — both in context of this discussion, and generally. Furthermore, I see where you've found nuance that doubtless set your teeth on edge.

Rather than go into great length here, though, I'm probably going to put up a separate post about that article. Something titled along the lines of, “It's a Southern Thing”.

“We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

Indeed, taking that sentence and hanging it out there on its own calls into question the desired end result of the entire exercise. In context, though (and I'm sure you knew I'd say this) — this quote does not support the “AA was set up to make up for a genetic deficiency” argument in any way whatsoever. I don't see, in fact, even an implication — unless one severs the statement from its setting, both temporally and contextually.

As for me tending to be too “literal”…. yes, I absolutely do approach some discussions frontally. I've found that nuance can be too easily misread, and so I try to clarify before engaging when possible.

:>

How?

Studies that use suspect methodology such as the one you mentioned lead to erroneous and unfair conclusions.

Names like Shaquanda or Da’Wan not only suggest a skin color, but also hint at the person’s ability to speak English instead of an Ebonics inspired street language. Personally, I believe that a black candidate has the edge over a white applicant if their speaking skills are equal.

Barack Obama found the need to go by “Barry” prior to his national introduction. People also know that an easily spelled and remembered name helps in business situations.

As I mentioned before, some determined people can find racism in the vacuum of space. This study was probably commissioned and carried out under this mindset.

I would like to believe that there is some way to improve communications and understanding, but I hold little hope. This is contrary to my normally optimistic outlook and the general conservative trait of being able to overcome any obstacle.

The reason for my pessimism is best demonstrated through a visual exercise. Think of meeting a person in a KKK hood and gown. Whatever the subject of conversation, your opinion and acceptance of whatever the person is saying will be tainted or dismissed due to your negative feelings toward the symbolism of the outfit.

This is how liberals approach conversations with conservatives. Granted, conservatives come to the table thinking leftists are incredibly naive, ignorant and cowardly, so the initial biases are not one sided. But the main problem remains that regardless what the other side says, the first reaction is to dismiss their arguments as having no merit.

It’s basic Dale Carnegie material. No matter what, you never win an argument. You can prove what you’re saying fifteen different ways from Sunday and your opponent may even fold in the end and admit defeat, but as they walk away, they’ll be saying to themselves “I know I’m right and they’re wrong”.

This is why I listen and try to learn the language of the left. Hoping that someday, I’ll be able to put a sentence together that is read the same way it was written.

Your response actually does play well into the discussion. Given that your “insults” tend to be stylistic, it seems to me that, unlike you, many others on both sides tend to spew hate, and more importantly make assumptions about “the other side”. The initial example posed by Polimom being a good example: assuming that anyone who opposes gay marriage is homophobic. Do you see a way to break through the partisan divide in a manner that relies on mutual respect and fact gathering, leading to civil discourse rather than unwarranted assumption and contempt for those who disagree? Or do you see the tribal warfare of partisanship as a natural character trait of the human species?

“Why do you find it necessary, as part of your posts, to consistently insult those who you believe might disagree with you?”

I think it’s a combination of a few factors.

First, what you perceive as insults are mostly good natured jabs, preserving the competitive left/right, back and forth of the website.

Sometimes, the insults are deliberate, pointed and designed to drive home a point. I would like to think I don’t engage in individually targeted attacks without provocation, but for certain authors (and rarely a commenter) I relish releasing a tirade of right-wing inspired invective.

Shaun Mullen was famous for bringing out the best of the insults. Michael Stickings and Kathy Kattenburg have filled in the gap, along with the occasional leftist dribble from guest author Walter Brasch. I’m fascinated with views from the left and try hard to understand the liberal mind, but there are limits to how long I’ll suffer these fools.

One distinction should be made though, in my favor.

When I insult someone as an individual or as a group, I realize it at the time and for the most part it is a conscious decision. The most infuriating insults (that remarkably fits in with the conversation we’ve been having) are the ones that people make through assuming something as fact – such as when liberals simply assume conservatives are racist, homophobic, bible-thumping, knuckle dragging Neanderthals.

Of course, it is hard sometimes to differentiate between the friendly pokes and the dagger tipped insults, but that comes from following the conversation in our relatively small community. If I were to eliminate the barbs completely, stylistically the world would suffer. However, I will pledge to reserve the most severe literary sodomizing to those who deserve being forcibly bent over and filled with facts, logic and reason.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, June 4, 1965, speech to Howard University graduating class………

“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.”

OK, I think jwest sprinkles some hyperbole into his posts as a goading device, but I've also noticed you tend to be too 'literal” in your absorption.

So, no, I don't think any Democrat “literally” ever spoke “genetic deficiency”, but I think the implication of it is apparent enough.