Why has the ascent of a bunch of people who in an earlier period might have been called Micks drawn no notice at all? ... By the 1960s, however, Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, had finally made it and become fully “white,” a long process indeed. Having fought their way to full inclusion, many were intent on pulling up the drawbridge.
To get at the special role of Irishmen, we need to examine “how the Irish became white,” as in the title of Noel Ignatiev’s 1995 book ...
... Jump forward to the present. Outside of the impoverished anomaly of Whitey Bulger’s Boston and some points north (think Dennis Lehane, The Fighter , Manchester By the Sea ), Irish America has lost virtually all its distinctive qualities, becoming just one more version of whiteness colored by ethnicity.
Well, IMHO they kind of do not have any, an opinion shared by many of my liberated African American friends who, ironically, fear the reprecussion feedback they would expect to voice said honest opinion...
That's racist, you are not supposed to tell anyone you have Arican American friends or you will be deemed racist. ;-)
A ha! A racist purest! I knew it! Well, in the vernacular let me leave you wit dis...I loves me some black peoples...
Well, IMHO they kind of do not have any, an opinion shared by many of my liberated African American friends who, ironically, fear the reprecussion feedback they would expect to voice said honest opinion...
Â
That's racist, you are not supposed to tell anyone you have Arican American friends or you will be deemed racist. ;-)
i thought i just heard that black lives matter was protesting the aclu on free speech
what?
and that they said liberalism is white supremacy?
how in the hell do they get that?
chances are if you're reading this you're a white supremacist?
this is not good
how are these folks supposed to have any credibility?
Well, IMHO they kind of do not have any, an opinion shared by many of my liberated African American friends who, ironically, fear the repercussion feedback they would expect to voice said honest opinion...
Interesting discussion. I grew up listening to Nazi occupation stories. My grandfather was a capo terrorist who went on to be a very successful businessman with conservative political leanings. He was also one of the most civil persons I have ever known.
I quickly figured out that my mother's use of the term 'hate' was very different from my spoiled Canadian class mates who 'hated' this or that.
Maybe the USA should be occupied by a foreign power to regain perspective? —————————————————————————————-
I looked up Charles Murray and found this on the wiki-page:
On March 2, 2017, Murray was shouted down at Middlebury College (Middlebury, Vermont) by students and others not connected with the school, and prevented from speaking at the original location on campus. The speech was moved to another location and a closed circuit broadcast showed him being interviewed by professor Allison Stanger. After the interview, there was a violent confrontation between protesters and Murray, Vice President for Communications Bill Burger, and Stanger (who was hospitalized with a neck injury and concussion) as they left the McCullough Student Center. Middlebury students claimed that Middlebury Public Safety officers instigated and escalated violence against nonviolent protesters and that administrator Bill Burger assaulted protesters with a car. Middlebury President Laurie L. Patton responded after the event, saying the school would respond to "the clear violations of Middlebury College policy that occurred inside and outside Wilson Hall." The school took disciplinary action against 67 students for their involvement in the incident.
On a purely emotional level, I would have been tempted to shave the heads of these students and then parade them through campus as disgraced Nazis.
You make a good point. I wonder if they began putting assets for their nest egg in offshore accounts from the beginning, or only began doing so recently?
Are they being injudicious or engaging in hype with the "hate group" label? Which groups that have been so-labeled do you feel don't deserve the label?
According to the article posted it began no later than 2014, but the nature of offshore accounts makes them harder to track. Unless they come clean there may be no way to know what their offshore books look like.
The biggest problem with the SPLC's criteria for being listed as a hate group is how vague and squishy it is. From their web site:
"All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." And both "attack" and "malign" seem to be very flexible verbs.
"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing." Well, golly—hard to think of an activist organization not engaged in marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.
A more conventional definition would be groups that advocate violence. SPLC lists organizations like the Family Research Council, which promotes anti-gay initiatives, but not other organizations (like, say, the Mormon church) that back the same initiatives and take pretty much identical positions, The Family Research Council doesn't have the resources to sue the SPLC for libel, and that may figure in to whom they pick on. FRC formed in 1981 but SPLC didn't list them as a hate group until 2010. Did something change between those two dates? Not at the FRC.
