May links: cleaning up from April

Korean peace? Don't be too hopeful yet. North Korea has pattern of reneging, or getting stubborn.

Syrian peacce? The role France may play.

Trump's fixer. Michael Cohen, who handled a payment and non-disclosure agreement for a paramour of Trump, also worked for Sean Hannity. It might be involve real estate, but maybe it's another fix-it situation. Time will tell, and I'm not convinced it is just real estate.

Parties and race. This article chronicles how the Dems signed up with blacks long before the 60's. Contrast this bravery with the craven behavior of most Repubs. Also from Vox: White evangelicals tolerate racism and character flaws in Trump. An explanation about Kanye West and Trump.

Forge and frame, inc. Software now makes it possible to fake someone's words and facial expressions in a video. What a bonanza for computer-capable liars and fake news generators.

What competence looks like. Saving all but one person when a jet engine falls apart, piercing the plane in the passenger compartment. The dive to lower atmosphere for more oxygen, the successful landing. Even calming the passengers. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

No effect from the weakening dollar. The dollar has been getting weaker, so are we exporting more? Not really. Good explainer for why.

Healthcare cost containment. California may try it. Good!

Russia-related stories: McCabe's wrongdoing at the FBI. I want to hold on to this resource about the Inspector General's report and see what happens. Was he conniving? Was he thrown under the bus? Also this article. Comey notes about Trump. His private memos, written to document the weirdness of Trump's communications with him, are now public. Who's the liar? Trump's legal team. Trump has hired Guiliani for his Russia strategy team. Another Russian tactic. (I almost , typed 'Soviet.') Use international committees to harass emigres in other countries. And to think that my favorite shills think that Russia is good and the US is a war-mongering horror. Russian meddling. A link to the House Intelligence report. A real report, not a Nunes tissue of lies.

Image: gulfnews.com

Painful realization: The Civil Rights Act of 1965

In light of the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the capital of South Carolina, I've been researching and reflecting on the process of securing civil rights. I was born in the late 1950's, so I witnessed some significant parts of the civil rights struggles with my own eyes.

Racial equality

I'm also lucky--I grew up believing in the equality of the races. I didn't have to overcome a nagging or latent belief in white superiority. In fact, the idea of white superiority makes me laugh. I've known too many white chumps to believe that whites are better.

Though I grew up believing in equality, I didn't know how widespread that belief was. When I wanted to date a black friend in high school, I worried how my parents would react. I didn't know if my parents (MY OWN PARENTS) would give me a hard time. Clearly they were OK with me having black friends, but would they draw the line at dating? I didn't know.

I was lucky there too. My parents had no trouble with my dates. They were happy for me in my budding relationship. (But love didn't bloom--we weren't going to be anything but friends.)

What does this have to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1965? I'll explain.

In 1965, how many Americans were inculcated with the belief that blacks were inferior? I wouldn't have been surprised if my own parents had believed that, or had been brought up learning that. Of course that's not what they taught me and my siblings. They were old-line liberals, believers in the New Deal, skeptical of red-baiting, open to all colors and creeds.

How many really believe?

But I didn't know the limits of their beliefs. Would they been like the girl's parents in the movie Guess Who's Coming for Dinner? Yes, they raised their daughter to respect everyone, but they didn't expect her to fall in love and want to marry a black man. My parents could have been like that, but weren't.

But many liberals perhaps were like that, which made the movie of interest. This movie was released just two years after the Civil Rights Act passed. How many white Americans sincerely believed that blacks and whites were equal then? Perhaps a majority of whites didn't believe it. That would be my guess.

But I'd be wrong. Researching this, I found this article citing polling about the Civil Rights Act. In 1965, 76% of Americans supported the act. How many of those people supported the act because that's what they honestly believed? How many supported the act because they agreed with the ideals, but didn't believe it in fact?

