Quoting claymisher: Must ... fight ... sarcasm ...

Oh, be nice.

Cool. I like both of these guys.

Re: Conversations about race
Beinart parses holders' statement as friends or people extremely close to one another having the meaningful dialog in private. How does Holder know that such conversations are not taking place already, since they are private conversations among friends?
And if people are close enough to be extremely close friends despite the racial barrier, why does one need to have the conversation in the first place, since race has already proven to not be an impediment on the relationship? And I'm getting sick and tired of hearing how we need to have conversations about race, considering since the sixties there has been nothing BUT conversations about race over and over and over (and over). As for the cartoon about the monkey and the stimulus. It was not an racial attack on Obama. And anyone arguing for it being a racist attack is simply trying to stoke racial tension by creating a non issue. First off, Obama didn't write the stimulus package. Second the only reason the chimp was mentioned was because in the news that day cops had to kill a chimp who had

This is at least the third time on bhtv that Jonah has brought up that anecdote about The Nation making fun of hicks in the 1920's. You'd think someone who works for National Review, which published the following about Martin Luther King in 1965, would at least consider coming up with a new anecdote:

For years now, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his associates have been deliberately undermining the foundations of internal order in this country. With their rabble-rousing demagoguery, they have been cracking the “cake of custom” that holds us together. With their doctrine of “civil disobedience,” they have been teaching hundreds of thousands of Negroes — particularly the adolescents and the children — that it is perfectly alright to break the law and defy constituted authority if you are a Negro-with-a-grievance; in protest against injustice. And they have done more than talk. They have on occasion after occasion, in almost every part of the country, called out their mobs on the streets, promoted “school strikes,” sit-ins, lie-ins, in explicit violation of the law and in explicit defiance of the public authority. They have taught anarchy and chaos by word and

Well played Jyminee. It's not fair to these guys to have them on right after Loury and McWhorter.

Love these guys. Good follow up to Loury and McWhorter. p.s. - Peter, please control the ehems while JG is talking. Drives me nuts...

i guess they're really uh-huhs.

Quoting claymisher: Must ... fight ... sarcasm ...

Kudos to Jonah, his book is a real sign of the times.
Good discussion from both. Jonah was great and Peter was surprisingly good, considering his role was to defend indefensible.

Bill Cosby asked 'honest, difficult' questions regarding race and he was evicerated. And he is part of the AA community. Please forgive me if I just treat everyone the same and refrain from seeking out people of different races to find out our differences and agreements.
Peter says: "If you can't talk honestly with someone about race, you don't have an honest friendship with them" Using this logic, if you just refuse to give a person's color any importance at all, and just treat them as a human being, you are not a true friend. Amazing. Does this also apply to mixed race persons? To Asians? To Latinos and Native Americans?
Jonah nails it, by saying that people who insist that everyone must think of a black person when they see an ape is just insane. Peter misses the point by insisting that white conservatives who want to get past racism want to wipe the slate clean of history. I disagree, but the rub is that racial stereotypes are insidious whether their uttered by racist whites (or blacks) or excavated by knee-jerk liberals or race hucksters in dishonest attempts to condemn or marginalize. And Peter, it

I thought the mug plug was a nice touch Jonah.

Shorter Jonah: Conservatives pretend that monkey/black comparisons aren't racist...hooray, look at the progress we've made. God bless Red State America.

Jonah Goldberg struggled mightily to say something significant and, as usual, merely blustered on about snotty elites and their contempt for the unalloyed virtues of hoi polloi. American "conservatives" would love nothing more than to revive the "cultural wars" of yesteryear, and what better way to do so than to suggest that if it were not for "liberal" snobbery, all would be well in the land of the free and the home of the brave. To flaunt a flagpin or not to flaunt a flagpin
That is a question fit for pinheads.

