David M

Even though it looks extremely likely Republicans will win the Senate, it is equally likely that they will fall well short of the 61 seats neded for a veto -proof majority. Regardless of who wins, doesn't that still mean we can look forward to at least another 2 and a half years of congress getting absolutely nothing accomplished?

Why?

As we recall the 50th Anniversery of the "I Have a Dream Speech" There has been a lot of discussion about racism and race relations. Especially right after Barak Obama was elected to his first term many journalists and pundits euphorically claimed that the US had just becoime a "post-racial" society. Many minorities, especially those associated with the civil rights movement of the 60s, dispute that claim and can cite many examples where seemingly racial discrimination still occurs today.

My question is; Is the discrimination really still "racial"?

Is the problem people hating other people simply because of the color of their skin or rather is the discrimination based upon the idea that a particular CULTURE is inferrior? It's still unfair either way, but isn't the problem actually CULTURISM?

For example, blacks who dress in suits and ties and talk like Carlton from the old show "Fresh Prince...", (i.e Condolesa Rice, Colin Powel, or the president, or Latinos like Justice Sotomeyor), I would submit, experience much less overt descrimination than african americans (Or even and hip hop stylin' Latinos and whites) who openly use African American English (often euphemized as "Ebonics") or other racial identifying language, wear saggy pants and other visual markers that identify them as members of a particular minority social group. Now, there are certainly some individuals who do experience true racism, but hasn't INSTITUTIONAL racism been replaced with institutional culturism? (i.e. most people don't mind individuals who are black, but don't care for those who ACT black.)

Would it not be more constructive when discussing race relations to view it as cultural discrimination and steroetyping rather than racism? I would argue that NOT recognizing this as cultural discrimination still allows those who practice it to say "Look! We have a black president! Race conflict is now all in the past and if you think otherwise you're just being rediculous!"

What do you think?

It used to be in the upper right hand corner of my screen when I was on any Yahoo! connected page. Now it only shows up on about one out of every ten or more. It's hardly discussion anymore if you don't know when someone has responded to what you've posted and it's defintely a whole lot less fullfilling to launch a carefully constructed argument or comment into the cyber-sphere and never hear anymore about it ever again. Is Yahoo! trying to discourage commentary on their articles for some reason?

My son got Skylanders Giants for his birthday and has already beaten it. I wondered if I had to buy another starter pack for Spiro's Adventure or if they sold the game separately. Also, do the same characters would work for both games.

... was not legitimately raped, Tea Partiers?

By your guys' reckoning, she must have brought it on herself, right?

(Michele Knight is one of the 3 Ohio women locked up for over a decade in Ariel Castro's basement as his sex slaves - she gave birth to his daughter who is now 6)

Especially right after Barak Obama was elected to his first term many journalists and pundits euphorically claimed that the US had just becoime a post-racial society. Many minorities, especially those associated with the civil rights movement of the 60s, disputed that claim, citing many examples where seemingly racial discrimination still occurs today. My question is; Is the discrimination really still "racial"? Is the problem people hating other people simply because of the color of their skin or rather is the discrimination based upon the idea that a particular CULTURE is inferrior? It's still unfair either way, but isn't the problem actual CULTURISM.

For example, blacks who dress in suits and ties and talk like Carlton from the old show "Fresh Prince...", Condolesa Rice, Colin Powel, or the president, or Latinos like Justice Sotomeyor, I would submit experience much less overt descrimination than the african americans (Or even and hip hop stylin' Latinos and whites) who openly use African American English (often euphemized as "Ebonics") or other racial identifying language, wear saggy pants and other visual markers that identify them as members of a particular minority social group. Now, there are certainly some individuals who do experience true racism, but hasn't INSTITUTIONAL racism been replaced with institutional culturism? (i.e. most people don't mind individuals who are black, but don't care for those who ACT black.)

Again, this is not to justify any kind of discrimination but rather to more accurately identify the problem. Would it not be more constructive in race relations to view it as culture clash rather than mindless racism? I would argue that NOT recognizing this as cultural discrimination still allows those who practice it to say "Look! We have a black president! Race conflict is now all in the past and if you think otherwise your just being rediculous!"

What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/moderate-republ...

Most third parties traditionally have come from very narrow special interest groups or extremists. This however is a well organized, well-funded, moderate organization that welcomes both Democrats and Republicans, dropping it's party label in a political environment where extremists are infiltrating the traditional political parties and winning control. Could this finally be the begining of a serious attempt at a major third party? Not a bad thing, maybe...

It seems like most of the posts are religious kooks preaching or christian/religion detesting bigots trying to blacken eyes and hurt feelings. Is ther a single solitary person interested in any sort of objective discussion?

Today Les Munvez, the CEO of Fox made a public appeal for Charlie Sheen to make peace with the director of "2 and a Half Men" and continue making the series. Charlie's done some weird stuff in the past, but all of this recently, the crazy pictures, the nonsensical rants, the soap opera type headlnes, has been pretty extreme even for him. What if it turns out that all of this was orchestrated just to drum up publicity? After all, it was front page material in every major paper and on every major news network for a couple of weeks. Talk about free exposure! Assuming it is all BS, is it the greatest publicity stunt ever? Or simply a rank explotation and betrayal of the fan base?

I honestly didn't think he (J.C. isn't it?) did that well. He obviously can't dance and forgot the words. At the same time, I'm not that upset, because his first group really did do him dirty. Do you think he got through because the judges felt sorry for him?

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/24/kumba...

I read the above article from Fox News about the alternating D. R. seating in congress at the State of the Union, but I think it kinda misses the mark. Don't you think it more likely an attempt to prevent outbursts, (like the one last year where a Republican Rep. from S.C. I think it was, shouted out "Liar" in the middle of the procedings)? Isn't it harder to cat call when you've got two people who fundamentally disagree with your worldview at either shoulder?