Well, it is no wonder people are entranced by freedom by a majority that would allow it.

I do understand when race is called out, we are racists. Some folks want to be allowed their racism. I do get the freedom angle, but I do not think we would have the progress we have without legislation to say no discrimination in public square. It gives a person of any color the opportunity to file a lawsuit and show his case that he is the victim of racism.

I do think it is inflammatory, but I think we would not have the integration the youth have today, which IS becoming a SORT of color blindness.

It is inflammatory because of backlashes that occur. The Civil Rights Act came out of Black outcry for Jim Crow discrimination. The struggle had many casualties and that is the backlash and discord.

Today, we hear an outcry of grievances by Whites, I hear people say White males are feeling they are losing, particularly.

I kind of get that, but the Civil Rights law of 1964 seems to have no racial preference, that I detect. Minorities can say, I want to sue for discrimination, here is my case, jury, judge. What stops a White person from doing the same?

It comes down to in the end, the court has the final word, so the law is about if someone has a complaint, file a lawsuit. Just as there have been any other race or skin color. White skin is skin color, so if it is racial discrimination, file a suit, nothing stops it, unless there is no harm evident or proven based on racial discrimination.

I think the thing is, the law sets foundation that you cannot discriminate based on race, skin color, sex or nationality. I know that is abhorrent to those of all races, they want to be allowed their racism. There will always be racial prejudice, whether White on Black or Black on White or any other combination.

It doesn't say Black people only. I do get that people want to stop the racial talk, there is a very emotional thing that has baggage that is just unpleasant. I wish us all luck on that to treat people equally.

That seems to be the issue for Libertarians. I get it, but without it, we would not have made inroads to interracial schools, workplaces, neighborhoods and social events. There would be less "I know that PERSON" and less fear/hate because of it.

I do not know how if you allow segregation to continue, how that is equal and there is how I see it.

We legislate behavior every day, so how does it harm someone that does not like a race to have guidelines of behavior? They can exclude this race or that race, but how is that equal protection of the laws? If it is proven to be discriminatory and show harm or pattern of harm, then that is the law. If you think you are entitled to your racism, then see the consequences of the behavior, in a legal setting. What happened, did someone say I hate (X) or did they throw a brick through a window?

There was a requirement to integrate, unfortunately causing strife and casualties.

I just know the people were suffering under Jim Crow, there was a large contingency that stuck their neck out and show of solidarity, asking for /demanding equal rights. What to do? Is it right to allow those people to be left in less than equal status, with no law to restore rights? No equal means equal, not preference to one. There is the rub, how to enforce without preference?

It is a shame to define a person by race, but many want to keep their culture. Where is a balance point?

It's a shame we need a law, when equal protection of the laws is right there. Not, just "certain people" and up to the state as to which people that are equally protected, hired, where they live, who gets to buy/rent a house in which neighborhood. The schools would follow the rental and real estate laws, but how is it equal to say, you cannot buy in this area? We have financial opportunity with the schooling, hiring, real estate laws, that forms a current of improvement. Is it still needed? Not sure when we can call it fair if people insist on rationalizing weeding out this race or that one.

I can only imagine that if Whites want to file a suit, they can. Let a jury decide and if it is racial discrimination, then deal with it. There has been a history of White privilege and if there IS something unfair racially, the law is there, not specifically just for Blacks.

One day, we may get past this but there is no perfect solution. I do not agree to allow discrimination to continue, some disagree. Maybe we could discuss how the law of Affirmative Action may be racial preference or is it still valid that extra points to offset privileges or biases. We have legacy points because of parentage. I have to say, grades are essential. If someone wants to go to college (X) and is denied, they may have a case for racial discrimination. I know that there are traditionally Black or traditionally White colleges. If one is excluded today against their will, there can be remedy. There is definitely a system that is going to aggravate someone, somewhere, sometime.

I do not know all the answers, but I believe without Civil Rights Act, we still had state by state institutionalized discrimination. With it, we have youth more accepting of people, regardless of race. We have done SOMETHING that has answered the demand and seems to help desegregate and improve opportunities for more people.

I just know the theory is what Thom says here. The majority rule, leaves minorities out and feeling suppressed by power. Money is power, leaving a few with most money to continue having power over those having less, increasingly creating tyranny by the few over the many. Which is in essence, royalty.