It's been at least four diavlogs, I think, since I last watched these two all the way through, but for whatever reason, I decided to give them yet another chance. I am going to try to give a reasoned and detailed critique, rather than succumbing to the temptation of saying something quick and dismissive. I was happy to see Peter pushing back a little more aggressively than I remember him doing in the past when Jonah said something exaggerated or flatly not true, but he still dropped the ball a couple of times here. The worst was when Jonah went on and on, making up things Obama did not say during the infamous "Bittergate" affair. I can't just excuse this as Jonah kidding or being purposely hyperbolic, because this is exactly a familiar tactic of the right-wing noise machine -- to keep stretching the truth a little more each time they don't get called on it -- with the end result being a bunch of their target audience really believing things like Saddam was involved in 9/11, Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, George Soros secretly funds Media Matters as

Quoting harkin: Bill Cosby asked 'honest, difficult' questions regarding race and he was evicerated. And he is part of the AA community. Please forgive me if I just treat everyone the same and refrain from seeking out people of different races to find out our differences and agreements.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, anyone who doesn't want to have these conversations doesn't have to. But it does not follow from that, or that because they're hard, or because they can go awry, that no one should make the effort.

Peter says: "If you can't talk honestly with someone about race, you don't have an honest friendship with them"

Using this logic, if you just refuse to give a person's color any importance at all, and just treat them as a human being, you are not a true friend.

Amazing. Does this also apply to mixed race persons? To Asians? To Latinos and Native Americans?

Your middle paragraph borders on being a false dichotomy. If you have a black friend, you can of course be friends without skin color being any part of it. But that doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be both instructive to you, and considerate of you, to

It is time for the "Liberal Snobbery" thing to die. Jonah (and lots of other people) confidently talk about how "liberals" do all these things to look down on religion and patriotism (listed in the segment titled something like that). If I may get all Megan McArdle for a moment and extrapolate from a personal anecdote (which is fine, right?): I was taught, as a wee tot, to look down upon religious institutions by my hyper-Republican, Goldwater-loving parents. Jonah, I don't disagree that there is an elite. But the intimation that they occupy one quadrant of the political spectrum is disingenuous on your part. If you start calling Goldwater-type George-Bush-the-first Republicans "liberals" then I will accept your argument. Do you mean that? You might, it's true...

Quoting osmium: Jonah, I don't disagree that there is an elite. But the intimation that they occupy one quadrant of the political spectrum is disingenuous on your part. If you start calling Goldwater-type George-Bush-the-first Republicans "liberals" then I will accept your argument. Do you mean that? You might, it's true...

There's no such thing as a "Goldwater-type George-Bush-the-first Republican." Goldwater and Bush the Elder held mutually exclusive philosophies. Bush knuckled under when he was Reagan's VP, but some of us still remember that he was the one who invented the term "voodoo economics." As President, he raised taxes, expanded state power and spending, bailed out the S&Ls, fought a foreign war, and kicked off most of what today is known as "The War on Drugs" (including the appointment of our first "Drug Czar".) He was a neo-con before there were neo-cons. Would I call a Goldwater-esque Republican a liberal? No. Libertarian, maybe. Would I call a Poppa-Bush Republican a liberal? Actually, in many cases, yes.

I love both of these guys, but the meta-argument about the flag pins was even sillier than the actual argument they are discussing. Come on, guys. We're in the middle of two wars and a recession, with lots of bills of huge consequence passing between your last discussion and this one. Do we really need to talk about the old flag-pin dust-up from last year's Democratic primaries?

What he is doing Peter? By overturning Bush's executive orders on the second day?
Democrats are pushing for public funding of Abortion and dropped "safe, legal and rare" language from abortion position.
I am willing to bet that Abortions will go up under Obama unlike the Democrat's false claim that abortion went up under Bush.

Nicely put, Harkin.

Seems pretty obvious, but in my experience, two real friends of different race, the one and only thing they never want to discuss is race or racial inequality. Kinda makes you wonder if Holder ever actually tried. Maybe he confuses political fellow-travellers with friends. BTW, a shout out to my lib buddies down at NYU last weekend. Nice work.

