Media Bias

sin_city

This happened yesterday....black guy shouts "I hate white people and thumps 3 random whites in the middle of NYC. A 62 year man that took care of his 92 year old mother died"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416446/Jeffrey-Babbit-dies-racist-hate-attack-stranger-Union-Square-New-York.html

This is not appearing anywhere in the media in the States, yet it seems to be similar to the Trayvon Martin thing, which is still getting coverage.

What's the reason for anti-white stuff in the US?

Why isn't Obama saying that this other black guy could have been his son?

Amerika

Obama taking a stance does him no personal good.

Media here is an odd duck mostly controlled by liberals, who often forego journalistic integrity for the greater good of their progressive agenda (IMO). There have been numerous hate crimes recently by blacks against whites that have gotten little media attention. The event that has gained the most was about the killing of Christopher Lane, the ballplayer from Australia. But the media attention has all but died off on the story, with a successful ploy to downplay it on the national stage, as it apparently doesn’t fit their agenda… unlike the Zimmerman case – which actually had nothing to do with race.

And it will be interesting to see the US media reporting over the next two days.

On Wednesday, 9/11 in Washington DC, there will be two potential massive events. The "Million Muslim March" to protest in regards to civil rights, indefinite detention, and "slanderous" statements about Islam; and The "2 Million Biker Ride" (a counter protest to the planned Million Muslim March) organized: "To remember those who were killed on 911 and honor our armed forces who fought those who precipitated this attack."

The Million Muslim March was provided with a permit to hold the event, but the 2 Million Biker Ride was denied their permit for a no-stop ride through Washington DC. Now what would have only taken about two hours for the bikers will now be an all day event of chaos for the people of DC, as they will have to contend with problems to the flow of traffic. So on a day where the temperatures will be in the high 90's Fahrenheit -- causing tempers to be short and run high in the most politically polarized city in the country, with potential conflict brewing between two highly charged vocal groups... What could go wrong?

Somehow I forecast the media take will be... Muslims Good, Bikers Bad!

Jonny7

Violence on blacks in America carries several hundred years of brutal repression, slavery and other nastiness with it

Hence a story of a white guy doing something bad to a black guy, especially in the US - will carry much more weight than vice-versa

News has to be "news-worthy", otherwise we'd be sitting through 7 hour news bulletins covering every murder, bomb, flood, etc in the world.

SupaNova2

I see Merril Lynch have been sued by black brokers. The reason being they earned less on average than white counterparts, but it was nothing to do with Merril Lynch discriminating against them as all brokers were on the same commission structure. Bizarre. There does seem to be an air of looking for racism where there is none.

sin_city

Strange that most of the white people in the States are descended from people who arrived with nothing after slavery ended yet they still must keep saying sorry.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

Strange that most of the white people in the States are descended from people who arrived with nothing after slavery ended yet they still must keep saying sorry.

History has a tendency to repeat itself so it's a very small price to pay for such an important lesson.

joseph brand

sin_city wrote: »

This happened yesterday....black guy shouts "I hate white people and thumps 3 random whites in the middle of NYC. A 62 year man that took care of his 92 year old mother died"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416446/Jeffrey-Babbit-dies-racist-hate-attack-stranger-Union-Square-New-York.html

This is not appearing anywhere in the media in the States, yet it seems to be similar to the Trayvon Martin thing, which is still getting coverage.

What's the reason for anti-white stuff in the US?

Why isn't Obama saying that this other black guy could have been his son?

I wonder what a black person living in a country built on slavery, could have against white people, hmmm. Slavery 'works' wonders for a country's economy. Go figure.

Of course there are better ways of dealing with they way blacks were, and still are treated in the US (stop and frisk).

The mayor and NYPD chief Ray Kelly claim that without the discredited tactic, New York will be overrun by crime. Baloney

What he's saying, is that if they can't just stop every black man in New York, the blacks will turn the city into something resembling 'Boyz n da Hood'. Nice. I've heard some commentators liken Ray Kelly to a fascist.

I'm guessing you are of the opinion that for one of us Irish, to be called a 'cracker', is just as bad as a black person being called a ni**er? One must remember the 'n' word carries a lot of weight and history behind it ,thus, it is orders of magnitude more offensive.

