White Privilege

wrote in message
...
On Sep 19, 8:24 pm, Frank Reid © 2008 wrote:

I agree with you, that peoples kids should be left out...

Yeah, that's the trouble with Murrca......people keep bringing family into
family values.

Wolfgang

On Sep 19, 11:24*pm, Frank Reid © 2008 wrote:
* * * White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like
Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that
of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to
judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even
as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly
typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

KIds, in the Marquis of Queensbury rules of political etiquette are
out of bounds. *Yah know, just don't go there.


Unless you're Bush running against McCain in SC in 2000.....

But what did your comment have anything to do with what White
said??

* * * White privilege is when you can call yourself a "****in'
redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if
anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their ****in' ass," and talk
about how you like to "shoot ****" for fun, and still be viewed as a
responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather
than a thug.

And firing a weapon when you live in a wilderness area is bad why?
Get a life and get your liberal nose outside of New York City.

You don't mind engaging in a bit of stereotyping yourself, eh? It's
ok, as long as its the right kind of stereotyping I guess. PersonalIy
I don't live in NYC and have no reason to do so, and Wasila is just
about as "rural" as my burg.

But you are right, it's a dumb reference, but it works because most
people on either side of the fence won't bother to find out that
neither comment had anything to do with hunting or killing.


* * * White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges
in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed
out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a
community college), and no one questions your intelligence or
commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this
would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only
got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

Hmm, I had 256 semester hours from 14 different schools when I got my
bachelors. *Where or how you got your degree is not really important
in the real world, what you do with your life and your smarts
afterward are what counts.


Wellll, you're a damn liberal compared to me, then, what with a
degree and all. But what did your comment have to do with White's
point? Sounds to me like you are agreeing with him.

Damn NYC liberals.

Frank Reid

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.


You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

"Charlie S." w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.


You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

It's true that Miranda isn't a verbatim recapitulation of anything
specifically and explicitly stated in the constitution, but then, anything
that is would be superfluous, right? Meanwhile, it is generally accepted
that the busines of the Supreme Court is, to a large extent, the analysis,
interpretation, extension, amplification and exposition not only of the
literal content of the constitution (which, after all, is right out there
where any educated and thoughtful person can read it for him or her self,
and which couldn't possibly have anticipated any and all future needs,
anyway), but also of the philosophy and doctrine of law espoused therein.
Unfortunately, not everyone in this country is well educated and thoughtful.
Many are not intimately familiar with the provisions of the fifth Amendment
to the Constitution and all of its implications, legal, philosophical, or
practical. Moreover, even among those who ARE intimately familiar with its
provisions, there will be those whose capacity doesn't necessarily extend to
a realization that self-incrimination can be inadvertent and that simple
silence may be their best course.

In simplest terms, Miranda is nothing more than a gloss on the phrase
"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself..." and a prohibition against law enforcement agents working on the
erroneous assumption that accused suspects may be treated as if they don't
have certain rights just because they aren't aware of them.

In short, there is a widespread (if not quite universal or expressly stated)
consensus in this country to the effect that Miranda rights ARE included in
the fifth Amendment which, the last time I looked, is still a part of the
United States Constitution.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

Ainna?

Wolfgang

On Sep 22, 11:03*am, Charlie S. w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
* * *By Tim Wise
* * *9/13/08

snip

* * *White privilege is being able to say that you support the words
"under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough
for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be
immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the
pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't
added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.

You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

You're right, Miranda is not in the US constitution, tho the principle
behind it is.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:03*am, Charlie S. w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
* * *By Tim Wise
* * *9/13/08

snip

while if you're black

What about if you're of bi-racial...? About white folks? How about
mixed races?

and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.

You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

You're right, Miranda is not in the US constitution, tho the principle
behind it is.

Well, that's OK - it appears to refer to Obama, so if it does, he taught
his classes that it was in there, so it probably was and someone just
erased it as a dirty trick...probably a wild pack of gay male
prostitutes hired by the GOP...

Sheesh,
R

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:03 am, Charlie S. w5cds (at) arrl (dot) net wrote:
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:03:43 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
9/13/08

snip

while if you're black

What about if you're of bi-racial...? About white folks? How about
mixed races?

and believe in reading
accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the
Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school,
requires it), you are a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to
safeguard American institutions.

You know, last time I looked, it was NOT the Constitution that
required the reading of rights to the suspect(s), but the result of
the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda
v. Arizona.

Although I agree with some of your statements, if you expect to be
seen as literate and even knowledgeable, you might want to keep your
rantings factually correct.

You're right, Miranda is not in the US constitution, tho the principle
behind it is.

Well, that's OK - it appears to refer to Obama, so if it does, he taught
his classes that it was in there, so it probably was and someone just
erased it as a dirty trick...probably a wild pack of gay male
prostitutes hired by the GOP...

8?

Wolfgang
everyone who thinks dicklet actually believes this stuff enhances his image
as an adult raise your right hand.