Quoting Jyminee: This is at least the third time on bhtv that Jonah has brought up that anecdote about The Nation making fun of hicks in the 1920's. You'd think someone who works for National Review, which published the following about Martin Luther King in 1965, would at least consider coming up with a new anecdote:

More on NR's racist past here.

Now I don't honestly think this says much about the present-day NR or conservatives in general, but this is the kind of intellectual history Jonah seems to like, so it seems appropriate.

He actually pretty much brought that up himself when he identified civil rights as part of the culture war. It doesn't say much (if anything) about present-day POLICIES, but the attitude of skepticism towards cultural change is the same. That's the kind of consistency Goldberg is claiming exists in elite attitudes. He may be right; it's tough to tell due to the largely successful efforts on the right to play grievance politics and censor anything that might portray them negatively. I hope that reached its apex with the Palin fiasco and Republicans screaming about media elites

Quoting Salt: Seems pretty obvious, but in my experience, two real friends of different race, the one and only thing they never want to discuss is race or racial inequality. Kinda makes you wonder if Holder ever actually tried. Maybe he confuses political fellow-travellers with friends. BTW, a shout out to my lib buddies down at NYU last weekend. Nice work.

Don't know if you read my reply to harkin, specifically the part that addressed this very question. If not, please do. If so, are you therefore asserting that those were not my real friends? (I'll add that the examples I gave there are not exhaustive, in my own experience.) I think you're making the same mistake as I've observed elsewhere in this thread in others: saying "I don't do it" to suggest "therefore, nobody else {does|should}, either."

Quoting bjkeefe: In the end, Jonah Goldberg offers nothing more than a way to sound sort of smart when arguing for the superiority of playing dumb.

Bingo. The final sentence sums up your excellent critique of Goldberg and his ilk. Like all intellectuals who play dumb for the sake of the good, honest and unsophisticated folk (VOLK), he is in a direct line of descent from the fascist ideologues he condemns in his book. For there is a right populism as well as a left populism. And it is every bit as moronic as the left populism that Goldberg attributes, with an utter disregard of historical fact and linguistic usage, to "liberals" and "liberalism." Could this be a case of unconscious projection? Or perhaps Goldberg is really just an ordinary "(classical) liberal fascist."

Quoting PaulL: What he is doing Peter? By overturning Bush's executive orders on the second day?
Democrats are pushing for public funding of Abortion and dropped "safe, legal and rare" language from abortion position.
I am willing to bet that Abortions will go up under Obama unlike the Democrat's false claim that abortion went up under Bush.

You're right about the false claim, it appears. However, it also appears that abortion rates have been declining for the past twenty years, and if the very mild uptick from about 1987-1991 is smoothed, the overall downward trend is thirty years long. Note that this is considerably longer than "safe, legal, and rare" has been bandied about -- if I'm not mistaken, that originated as platform language in 1992. Therefore, I don't think you have any basis for concluding that the abortion rate will increase. I'd add that I believe it is true that the incidences of unprotected sex and unplanned pregnancies have gone up recently, due at least in part to factors like abstinence-only programs and reduction in funding for family planning. Since I would expect an Obama Administration and a Dem-controlled Congress to favor more effective sex education and more

I resent the continually made claim that "black people aren't friends with white people." This specious 'observation' is accepted as gospel truth by conservative and liberal commentators alike. However, a whole generation (my generation!) is being brought up that sees 'race' as simply not an 'issue.' Our public university system, for example, is very integrated. And, not to toot my own horn, but I've had lovers and friends that cut across races. Perhaps Jonah and Peter are friends only with, say, other Jews: but it's unfair to claim that the rest of us live like that, as well. This isn't only occuring in the United States. My generation in say, France, a country that is often caricatured as a racist hellhole by ignorant Americans, is undergoing a similar shift. I remember going to my (alas, now former) French girlfriend's university classes and marveling at the fact that such a slight majority of the class was Gallic in ethnicity. 'Color' is simply not a factor.

diversity, TNR style: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/179...1:09&out=21:19

Quoting bjkeefe: You're right about the false claim, ... Since I would expect an Obama Administration and a Dem-controlled Congress to favor more effective sex education and more funding and other better policies for family planning, this should work against the total number of unwanted pregnancies, and hence, against abortion rates.