Most Irish people would be offended if the English said something derogatory about our wee country or her people. Mostly due to the fact that they 'visited' this land, caused a bit of trouble, overstayed their welcome and claimed the North as their own.

crockholm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Violence on blacks in America carries several hundred years of brutal repression, slavery and other nastiness with it

Hence a story of a white guy doing something bad to a black guy, especially in the US - will carry much more weight than vice-versa

News has to be "news-worthy", otherwise we'd be sitting through 7 hour news bulletins covering every murder, bomb, flood, etc in the world.

And I would imagine that if the story is true,then it would be newsworthy.The claim that people are assaulted because of their race should not be swept away,or simply countered with "well slavery......." whataboutery.

A man is dead because of his race.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

Strange that most of the white people in the States are descended from people who arrived with nothing after slavery ended yet they still must keep saying sorry.

Really? Like who, for instance?

Please be very exact in your answer. Name some names.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

Really? Like who, for instance?

Please be very exact in your answer. Name some names.

Why was slavery ever brought up here? Is it relevant?

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

Why was slavery ever brought up here? Is it relevant?

Sigh.

Exactly who, according to your own statement, "must keep saying sorry"?

It's quite a simple question.

sin_city

joseph brand wrote: »

I wonder what a black person living in a country built on slavery, could have against white people, hmmm. Slavery 'works' wonders for a country's economy. Go figure.

America was built on capitalism and liberty. The same thing that built up the economies of Japan and West Germany after WW2.

If slavery was the reason America became so strong economically, then all of the Americas, both continents, would be wealthy right now.

I am pretty sure that Canada didn't have the amount of slaves that Brazil or Jamaica did but it turned out ok.

joseph brand wrote: »

Most Irish people would be offended if the English said something derogatory about our wee country or her people. Mostly due to the fact that they 'visited' this land, caused a bit of trouble, overstayed their welcome and claimed the North as their own

This is as tired as black people blaming slavery in the US. Irish people ranting on about "de English".

Karl Stein

sin_city wrote: »

America was built on capitalism and liberty.

If by 'Capitalism' you mean 'the state' then I guess that's correct.

Cambridge University Professor Ha-Joon Chang argues that virtually all developed countries today successfully promoted their national industries through protectionism. Chang points to the significantly high tariffs of the UK, the US and other countries during their process of industrialization.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism#History

Also, denying that a thriving slave population, that reached nearly 4 million in 1860 making up more than 12% of the population, created vast wealth can only be evidence of a complete detachment from reality on the part of the denier.

sin_city

Charlie Rock wrote: »

If by 'Capitalism' you mean 'the state' then I guess that's correct.

You need to revise your history on the early years of the USA. The state had little or no involvement in the US. The individual states had much more power than today. There was no immigration policy until into the 20th century. Anyone could come and work. No social programs from the government. No income tax. The state made a very small part of the economy. Except for the Civil war it was less than 3% right up until world war 1.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/07/government-spending-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-2/

So, no, I don't mean 'the state' when I say capitalism. I mean capitalism. This is US politics...not USSR politics.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Also, denying that a thriving slave population, that reached nearly 4 million in 1860 making up more than 12% of the population, created vast wealth can only be evidence of a complete detachment from reality on the part of the denier.

No doubt that at the time it made many landowners and some Africans that sold the slaves very very rich. This is not the reason the US became a powerhouse though.

The slave population is Jamaica and Haiti was far bigger than 12%. Why didn't these countries prosper?

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

America was built on capitalism and liberty. The same thing that built up the economies of Japan and West Germany after WW2.

Really? So slavery, women not being able to vote, exterminating indigenous people, etc.. was liberty? Golly. That's certainly a bracingly unique take on history.

If slavery was the reason America became so strong economically, then all of the Americas, both continents, would be wealthy right now.

What a quaint and transparently vapid unsupported bare assertion.

I am pretty sure that Canada didn't have the amount of slaves that Brazil or Jamaica did but it turned out ok.

Apple, meet orange.

Mjollnir

Mjollnir wrote: »

Sigh.

Exactly who, according to your own statement, "must keep saying sorry"?

It's quite a simple question.

** Crickets **

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

Really? So slavery, women not being able to vote, exterminating indigenous people, etc.. was liberty? Golly. That's certainly a bracingly unique take on history.