Opposition to gay marriage seems to be enough to label you an anti-gay extremist...depending on who you are. It didn't get Barrack Obama labeled as such (before he changed positions in 2012) or Hillary Clinton (2013). The SPLC has gone on several tirades against the NRA (here's one) labeling them as extremists and anti-Muslim (among other things)...but hasn't quite had the courage to officially list them.
Anti-feminist/conservative political groups like the late Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum get tagged, as do anti-immigration groups. In fact SPLC counts every single Eagle Forum chapter as a separate extremist group to pump the numbers up.
They labeled Charles Murray as a "white nationalist", which is so absurd it would be funny if it hadn't lead to threats to his life and limb.
On balance I'm glad they're around. They are taking on an important role tracking legitimate threats, but by conflating conservative political views with hate they are diluting the impact they could be having.
The listing of salaries is the least-troubling aspect of the report; they aren't out of line with other (large) nonprofits and they are pitifully small compared to what the same people could command in private or corporate practice.
They are a 501 C(3) entity. They don't pay taxes. Moving vast sums of money to the Cayman Islands makes it easier to avoid oversight on that money, so as a donor that makes me suspicious—I see no legitimate reason for that, and I'll remind you how tight it would wind your knickers if a for-profit entity were behaving like this.
Spending 68% of revenue on programs isn't horrible for a non-profit but not exemplary either. I suspect (given the sums moving offshore) that there is some creative accounting defining the words "revenue" and "programs", but even that isn't the most troubling thing about the SPLC's behavior.
They are squandering their credibility by labeling people with politics they disagree with as "hate groups". That dilutes the term and softens the blows they need to deliver to legitimately dangerous groups. They've done great things in the past, and the need for watchdogs like them has never been greater, but they are pulling their own fangs by crying wolf at every barking dog.
You make a good point. I wonder if they began putting assets for their nest egg in offshore accounts from the beginning, or only began doing so recently?
Are they being injudicious or engaging in hype with the "hate group" label? Which groups that have been so-labeled do you feel don't deserve the label?
This strikes me as more of a hit piece than credible journalism.
He's got some tepid scare quotes, but where is the context? He could have easily done some digging on the hundreds/thousands of other 501(c)3 nonprofits in the US, both conservative, progressive, nonpartisan, etc. to buttress his insinuations, i.e. to find out if other such orgs. hold offshore assets, how much their salaries for top employees tend to be, etc.
The inclusion of editorializing comments and criticisms from anti-LGBT organizations it has labeled "Hate groups" (not sure how that's not true) seems to be fairly irrelevant to the issue of whether what they are doing is a) unusual, b) illegal, or c) unethical.
They seem to have been upfront about wanting to have a nest egg stashed away to deal with the vagaries of fundraising, and started decades ago. Not surprising that like many businesses and entities, they want to shelter their assets from taxes if possible. From Wikipedia:
"The SPLC's activities, including litigation, are supported by fundraising efforts, and it does not accept any fees or share in legal judgements awarded to clients it represents in court. Starting in 1974, the SPLC set aside money for its endowment stating that it was "convinced that the day come when non-profit groups no longer be able to rely on support through mail because of posting and printing costs". For 2016, its endowment was approximately $319 million per its annual report and SPLC spent 68% of its revenue on programs."
The listing of salaries is the least-troubling aspect of the report; they aren't out of line with other (large) nonprofits and they are pitifully small compared to what the same people could command in private or corporate practice.
They are a 501 C(3) entity. They don't pay taxes. Moving vast sums of money to the Cayman Islands makes it easier to avoid oversight on that money, so as a donor that makes me suspicious—I see no legitimate reason for that, and I'll remind you how tight it would wind your knickers if a for-profit entity were behaving like this.
Spending 68% of revenue on programs isn't horrible for a non-profit but not exemplary either. I suspect (given the sums moving offshore) that there is some creative accounting defining the words "revenue" and "programs", but even that isn't the most troubling thing about the SPLC's behavior.
They are squandering their credibility by labeling people with politics they disagree with as "hate groups". That dilutes the term and softens the blows they need to deliver to legitimately dangerous groups. They've done great things in the past, and the need for watchdogs like them has never been greater, but they are pulling their own fangs by crying wolf at every barking dog.
I'm very disappointed in them taking this action. I wasn't bothered by the salaries or the percentage spent on programs (although the percentage could have been higher). In general it just looks bad, and especially in this circumstance it is important to not raise questions unnecessarily. I hope the attention gets them to step back and rethink it and be more aware of the perceptions of their actions. I'll be holding back further donations until then. Plenty of other places doing solid work in this realm that also need support.