Don't Forget Obama used the same claim.

The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

At the risk of weaseling on my bet, I should have used the Caveat if the Democrats pass Public funding for Abortions and the "mythical" Freedom of Choice Act.

Quoting nikkibong: I resent the continually made claim that "black people aren't friends with white people." This specious 'observation' is accepted as gospel truth by conservative and liberal commentators alike. However, a whole generation (my generation!) is being brought up that sees 'race' as simply not an 'issue.' Our public university system, for example, is very integrated. And, not to toot my own horn, but I've had lovers and friends that cut across races. Perhaps Jonah and Peter are friends only with, say, other Jews: but it's unfair to claim that the rest of us live like that, as well.

This isn't only occuring in the United States. My generation in say, France, a country that is often caricatured as a racist hellhole by ignorant Americans, is undergoing a similar shift. I remember going to my (alas, now former) French girlfriend's university classes and marveling at the fact that such a slight majority of the class was Gallic in ethnicity. 'Color' is simply not a factor.

I liked this post.

1) Jonah Goldberg just stated that Liberals are the "aggressors" in the culture wars - and then tosses civil rights into the mix of issues in the "culture wars". Does he thinks sitting in the front of the bus is more aggressive than a mob beating a man and hanging him until dead while having a party, as happened all over the south for many many years? does he think marching is more aggressive than tear gas, fire hoses, dogs, and beating people's heads in with batons? the lack of aggression in combating the evil of oppression perpetrated against african americans is one of the things that really blows my mind. The amazing self-control on the part of both blacks and whites in support of the civil rights movement amazes me. And that Oppression did not simply exist - it was an active act of aggression by millions of people every single day for decades. seriously, Jonah, can you defend what you said with a straight face? 2) Peter, you think this whole black/white conversation thing is a good idea, and you state that whites like me need to be

Quoting bjkeefe: Again, I think you're over-generalizing. Ann Coulter has made bank giving talks on college campuses, for example. And I don't see how you can complain about free speech being suppressed if you're against protests.

Read my post again, the only protesters I criticized were those seeking to stop someone from speaking. That is suppression of free speech.

Quoting bjkeefe: Preface: I'll stipulate that there were unpleasant and untrue things said about her that were particular to her being a woman. These were unfortunate and uncalled for, but I don't think this is really what you mean by "witch hunt." (If you did, then I'd agree with this part, but I'd also say there was and is a big counterweight given to her by virtue of her gender, too. But going back to my original supposition, l'll leave that aside for now.)

I can accept that there were strong attacks made on her. I'd say to these: (a) welcome to politics, and (b) while some stuff was crazy, as it is for all politicians, most of the questions and criticisms raised were entirely legitimate. She was running to be one step away from being the most powerful person on the planet, with a running mate

Quoting PaulL: Don't Forget Obama used the same claim

So what? So one of his aides dug up a bad talking point for him for one campaign appearance. That doesn't address anything I said in my response to you about what I think his Administration and Congress are likely to do that would plausibly contribute to keeping the abortion rate from climbing.

At the risk of weaseling on my bet, I should have used the Caveat if the Democrats pass Public funding for Abortions and the "mythical" Freedom of Choice Act.