Really yes. Capitalism is what made Hong Kong rich and China not during the second half of the last century. Slavery, women voting and indigenous people had nothing to do with success.

Indigenous were exterminated in South America too. Argentina is mostly white and it became the 5th largest economy by 1950 - no slaves either.

Mjollnir wrote: »

What a quaint and transparently vapid unsupported bare assertion.

Please specify what facts aren't in line with your reality.

Mjollnir wrote: »

Apple, meet orange.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

** Crickets **

The two other guys that posted after my initial post in this thread and in general the media.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

The two other guys that posted after my initial post in this thread and in general the media.

So, IOW, no one.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

Really yes. Capitalism is what made Hong Kong rich and China not during the second half of the last century. Slavery, women voting and indigenous people had nothing to do with success.

That's quite irrelevant to what I actually stated. Please read it again.

Indigenous were exterminated in South America too. Argentina is mostly white and it became the 5th largest economy by 1950 - no slaves either.

Ditto the irrelevancy.

Please specify what facts aren't in line with your reality.

Are you having trouble with the term 'unsupported bare assertion'? Do you need help with it?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.

Karl Stein

sin_city wrote: »

Really yes. Capitalism is what made Hong Kong rich and China not during the second half of the last century.

Your logical crevasses are awesome and indicative of the disconnect from reality of the unwitting 'capitalist' propagandist.

You're comparing a managed Capitalist city state to a former totalitarian communist nation of hundreds of millions of people.

My car is better than your herd of goats therefore I am correct.

sin_city

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Your logical crevasses are awesome and indicative of the disconnect from reality of the unwitting 'capitalist' propagandist.

You're comparing a managed Capitalist city state to a former totalitarian communist nation of hundreds of millions of people.

My car is better than your herd of goats therefore I am correct.

Capitalism seems to be a dirty word for you. Not sure why.

We are not living in capitalism right now. The US has slid from that a long time ago. Capitalism means competition. Can't have this with a monopoly on the money people use.

When I am comparing Hong Kong in the past to mainland China, I am highlighting where the people wanted to go. They were trying to get from China into HK....ok you can't figure that example.

The East Germans were trying to get into the West. The West Germans didn't have slaves last I checked.

If you're going to argue, you need to give a reason as to why I'm wrong other than pompous arrogance.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

That's quite irrelevant to what I actually stated. Please read it again.

Ditto the irrelevancy.

Are you having trouble with the term 'unsupported bare assertion'? Do you need help with it?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought.

What part of what I said is untrue?

I can provide the support....you've no argument to make. You haven't provided any support to your opinions.

Overheal

Why is Germany being dragged into this?

Lets go back and talk about your Liberty assertion.

To put not too fine a point on it, Jamaica is not nearly as vast as the United States, and could not possibly hope to have the same agriculture. Tobacco from Virginia. Textiles. Crops. The United States was the larges continuous land mass that the Western World really did business with and didn't have the same warring problems that Europe had during the same period. It also had that 4 million strong slave population to prop it up. Lets be honest.

Oh and speaking of Liberty, maybe you won't want to look up what we did to Mexico, or incidentally where the term Civil Disobedience was born. Yeah, we stole large swaths of land from the Mexicans. And ironically it wasn't very long at all after (months or maybe a year at most) that gold was discovered out in California and well holy ****. It was like someone was rewarding us for an unjust war that stomped on someone else's liberty.

No Im sorry sir. I just took American history this spring and our history is not rosy. Its rather depressing really, but its the truth. If you're interested, my text was called, ironically, Give Me Liberty! and thusly the book often discussed the rights of native Americans, Mexicans, slaves, and women during the progress of the national history.

Even today! The womens rights movement was don't get me wrong, great craic altogether, but the national economy is still kinda trying to figure out what to do now. The nuclear family doesn't really work for most people anymore. The pay structure is so radically different now that most households are designed to function well only with the aid of 2 adult incomes.

Anyway, isn't Capitalism and Liberty really off topic for this discussion? Isn't this all about Media Bias in regard to race? GUARDS!

Mjollnir

sin_city wrote: »

What part of what I said is untrue?

I can provide the support....you've no argument to make. You haven't provided any support to your opinions.