I had a surprise here, too. In my pessimism, I thought that that majority of whites didn't truly believe in equality. However, I found polling from 1964 showing that 70% of whites believed in the equality of intellect (National Opinion Research Center, p. 20). Of course, it's hard to know how accurate that polling was. Was the sample skewed toward the wealthier and better educated? Would beliefs be different by income level? It's hard to drill down into 50 year old data. (And the graphics are so primitive. Wow, have computers changed our world.)

Though I've been lucky to grow up without racism entrenched in me, I'm still disappointed by how slow the decline in racism has been. When I was young, I was more hopeful for the future, and even for the present. As I've gotten older, I've been become more pessimistic about achieving a country with no significant racism. Every year shows me that racism persists.

Racism surfaced in my dad as he got older. My daughter worries that it might surface in me. She's not wrong to worry, but I hope and pray that it's not hiding somewhere in my psyche. So far, though, even when I delve deep, my instincts are to believe in the essential equality of all people. I'm immensely grateful for that.

Image: thebestlittlefilmhouse.com

Extras. National Opinion Research Center, starting p. 104, expectations of racial troubles. And as with my other posts on race, I realize that discussions of racial superiority or inferiority are deeply painful and deeply insulting. I wish that it wasn't an active issue, but it has been during my lifetime.

Read about the fascinating Civil Rights Act of 1875, which mandated equal treatment in public accommodations. What happened to it? Guess who was the most likely to shoot it down, and you're probably right.

Rant: Kevin Williamson is still lying about race

I was extremely pissed off last year about Kevin Williamson's lying piece about how the GOP was so great on civil rights and the Dems (all of them mentioned by name) were horrible.

Well, Williamson has another one. It's not as bad this time because it contains an interesting story about Goldwater helping with desegregation--and all these stories are worth knowing... when they are actually true. But Williamson isn't content to tell the true tales of the good GOP, he must bash each and every Democrat. So Lyndon Johnson isn't the president who pushed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. No, he "was gutting anti-lynching laws and assuring Democrats that he would offer those 'uppity Negroes' 'just enough to quiet them down.'"

The gospel according to Williamson is that Dems never did anything to help blacks gain their civil rights. AND THAT IS A CONTEMPTIBLE LIE. Did I ever say that I HATE LIES? I think I did.

The good news is that lies aren't winning elections so much anymore. That is wonderful--that the lies aren't winning. So you liars out there, your days are numbered. Whatever you try to hide, it ain't going to stay hidden.

Hat tip: Bernstein and The American Prospect

Hey Kevin, I found some missing Democrats.

Image: wikipedia.org

The Libertarian choice of rights

I notice that many libertarians are very proud of their fundamental belief and emphasis on rights. They deserve to be, because they take a principled stand to defend these rights even if outcomes are adverse. No profiling, no surveillance of possible terrorists without specific cause, so violations of other countries sovereignty to fight terrorists harbored within their borders--these policies would seriously hamper anti-terrorist efforts that have kept reprisals on US targets (targets meaning US lives and property) quite low.

I acknowledge their idealism, though I don't fully support it. But in one area, they have seriously made a poor choice. They put property rights above human rights, particularly the fundamental right to be treated as equal. So "All men are created equal" takes a back seat to "life, liberty, and property." This choice shows in their lack of support for the Civil Rights Act, which requires public accommodations (businesses open to the public) not to discriminate against classes of people who often suffer from discrimination. So you can no longer bar blacks from your lunch counter, Jews from your apartment building, or Catholics from your factory.

I don't understand how libertarians choose property rights ("it's my business, and I'll run it the way I want") over the civil right not to be discriminated against in a public venue ("unless I do something wrong, I should have the same rights in public spaces as anyone else").

It's quite possible that I don't know what I'm talking about here. I haven't delved into libertarian philosophy and have absolutely no plans to. But like most of my posts, this is based on honest observation and reflection of what I've seen in news and on the web. I'm not sure there are other ways to interpret it. (Example: Rand Paul comments about not supporting the Civil Rights Act.)

If I'm wrong, I'm counting on libertarian readers to set me straight, and to defend their position with reasoned arguments. That means that you should be prepared to answer my main point, which is property rights shouldn't have priority over personal liberty.

Photo: wn.com