I don't know the details of this so-far non-existent bill, but let's just say I'm disinclined to treat "Party of Death"-man as an objective source. I'd also say that Amy Sullivan has always seemed, here on BH.tv, as about as even-handed a reporter on the abortion issue as I've ever heard, so I am also disinclined to think that she's getting things as wrong as Ramesh suggests. Especially since her article shows no corrections, five days after Ramesh's post. However, your hedging on our non-existent bet is noted. Final thought: I know we're on opposite poles on this, but for the record, I would rather have a woman

Popcorn: When you object to Jonah's use of the word aggression here:

) Jonah Goldberg just stated that Liberals are the "aggressors" in the culture wars - and then tosses civil rights into the mix of issues in the "culture wars".

Does he thinks sitting in the front of the bus is more aggressive than a mob beating a man and hanging him until dead while having a party, as happened all over the south for many many years?

does he think marching is more aggressive than tear gas, fire hoses, dogs, and beating people's heads in with batons?

the lack of aggression in combating the evil of oppression perpetrated against african americans is one of the things that really blows my mind. The amazing self-control on the part of both blacks and whites in support of the civil rights movement amazes me. And that Oppression did not simply exist - it was an active act of aggression by millions of people every single day for decades.

seriously, Jonah, can you defend what you said with a straight face?

you're assuming that "aggresssion" in this sense should carry negative connotations. Goldberg's

One last word on this thread regarding Palin: Camille Paglia said it much better than I ever could: "......reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current

Check out Jonah ALMOST saying "step off the plantation" here, then realizing this probably isn't the time for that particular phrase, and letting it go.
Nice save, Jonah.

Quoting Exeus99: Popcorn:

When you object to Jonah's use of the word aggression here:
you're assuming that "aggresssion" in this sense should carry negative connotations. Goldberg's pretty clearly NOT saying this--he includes an example where the "aggression" was correct and good as a way to bolster his case that "culture war" battles are generally instigated by the political left. Instigation may be a better term here, if you've some objection to aggression as a metaphor (within the larger culture war metaphor!).

To be fair to Jonah's detractors, in many cases the "instigator" is merely reacting to provocation. Would there have been such a rapidly-building black civil rights movement in the post-war era if there had not been so many lynchings in the first half of the 20th Century? If there had not been segregation laws? More often than not, the demand for social change begins with the observation that the current order results in somebody getting unfairly screwed over. Gays want to marry, some cancer patients want to smoke weed, property owners don't want to be forced to sell their homes & shops just because some "urban renewal" developer greased the right palms. These

I am going by the right-wing trope that if the Government funds something you will get more of it. The Welfare reform argument.

Amy Sullivan has always seemed, here on BH.tv, as about as even-handed a reporter on the abortion issue as I've ever heard

Maybe Bob can arrange a Diavlog between Ramesh and Amy.

That's probably not how you want to talk about it, though, 'cause then we're back to calling something (the status quo, say) tyranny, and of course no right thinking person supports tyranny. The point is that Goldberg wasn't making a VALUE judgement when he said that the political left acts as the aggressor/insitigates/starts the culture war--he's agreeing that (at least in some cases) it's a GOOD THING that they do.

Quoting BJ: Don't know if you read my reply to harkin, specifically the part that addressed this very question. If not, please do. If so, are you therefore asserting that those were not my real friends? Suddenly I am reminded of Dave Gray and Hospital Food. If there are people out there who are physically detained, on thorazine, or possess super-human empathy and listening skills, they could in theory be your real friends.

Quoting harkin: One last word on this thread regarding Palin:

Camille Paglia said it much better than I ever could:

"......reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don't know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current

Quoting pampl: . . .your incompetent vp nominee. Yeah, Palin can't hold a candle to the Bidens. Renaissance men who can transition seamlessly from lobbying to hedge fund management, because, for them, both involve suction or sucking. Which is worse, the fact that Hunter took investment into his fund from Stanford Financial, or that his fund went belly up in record time? DC parasites and finance, not a good combination.

Quoting harkin: Read my post again, the only protesters I criticized were those seeking to stop someone from speaking. That is suppression of free speech.