The part that is, again, an unsupported bare assertion.

My argument is that your argument is hollow, since you refuse to support it with data or relevant history, and you issue wildly speculative statements backed up by.......vapor. Nada.

I've made my argument. Why can't you do the same?

sin_city

Overheal wrote: »

Why is Germany being dragged into this?

Lets go back and talk about your Liberty assertion.

To put not too fine a point on it, Jamaica is not nearly as vast as the United States, and could not possibly hope to have the same agriculture. Tobacco from Virginia. Textiles. Crops. The United States was the larges continuous land mass that the Western World really did business with and didn't have the same warring problems that Europe had during the same period. It also had that 4 million strong slave population to prop it up. Lets be honest.

Oh and speaking of Liberty, maybe you won't want to look up what we did to Mexico, or incidentally where the term Civil Disobedience was born. Yeah, we stole large swaths of land from the Mexicans. And ironically it wasn't very long at all after (months or maybe a year at most) that gold was discovered out in California and well holy ****. It was like someone was rewarding us for an unjust war that stomped on someone else's liberty.

No Im sorry sir. I just took American history this spring and our history is not rosy. Its rather depressing really, but its the truth. If you're interested, my text was called, ironically, Give Me Liberty! and thusly the book often discussed the rights of native Americans, Mexicans, slaves, and women during the progress of the national history.

Even today! The womens rights movement was don't get me wrong, great craic altogether, but the national economy is still kinda trying to figure out what to do now. The nuclear family doesn't really work for most people anymore. The pay structure is so radically different now that most households are designed to function well only with the aid of 2 adult incomes.

Anyway, isn't Capitalism and Liberty really off topic for this discussion? Isn't this all about Media Bias in regard to race? GUARDS!

I'm not denying anything you are saying. My point is that slavery was not the reason America became an economic powerhouse.

Brazil also had slaves and is a large country. It had and has many natural resources. Why didn't it become a superpower?

The point of media bias I am highlighting is the difference between the Trayvon Martin case and the case of Jeffrey Babbitt.

Why the media insisted George Zimmerman was white is one thing but forgetting this, why isn't there the same amount of coverage over what happened Jeffrey Babbitt as there was to Trayvon Martin.

Why did the media allow blacks to say they feared against attacks from whites when in reality they should fear more from statistical data against attacks from blacks.

I don't think the media are depicting the news in an unbiased manner.

Overheal

sin_city wrote: »

I'm not denying anything you are saying. My point is that slavery was not the reason America became an economic powerhouse.

Brazil also had slaves and is a large country. It had and has many natural resources. Why didn't it become a superpower?

Similar to arguing, how can you say the reason this bread worked out so well was the inclusion of yeast? Brazil had yeast.

If Brazil lacked other ingredients to its economic success, that would be the problem. The same economic, political, and social movements were not altogether present in Brazil. That doesn't mean Brazil didn't also economically benefit from the use of slaves.

The point of media bias I am highlighting is the difference between the Trayvon Martin case and the case of Jeffrey Babbitt.

Why the media insisted George Zimmerman was white is one thing but forgetting this, why isn't there the same amount of coverage over what happened Jeffrey Babbitt as there was to Trayvon Martin.

Why did the media allow blacks to say they feared against attacks from whites when in reality they should fear more from statistical data against attacks from blacks.

I don't think the media are depicting the news in an unbiased manner.

If thats the thesis of your thread then there isn't much to discuss. Of course they portray a bias.

With regard to the Trayvon case, its well enough documented here that Im not going to rehash the situation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Media_coverage

I doubt the original goal was to exploit national policy so much as it was to distort a story in a reprehensible enough matter that people turned their televisions back on after the media's absurd handling of the Newtown CT shooting. Then the politicians did the rest, using it to further their own agendas. Between people leeching for ratings and leeching for policy change, it was quite the boondoggle.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

I don't think the media are depicting the news in an unbiased manner.

Which media specifically? there are thousands of outlets, ranging from state-run, to left-wing, right-wing and so on

Karl Stein

sin_city wrote: »

Capitalism seems to be a dirty word for you. Not sure why.

Not at all. My Spidey Senses tingle when people use the word Capitalism with gay abandon. I think capitalism would be great but the people in power do everything they can to prevent perfect competition.