LINK to documentary!!

Here is the link to the PBS page for the documentary I stayed up till 4AM watching-I HIGHLY recommend it!! The similarities to WHERE Republicans could take us are horrifying!! (ie: income disparity, un-affordable healthcare and un-affordable privatized educational system, as well as unregulated manufacturing leading to irreversible pollution)

http://www.pbs.org/kqed/chinainside/about.html

ottomine is our member of the day

He wrote on our daily blog that he's requesting votes and help.

"Am requesting votes and help. The question of the day for our regional newspaper The Independent in Grand Island, NE is -- Should Nebraska adopt an illegal immigration law similar to the one in Arizona? The vote as of now is 497, 84% yes, 16% no.

We have an active tea (baggers) party in the area and would like to see a more rational response to this poll. One member from St. Paul. where we are from, was on televison news program and called Spanish Americans "wet backs". Please help if you can."

Here's the site - http://theindependent.com

The Libertarians need to put down their copies of Atlas Shrugged annd The Fountainhead, and pick up any book by Carlos Castenada. Their claim that reality is a completely objective phenomena is ABSOLUTELY flawed. The reality of MY life, as a gainfully employed engineer, living in a quiet suburban village is NOT the same as the reality of the life of an unemployed, lifelong ghetto-dwelling male of the same age. Much of what I can depend upon in my life is simply unavailable to him in his. The objectivist, libertartians will tell you that all the opportunities I took advantage of in building my life were also available to him to build his. Do YOU buy that line of crap? I sure don't!

Am requesting votes and help. The question of the day for our regional newspaper The Independent in Grand Island, NE is -- Should Nebraska adopt an illegal immigration law similar to the one in Arizona? The vote as of now is 497, 84% yes and 92, 16% no.

We have an active tea (baggers) party in the area and would like to see a more rational response to this poll. One member from St. Paul. where we are from, was on televison news program and called Spanish Americans "wet backs". Please help if you can.

Thom, you missed an opportunity.

When Mr. "I got my PhD from Columbia studying selfishness" challenged you regarding his time on air, you should have told him: "Well, it's my show."

Not the fairness we'd expect, but it fits right into how he perceives a business can act toward specific customers.

Thom, a point needs to be made. Those young men who staged a sit-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter... they *did* serve black people, just not at the lunch counter.

That day, all the booths were full. But even though the counter was empty, they were denied the right to sit there. In protest, they sat at the counter and refused to leave... similar to Rosa Park's refusal to move from her seat on the bus.

So the argument that businesses should be allowed to discriminate is nonsense and completely misses the point. This was an issue of EQUAL ACCESS, "equal treatment", not about barring "service". Your caller (and Mr. Paul) are going WELL BEYOND the established behavior of the time. Paul believes that if you deny people service, "the Market" will force them to change their ways. Problem was, they WERE serving blacks, just not treating them equally. And only just enough not to significantly impact their business.

(If 100 years following Emancipation wasn't enough time for "Market pressure" to force busineses to change their ways, what makes these Libertarians think it ever would?)

There has been a lot of discussion today about the loss of jobs. Late last week, Tessla Motors announced that they are partnering with Toyota, and reopening the NUMI plant in Fremont, CA. This is not all good news, because when Toyota and GM shut the NUMI plant down, 5000 jobs were lost, and when it reopens, only 1000 jobs will be created, but hey, it is better than nothing. A fast, high milage electric car is an interesting new product. They are hoping to drop the price of a Tessla from $100,000 to $50,000. I am hoping that Tessla will teach Toyota how to build a pluggable Prius. Here is something to watch for. This Wednesday, President Obama will be visiting a new solar panel plant that is under construction next door to the NUMI plant.

@Mysterious Floating Head: does anybody REALLY know what day it is??

Studs Terkel spoke at Northern Illinois University a few years ago. During the Q&A session, an audience member started repeating libertarian dogma, and Terkel turned his back with a dismissive wave of his hand and the statement, "sure, you and General Motors have the same power at the bargaining table."

I mss Terkel; what a powerful person.

Hmmm.... It could be that whites don't need to immigrate. Satisfaction is such a nasty element in the equation.

I suggest the word "oppress" rather than "discriminate."