Well, one man's suppression of free speech is another's exercise of same. If there is a big movement of people who don't want Person X to be granted a platform at location Y for airing his or her views, that's legitimate, to my mind. As I've said on numerous occasions, I find it tiresome to hear "suppression of freedom of speech" being played every time one group seeks to shout down another. It may be messy, undignified, or even unfair in some abstract sense, but that's the way it goes in a democracy and in life. The only guarantee of protection of freedom of speech that we have in the US refers to limitations on the government with respect to the citizenry. Nonetheless, I do accept the spirit, that dissenting views ought to be given a chance, so I am not going to give a blanket pardon to every bunch of rabble-rousers on every college campus ever.

[me: media treatment for Palin was as fair as could be expected]

Couldn't disagree more. The msm's campaign of concentrated hate for Palin was a new low.

I disagree. I'd say it was

Quoting harkin: One last word on this thread regarding Palin:

Camille Paglia said it much better than I ever could:

So much for the liberal media being united against Palin.

Quoting sirfith: I am going by the right-wing trope that if the Government funds something you will get more of it.

In that case, you should believe that we'll get more proper sex education and more family planning assistance, too.

Maybe Bob can arrange a Diavlog between Ramesh and Amy.

Good idea.

Quoting Salt: Quoting BJ: Don't know if you read my reply to harkin, specifically the part that addressed this very question. If not, please do. If so, are you therefore asserting that those were not my real friends?

Suddenly I am reminded of Dave Gray and Hospital Food. If there are people out there who are physically detained, on thorazine, or possess super-human empathy and listening skills, they could in theory be your real friends.

Haven't the foggiest what you're talking about.

I could listen to many people talk about the culture war if I so chose, but few of them would bring up Hunter and Bismarck. This is why I'm a BHTV fan.

Quoting harkin: [/i] So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist.[/i]

Sarah-ebonics Palin-drones. Did you have a decoder ring to parse and reconstruct her words, so as to make sense of them? Or do you and Camille share a gut level vision?

Quoting Exeus99: That's probably not how you want to talk about it, though, 'cause then we're back to calling something (the status quo, say) tyranny, and of course no right thinking person supports tyranny.

The point is that Goldberg wasn't making a VALUE judgement when he said that the political left acts as the aggressor/insitigates/starts the culture war--he's agreeing that (at least in some cases) it's a GOOD THING that they do.

Okay, setting my wild hyperbole aside, I'm not saying that Jonah was making a value judgement, I'm simply pointing out that when social progressivism seems to be the "first actor" in a cultural dispute, it's more often than not because a group of people have perceived a fundamental unfairness in the status quo. So if you're going to get down to a "who shot first" argument, it's often the culture itself which acts upon individuals in a way that provokes demands for reform. So while defenders of traditionalism see progressives as instigators, the truth is that progressive activity is typically a REACTION.

Quoting graz: So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist.

Good catch, graz. Anybody who knows anything about jazz improvisation knows that there's a grammar to it, a syntax born of the underlying chords and the modal relationships between notes and the emphases imposed by the rhythm. A master jazz soloist not only understands the syntax, he revises and extends it, creating a perfectly coherent new language of his own. (If you want an illustration of what I mean, compare and contrast Stan Getz and Cannonball Adderley: Corcovado, Jive Samba. [And I do apologize for obsessive geekiness.]) How Paglia can possibly find an analogy between Sarah Palin's misadventures into tortured and confused English grammar, e.g.

It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where—where do they go?

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve

Quoting AemJeff: [...]

Surely you're not suggesting that Camille Paglia is not the greatest weaver of metaphors ever, are you? When she was rehired by Salon, I let my subscription expire. Oh, and good geeking out, by you.

Peter says: "If you can't talk honestly with someone about race, you don't have an honest friendship with them"

Using this logic, if you just refuse to give a person's color any importance at all, and just treat them as a human being, you are not a true friend.

Amazing. Does this also apply to mixed race persons? To Asians? To Latinos and Native Americans?