We are not living in capitalism right now. The US has slid from that a long time ago. Capitalism means competition. Can't have this with a monopoly on the money people use.

Now we're getting there. Capitalism is an ideal. Distortion of the market is par for the course.

Consider this:

It’s time to start getting honest about a very simple fact: Nobody, but nobody, really believes in free markets. That’s right. Not the Republican Party, not the libertarians, not the Wall Street Journal, nobody.

Here’s why: a truly free market is a perfectly competitive market. Which means that whatever you have to sell in that market, so does your competition. Which means price war. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you.

Naturally, businesses flee perfectly competitive markets like the plague. In fact, the fine art of doing so is a big part of what they teach in business schools.

rwer.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/why-free-market-economics-is-a-fraud/

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

the people in power do everything they can to prevent perfect competition.

The "people in power", "the 1%", the "elite". A fictitious homogeneous group of fat colluding members in suits smoking cigars that gets scapegoated since time immemorial. Up there with "mainstream media".

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

The "people in power", "the 1%", the "elite". A fictitious homogeneous group of fat colluding members in suits smoking cigars that gets scapegoated since time immemorial. Up there with "mainstream media".

Yeah because people in power never collude with each other to create the conditions for war and economic gain. I think you're suffering from 'conspiracy phobia'. You're an 'innocence theorist' - which is perhaps more mental than a committed (no pun intended) conspiracy theorist.

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: “Do you actually think there’s a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?” For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together – on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot – though they call it “planning” and “strategizing” – and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

Michael Parenti.

As for the mainstream media, well, it's a fucking joke and anyone who takes it too seriously needs their head examined.

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Yeah because people in power never collude with each other to create the conditions for war and economic gain.

Really, I thought they were expending all their energy on stopping hypothetical economic theories..

I think you're suffering from 'conspiracy phobia'. You're an 'innocence theorist' - which is perhaps more mental than a committed (no pun intended) conspiracy theorist.

Nice theory

valknut

Jonny7 wrote: »

Violence on blacks in America carries several hundred years of brutal repression, slavery and other nastiness with it

Hence a story of a white guy doing something bad to a black guy, especially in the US - will carry much more weight than vice-versa

News has to be "news-worthy", otherwise we'd be sitting through 7 hour news bulletins covering every murder, bomb, flood, etc in the world.

Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves.

This video gives a good view why discrimination against whites happens in the US http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNiPoCGz8c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Also,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ULVECUrzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Jonny7

valknut wrote: »

Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves.

This video gives a good view why discrimination against whites happens in the US http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNiPoCGz8c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Also,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ULVECUrzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You do realise you just posted a video by a former Grand Wizard of the KKK, white supremacist and Holocaust denier on the subject of racism in a thread on media bias

sin_city

Did you disagree with valknuts assertion?

"Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves."

Overheal

sin_city wrote: »

Did you disagree with valknuts assertion?

"Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves."

I do.

The concept that only a minority of white people owned slaves,

Whatever way you wish to present the numbers, 4 million people were still enslaved. Shouldn't matter that they were owned by 100,000 people or 10 people.

Whether it was geographically centric to the southern states or not (and the northern states werent pious about it) is irrelevant. The country's entire economy benefited from the slavery. There was no such initiatives back in the day as fair trade coffee or dolphin free tuna or slave free tobacco and cotton and gin.

Again though I fail to see what influence slavery in the early history of the country still has on this conversation. Also, I already discussed the Martin case and the other cases provided in the youtube clip are all rather subjective, circumstantial, and add little to this debate, since its impossible to determine if there was actually a degree of appropriate media coverage for all of these incidents - though you would think there would be for the knowledge of these incidents to be compiled and pushed onto youtube.

SupaNova2

Overheal wrote: »

The country's entire economy benefited from the slavery.

Not really, forgetting that slaves didn't benefit from being slaves, the rest of the population of the country did not benefit in comparison to where they could have been. Bastiat's seen and the unseen, what you get to see is people using products made by slaves(hey look they benefit) what you don't see is the production that would have occurred if those enslaved were free.

If you believe that slaves are more productive than free men, fine, you can argue that it was not capitalism that made the US great but the slaves. I doubt most people believe that, some are just desperate for some argument against capitalism.

sin_city

Overheal wrote: »

I do.

