Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@Hunter345 @Propecia Washington Except no one is getting shot simply because to their skin color.

Now I will grant you, cops might hesitate a bit more about shooting a white guy doing something weird, but it still happens.  Sometimes by black cops.  Look at the unarmed white kid in Utah.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

3 days, 16 hours ago on Conversation @


@Romare @richardstarr @ErinErin @JonDaly Yes, and if they were in a place they were not known they might not have been served appropriately.

Oprah is recognizable by pretty much everyone in the US.

In France?  Not so much.

1 week, 1 day ago on Conversation @


@vonettadevo Yes, white people too. I've seen middle class types snubbed at high end car places because the salespeople don't think they can afford it.

The bag was priced at over $40,000 and the sales girl did not want to risk the bag being hurt on a person that did not appear to have the means to purchase it.  I've been in places and steered towards lower priced items because the clerk did not think I could afford what I was looking at.  No, I'm not rich, but I could easily afford it.  *shrug*

1 week, 1 day ago on Conversation @


@ErinErin @JonDaly The Oprah story is an extreme situation.

1) She was in a foreign country, France, and not recognized.

2) She was dressed "comfortably", not high fashion.

3) She asked to see a bag that costs more than the clerk of the store earns

in close to a year, a $40,000 Hermes bag.  If the bag had been damaged or stolen, the clerk would have lost their job.

It was not about race, it was about money.  Few people of any race could afford

such a bag or be crazy enough to waste that kind of money on one.

Had she gone there dressed to the nines with her entourage she would have been treated as "Oprah".

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr I've always considered it stupid of companies to hire anyone but the best candidate for a job. 

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@ElizabethTownzend @richardstarr Words have "Definitions" not "interpretations".  Attempting to rewrite the language to better fit what you would "like" the words to mean, especially given historical usage, is very Orwellian.

As to "dating" myself, I'm a child of the 70's, but I'm not ignorant of the sins of mine or previous generations. 

Women, are NOT a minority given they are 51% of the population.

The term "the 1%" ring a bell? Race happens to also be a social construct.

People are people. Race is an invented term used to justify the mistreatment

of a group of people, its not a accurate biological term.  I suppose you could use the term breed to refer to certain physical traits like they do with horses, cats, dogs, etc.  But like those creature, we can breed with each other, as opposed to a cat and a horse which being truly different races cannot.

I have no blinders on, I just refuse to see something that is not there now.

I will not allow group think to override common sense.

But have a nice day anyway.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr OK, or you could have sued.  If you have the ability to do the work well and you are the most qualified candidate you should get the job.

About the only time a woman is not qualified is maybe for an acting job where the character is male, though I imagine some jobs requiring great strength may limit the candidates.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@pointguard @richardstarr @Mr_Brett @theduderino 

And I stated, I want the best people to get in.

And there are a lot of movies out there, I tend to take it with a grain of salt.  I just go by the stories of family and how they and their friends were treated at the time. 

I have no idea of what is causing the near identical percentages.

Considering they make up roughly 5% of the population their may indeed be a "cap", which is a limit, rather than a "quota" which is a minimum.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@pointguard @richardstarr @Mr_Brett @theduderino Funny how you bring up California.  It's illegal here to use race as a factor.  Recently, some in the legislature attempted to allow it be used again, but protests from Asian groups thankfully killed it.

And Ivy league did not have "quotas" for Jews, they simply put up roadblocks that acted to prevent all but from the best from qualifying.  Kind of like the nonsense they did in the South where Black folks were required to pass a "test" and white folk were grandfathered in and did not need to do so.

What may exist in some circles is the idea that since Asians are generally successful, there is no need to act to ensure that a minimum amount of them are enrolled.  *shrug*

Frankly, I just want to the people who are the best to get in, regardless of race.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr Nope. I can't recall a single instance in my life where someone was given something over me due to their race.  I've had positive and negative encounters with most groups, enough to know that people are people, some are a-holes others are awesome.

Likely because I'm fortunate enough to be in a field based on science and deal with facts.  Every time a non-white person has been awarded something over me its because they merited it and I'm honest enough to see that they did. 

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@PlayerPage @richardstarr @Mr_Brett @theduderino 

Stop being "amazed" read what I actually wrote.

In a nut shell, they were mistreated, but they were not slaves.

If you can't grasp the distinction that not being a slave is better ....

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@ElizabethTownzend @richardstarr @JenAdamo 

Nonsense, that's just the attempt to redefine the word to justify racist behavior that originates from a minority group. The rich are very much a minority among us, but no one could say with a straight face that they can not be racist.

Racism is not about "research" its a word.  Racism is the belief about a group of people that is not justified by fact.  This belief can be positive or negative.

Bigotry is ignoring facts and mistreating people of a group based on ones own prejudices.

And "privilege" is yet a whole other subject.

Racial privilege died with Jim Crow, individual privilege lives based on ones own circumstances.  No one with half a brain would consider the kids of Tiger Woods worse off than a child of homeless woman who just happens to be white.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr No, I used logic.

I'm not assuming he is "right" I'm assuming she is making an honest observation of the event.

Hostile = Anger

Anger implies a BELIEF that there is a cause

That cause, given his statements, is his BELIEF that she is being given

an assignment because of her race.  It is thus his belief that racism is

in play here, one that is acting to his detriment.