Your middle paragraph borders on being a false dichotomy. If you have a black friend, you can of course be friends without skin color being any part of it. But that doesn't mean it couldn't possibly be both instructive to you, and considerate of you, to hear...

Maybe so, but you're missing harkin's point. Peter says (in a bit of moralizing both creepy and naive imho) you can't be friends if you can't talk about race. harkin's point is, that's wrong. I agree: replace "race" with "religion", "politics", "sexuality", "childhood trauma", ... and it's the same. Sure, you might learn something by talking about these important subjects. You might also lose a friendship. How dare Peter judge the "honesty" of friendships in this way, and how is it Eric Holder's or anyone's business to tell us to have such conversations with our

Quoting kaicarver: Maybe so, but you're missing harkin's point. Peter says (in a bit of moralizing both creepy and naive imho) you can't be friends if you can't talk about race.

I would not say any two friends have to talk about race. I can't remember if that's how Peter put it, but if he did, I'm with you and harkin in disagreeing on that. I do, however, remember how Holder put it, which was not a requirement, but a suggestion, so I don't think he was sticking his nose into anybody's business. Again, as I have said several times already, I don't say anyone who doesn't want to talk about these things has to. I do, however, think there are things that still need to be discussed, by those who want to, and by those who might find they did after a little encouragement, and I'm glad that Holder gave the nation that reminder. P.S. One possibility that occurs to me about what Peter said: It is possible, it seems to me, that he was saying that a measure of a friendship was not that the two people should talk about race, but that they should be able to talk about it. That's also not something I'd

I know we're not supposed to lament any of the fine participants on bloggingheads but I don't like this pairing. Peter is one of my favorite writer/commenters and Jonah just brings him down. Sorry.

Quoting harkin: The most amazing thing of all is that liberals wish to stamp out talk radio because they deem it 'unfair'.

As I described earlier, the thought that the Fairness Act is coming back is a crock. However, if you're looking for something to worry about as far as politicians trying to control media goes, check this:

February 19, 2009 10:45 PM PST
Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

(Emphasis added.) Lots more details at the link -- being sold (and this'll shock you) as a way to cut down on child porn:

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

(h/t: Buzz Out Loud)

Quoting Tara Davis: often the culture itself which acts upon individuals in a way that provokes demands for reform.

I mean, I guess...but at that point we're deeply into chicken-egging (one of my preferred terms for having descended into circularity, if you care to know) and I'm not sure how viewing things in this way is super-hostile to Goldberg's view; you'd have to say he sees things one way while you see things another, and that neither of you is really wrong, yeah? The assertion that what exists prior to people (or a movement, etc.) deciding to act to bring about a change is responsible at least in part for causing that change to be desired is definitionally true. It can be true independent of which political side acts to bring about a given change; if the side that generally acts first to bring about the change is the left, then Goldberg's assertion that the left is the aggressor in that sense is correct--saying that the prior conditions acted on people to cause them to want to bring about change and therefore those conditions really got things started

Quoting Uhurusasa: ...The potential of the end of slavery posed a considerable threat to the identity and position of the free people of color. Following the Union victory in the Civil War, the Louisiana three-tiered society was dismantled(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Creole_people).

this aspect of the louisiana territories is reflected throughout the U.S., under the guise of a binary (black-white) racial system. sort of like south africa with a local glaze of confusion! african americans are caught in an unspoken mix of colored and black people,each with its own rank and privileges.
plessy as in the Plessy v. Ferguson jim crow case, once had the rights of europeans(whites) until the outcome of the civil war lumped creoles into a catagory with african americans(blacks).

we african americans may not be who we think we are! nor,may all the other cultures in our society, be who we and/or they think they are! we are beyond race!!

the tribal thinking(imho)of cultures tends to play along the line of "we deserve all the benefit of the doubt, and they deserve none". if we all forget that we are biased for ourselves, we keep falling into the trap of using