LoverGirl, there is a basic math problem to not restoring some of the taxes to those profiting over $250,000 (and remember the increase is only on the part over $250K). If you look at the numbers, it would be VERY difficult to do any deficit/debt reduction without increased revenues. A huge part of this problem are the expensive wars, especially the ill-conceived Iraq War, that many people who make over $250,000 supported. Now they have to be paid for, and that shouldn't be done by (a) reducing the Social Security benefits on people who paid into it (robbing Americans to pay for wars the wealthy wanted?? or (b) attacking the social safety to dangerous levels. The president is ready to reduce entitlements (and has already shrunk government more than any recent predecessors), but you can't reduce social problems enough to actually reduce the debt without increasing revenue.

Check out this graph:
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/20…

By the way, we closed a different story by the Associated Press earlier in which it reported that both men pled guilty in the Anderson case; they didn't. Here's AP's alert on its correction, verbatim:

jackson, Miss. (AP) — The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about two white men who pleaded guilty to hate crimes in the fatal rundown of a black man in Mississippi.

William Montgomery pleaded guilty to two hate crime counts — one involving the fatal rundown of James Craig Anderson and the other involving the assault of another black man, who was not identified in court documents.

Jonathan Gaskamp pleaded guilty to two hate crime counts in the assault of the unidentified black man. He did not plead guilty in the death of Anderson.

Remarkable cruelty; this is akin to the night-riding days of old:

> Beginning in the spring of 2011,
> Montgomery, Gaskamp and others
> conspired with one another to harass
> and assault African-Americans in and
> around Jackson. On numerous occasions,
> the co-conspirators used dangerous
> weapons, including beer bottles, sling
> shots and motor vehicles, to cause,
> and attempt to cause, bodily injury to
> African-Americans, specifically
> targeting those they believed to be
> homeless or under the influence of
> alcohol because they believed that
> such individuals would be less likely
> to report an assault. Additionally,
> the co-conspirators would often boast
> about these racially motivated
> assaults. [...]
>
> According to plea documents presented
> in court today, the defendants engaged
> in a series of racially-motivated
> assaults in and around Jackson. On one
> occasion, Montgomery, Gaskamp, Deryl
> Paul Dedmon, John Aaron Rice and two
> other co-conspirators chased down and
> stopped an African-American man’s
> vehicle and then beat the man to the
> point that he begged for his life.
> Gaskamp kicked the victim in the head
> and body at least two times.

Wait. What?! You want to throw things at me because Mississippi has a bad race reputation?! Talk about attacking the messenger, dude.

Why would they be? It's their individual religious beliefs; they don't get to push them on their employees. Same logic applies.

Of course it's accurate. The fact that Obama agreed with the need in crisis to extend the Bush tax cuts until 2012 (now) in order to stimulate the economy does not change anything about the fact that the debt is largely made up of cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and his tax cuts in the first place. It's bad business: spend, spend, spend and lower your revenues.

Wow, everyone look at [Nate Silver's new blog post][1]: Mississippi may be surprising the nation on votes for Obama. Will post the image below, too, but go there to read more. I tend to disagree with his guess that it's because of Katrina; if you look at Ronni's story/graphics above, you'll see that the Gulf Coast was solid red. The truth is, parts of Mississippi are becoming more progressive as many of us know; the rest of the nation will start to catch on at some point.

[1]: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co…

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photo…

My point isn't that this facility is a problem; I don't know enough to say that, and I'm not. My whole point is that y'all's flippant comments that they should not use the phrase "white community" is misplaced. You would sound less race-obsessed if you would focus on whether or not the facility is good for their community -- especially since it sounds like you know something about it. In other words, offer something useful instead of mildly offensive race jokes about dalmatians and such. Ew.

Notmuch, you're the one who posted this:

*Just wait--if the shelter actually opens, and more white poodles than black labs are taken in, you can bet Mrs. Stokes will be protesting with renewed vigor! I'm not sure how she would feel about dalmations...*

The point about the fake names is that the people who obsess about race the most online are inevitably guys who are afraid to attach their names to posts such as that one. I applaud you for revealing your name after being called out for it. As for gleaning something about you from your email address, we can tell who almost everyone who posts here is from your email addresses. If I referred to something your email address indicated, it was because it indicated it. Hopefully, you're not using a fake one. And there was no need to "factcheck" the impression that your email address indicated--being that I didn't reveal who you are.

I figure people who want to have the most serious conversations use their real names. Of those you mention, several of them openly reveal who they are on the site (such as Brian Johnson). And most of them do not come here to troll and belittle.

As for the Stokeses being "racist," that's an incorrect descriptor. They do display a certain bigotry toward white people, no doubt. (He wrote a long attack column in the Jackson Advocate toward me, showing all sorts of bigotry, because I dared call him out.) But that doesn't mean that bigotry is the same thing as racism. The Stokeses are not part of a majority culture that has the power to systemically discriminate against white people -- nor do they really seem to try.

Watering down the meaning of "racism" to apply to every bigoted word or act is one of the huge problems we have in our nation today when it comes to racial healing. Many do it on purpose; many others don't know any better, and want to believe it's all the same thing. I'm assume you're among the latter, based on your earlier flippant comments.

It's important to understand that the very act of drawing a distinction between things that happen in their neighborhood and a "white" one is not racism; it is simply free speech that you might find offensive. The fact is that many things are not accepted in "white(r)" communities that poor communities of color have to put up with. We could start, say, with a discussion of dangerous railroad tracks if we wanted to have a serious conversation about it. There is *nothing* wrong with talking about how things are done differently in different communities based on who lives there, their race, their economic situation and their clout. It may be convenient for you to say you don't notice those things -- but that also means that you are choosing not to notice the problems associated with disparities, and that means our communities will never be equal enough not to have the conversations. In other words, we must talk about it until we don't have to any longer, and we sure aren't there, yet.