Please demonstrate why this is not a valid logical conclusion.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr I'm not saying he was "justified" just that he believed that she was using race.  She stated he was "hostile" which implies anger which implies he felt he had a reason to be angry.  Based on her statements its fair to assume that she or someone else had previously been assigned a black personality and that it appeared to him that this was done because of her race.  I'm treating her observations as being accurate and my conclusions are therefore reasonable in this context.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@Mr_Brett @theduderino 

But do you know why that is so?

There was a time, not so long ago, where discrimination was rampant against Jewish people.

Road blocks were put up at schools that prevented all but the absolute best from making it.

The result was, those that did make it were among the best and eventually the reputation of

a "Jewish" doctor/lawyer/account as top notch made them desirable, and eventually the stigma faded to a great extent.  Wish success comes money, which allows one to send children to the best schools or open their own..

Then there is Hollywood.  In the past being an actor was a disreputable profession.  As such, they were open to people from all backgrounds.  Well, some Jewish families lucked out and were in prominent positions when Hollywood bloomed.  Kind of like nerds of today being "hip" vs per-internet days.  Money gives instant credibility, power, and influence.

As for Asians, they did not have quite the same hurdles as black people.  While many were mistreated, they were never actually enslaved here.  And, like the Jews, they worked to overcome their circumstances by being the best.  When you are the best, people can't risk letting the other "team"get a hold of you.  Think post Jackie Robinson.  Once one team used black people, the others followed suit or fell behind.

As always, success breeds the chance for further success.

This is not to say all Jews or Asians are successful, were not, but we are all molded by our history and circumstances.

Racism still does exist today, but its not the racism of the past.

There is no Jim Crow laws on the books nor are property contracts forbidding the sale of homes to Jews or Blacks legal anymore.  But, you also have individuals that have been raised being told that everything is about race and because they believe it, are negatively effected by it and see every instance as evidence that it is the norm rather than the exception.  And of course there are those who profit from racism, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would not have any where near the wealth and influence they have if they did not continue to push the idea that "they" were still needed as if the days of Jim Crow and Selma were still with us.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


@JenAdamo @richardstarr Exactly what assumptions do you think I'm making here?

I'm basing everything on the author's statements.

The author's statements are racist, period.

There is a belief that using white people to report on a "black" event is wrong.

I state that she appears to have been hired for her race because she alludes to it multiple times.

The only "attitude" I'm displaying is my willingness to call it out.

I'm not saying that she is not experiencing people that are racist,merely that she happens to be racist herself.  The type of racism she has experienced was of the "progressive" sort for the most part from which she might well have benefited and she makes the assumption that anything that does not fit her world view as "racist".

And, given your last statement, I'm guessing your racism follows the same lines as hers or those she worked with.  Believe it.

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


I'm not surprised. Some people will always frame things around race. The white entertainment reporter no doubt had experienced people using their race as a tool to get what they want and was unhappy enough to let the truth bluntly slip out.  The question is, did the author actually have an expectation that she would have and advantage because of her race?

Regarding the artist on the rise, just take out the word black.  Unless you are of the belief that black people are going to support that artist more because of her race, which would be by definition racist, it should not be relevant to the argument.  Not every performer on the "rise" gets anywhere nor is every entertainer within a particular community going to be adopted at some point by the whole of society.  Every artist needs to be judged on their own merits.

"..having white journalists write the main features on a new black news venture sent the wrong message to the black online community. "

This certainly appears to be racist in nature. If the readership judges the content based on the skin color of the author, how is it not?

Seems to me that the author appears to have been frequently hired for her skin color, and is surprised that those people who performed that racist act, would perform other acts that were similarly racist.  It's ironic that she can't see that her own work is dripping with her own racist ideals. 

1 week, 2 days ago on Conversation @


I believe that what the Japanese pay is a pittance compared to what the signing bonus would likely be.

The 3 year ban is nothing compared to the potential gain in increased pay if he signed with a MLB team.

The insanity of paying a team millions to let him go and the player is given NOTHING for it is immoral,

especially if he is not under contract.  You would have the Japanese teams paying to get this kid for the

sole purpose of getting the transfer fee down the road.


As long as this kid is not represented by Scott Boras, I'd think he would be worth a gamble on.

They might be able to "draft" him against his will or some such, but I don't think that they can do that

if he does not "declare" to do so.  Now whether or not he could later somehow get signed by a major

league team is an interesting question.  Perhaps if he were to get a scholarship to a state side school

some of this wierdness could go away?

2 years ago on Report: Dodgers Interested in Japanese High Schooler Shohei Otani


With all due respect, you really need to take a second look at David Anderson.

While I will agree he is not a superstar, he is far above average. It's like blaming

Jeremy Lin for his getting released by those other teams before the Knicks; if you

don't make use of the player, you don't get the benefits of that player.

(Yes, that was a bigger mistake, David is never going to be Calvin Johnson)

You have a guy with just 1, one! career fumble.

You have a guy who averages 11 yards/carry.

You have a guy who gets along well with his team mates.

You don't see the big mouth, the drugs, or any of those issues with him.

Frankly speaking, he knows the system, has a great humble attitude, and

he is a very inexpensive insurance policy for the injuries every team suffers.

I believe if they expanded his role, you would be surprised at the results.

People tend to forget that in college Anderson was number one on the Colorado State Rams all time receiving lists for career yards (3,634) and career receptions (223).

2 years, 8 months ago on Previewing the 2012 Redskins: Offense, part 2