The concept that only a minority of white people owned slaves,

Whatever way you wish to present the numbers, 4 million people were still enslaved. Shouldn't matter that they were owned by 100,000 people or 10 people.

Whether it was geographically centric to the southern states or not (and the northern states werent pious about it) is irrelevant. The country's entire economy benefited from the slavery. There was no such initiatives back in the day as fair trade coffee or dolphin free tuna or slave free tobacco and cotton and gin.

Again though I fail to see what influence slavery in the early history of the country still has on this conversation. Also, I already discussed the Martin case and the other cases provided in the youtube clip are all rather subjective, circumstantial, and add little to this debate, since its impossible to determine if there was actually a degree of appropriate media coverage for all of these incidents - though you would think there would be for the knowledge of these incidents to be compiled and pushed onto youtube.

The fact is that there is an apologetic media in the West in relation to blacks and this has roots in slavery. Not only were most of the modern day inhabitants (aside from blacks) of the US not related to the slave owners from the past but also it is likely that they ancestors of many whites that currently live in the the USA were themselves victims of the imperial powers in some way or form. For example ourselves and the Poles.

Slavery seems to be interpreted as a mostly Western phenomenon, however if you look more closely you will see that slavery was ended by Western powers. It continued in the Ottoman Empire long after it had ended in the US.
From the pressure of European powers throughout the world, slavery declined and ended (some slavery still exists even today).

Blacks were not the only victims of slavery and certainly not only blacks in the south of the US.
Slavery did not truly end in the Philippines until the USA took over after the Spanish American war in the early 1900s.

So given the fact that slavery was a worldwide phenomenon, it can be assumed that this was not the reason for the economic power of the USA.

It is a legitimate question to ask what is the reason for the media bias and why does it exist?

Karl Stein

Jonny7 wrote: »

Really, I thought they were expending all their energy on stopping hypothetical economic theories..

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations: Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

This week, it has been revealed that Charles and David Koch and their wealthy partners funded an, until now, “secret bank” that made “grants” of $236 million during the 2012 election cycle to maintain the right-wing political infrastructure that advances their economic interests. And by all accounts, they’re just getting started.

www.thenation.com

Jonny7

Charlie Rock wrote: »

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations: Book III, Chapter IV, pg.448

Nice quote, but he never saw modern day Sweden.

InTheTrees

You don't have to own a slave to be a bigot.

Racial intolerance in the Usa is deep and widespread. You come across it a lot and I live in the liberal Pacific northwest.

I think its easy to forget that segregation lasted it'll the 60's too.

Jonny7

sin_city wrote: »

The fact is that there is an apologetic media in the West in relation to blacks and this has roots in slavery.

It has it's roots in slavery, segregation, lynchings, and outright racism. The guilt is embedded in the social fabric of the country, not just the media.

Again, a German adopting a racist attitude against a Jew is a very sensitive issue as it evokes historical context. Yet turn the situation around and it seems almost harmless.

It's certainly not going to change for a long time.

Amerika

Has Time magazine officially become a PR vehicle of the Obama administration?

The recent European, Asian, and South Pacific covers of Time magazine have a picture of Vladimir Putin, with a caption that says "America’s weak and waffling, Russia’s rich and resurgent."

The same US issue has a cover of bright blue skies and a football player, with the caption "It’s time to pay college athletes."

Most often the covers of Time magazine are uniform.

Is there really any doubt the majority of the US media is in the tank for this administration?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/time-mag-hides-putins-success-from-u-s-voters/

Corkfeen

sin_city wrote: »

Did you disagree with valknuts assertion?

"Slavery in America was predominantly in the South and even then it was only a small minority of white people who owned slaves."

Strongly, his entire basis for his argument originates from a racist who wishes to rewrite history and stick to the denial of Americas past in terms of slavery. These are the stats in terms of the Southern population and slave ownership.

http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
And a map on it

http://www.census.gov/history/pdf/1860_slave_distribution.pdf

So around a third of the population were used as slaves,this doesn't strike me as a minor instance. While the North had less Slavery and historically has been viewed as more free, slavery still existed in them. Would you trust a US Census more or the Grand Wizard?