This strikes me as more of a hit piece than credible journalism.
He's got some tepid scare quotes, but where is the context? He could have easily done some digging on the hundreds/thousands of other 501(c)3 nonprofits in the US, both conservative, progressive, nonpartisan, etc. to buttress his insinuations, i.e. to find out if other such orgs. hold offshore assets, how much their salaries for top employees tend to be, etc.
The inclusion of editorializing comments and criticisms from anti-LGBT organizations it has labeled "Hate groups" (not sure how that's not true) seems to be fairly irrelevant to the issue of whether what they are doing is a) unusual, b) illegal, or c) unethical.
They seem to have been upfront about wanting to have a nest egg stashed away to deal with the vagaries of fundraising, and started decades ago. Not surprising that like many businesses and entities, they want to shelter their assets from taxes if possible. From Wikipedia:
"The SPLC's activities, including litigation, are supported by fundraising efforts, and it does not accept any fees or share in legal judgements awarded to clients it represents in court. Starting in 1974, the SPLC set aside money for its endowment stating that it was "convinced that the day come when non-profit groups no longer be able to rely on support through mail because of posting and printing costs". For 2016, its endowment was approximately $319 million per its annual report and SPLC spent 68% of its revenue on programs."
The listing of salaries is the least-troubling aspect of the report; they aren't out of line with other (large) nonprofits and they are pitifully small compared to what the same people could command in private or corporate practice.
They are a 501 C(3) entity. They don't pay taxes. Moving vast sums of money to the Cayman Islands makes it easier to avoid oversight on that money, so as a donor that makes me suspicious—I see no legitimate reason for that, and I'll remind you how tight it would wind your knickers if a for-profit entity were behaving like this.
Spending 68% of revenue on programs isn't horrible for a non-profit but not exemplary either. I suspect (given the sums moving offshore) that there is some creative accounting defining the words "revenue" and "programs", but even that isn't the most troubling thing about the SPLC's behavior.
They are squandering their credibility by labeling people with politics they disagree with as "hate groups". That dilutes the term and softens the blows they need to deliver to legitimately dangerous groups. They've done great things in the past, and the need for watchdogs like them has never been greater, but they are pulling their own fangs by crying wolf at every barking dog.
A reasonably intelligent person would have to ask themselves if any of this 'hit piece' is true outside of the side show equivocation and resourceful apologetics...It's a bit disturbing and disappointing if not illuminating. Wish I had the time to look further. I always respected this organization for taking on the 'Klan' but it seems like as in everything else, money spoils the day again... Admittedly I'm not clearly informed if my shallow perception is askew to reality in this case.
We probably all want to think the best of both people and organizations we admire, and are ready to think the worst of organizations we don't like. I remember hearing the NPR story on the Red Cross' efforts in Haiti where they spent 500 million with little to show for it. People have brought this up in suggesting that folks not donate to ARC to help Houston victims of Harvey. Established in 1881 by Clara Barton, it has, as someone pointed out, "name recognition to die for". Morris Dees, who founded SPLC, has a similarly heroic stature in the mind of the public. His personal story paints him as a Saint Paul type convert to the fight against racism.
Maybe too much success, growth, and attendant bureaucracy is likely to diminish the virtue and effectiveness of any public service organization over time.
This strikes me as more of a hit piece than credible journalism.
He's got some tepid scare quotes, but where is the context? He could have easily done some digging on the hundreds/thousands of other 501(c)3 nonprofits in the US, both conservative, progressive, nonpartisan, etc. to buttress his insinuations, i.e. to find out if other such orgs. hold offshore assets, how much their salaries for top employees tend to be, etc.
The inclusion of editorializing comments and criticisms from anti-LGBT organizations it has labeled "Hate groups" (not sure how that's not true) seems to be fairly irrelevant to the issue of whether what they are doing is a) unusual, b) illegal, or c) unethical.
They seem to have been upfront about wanting to have a nest egg stashed away to deal with the vagaries of fundraising, and started decades ago. Not surprising that like many businesses and entities, they want to shelter their assets from taxes if possible. From Wikipedia:
"The SPLC's activities, including litigation, are supported by fundraising efforts, and it does not accept any fees or share in legal judgements awarded to clients it represents in court. Starting in 1974, the SPLC set aside money for its endowment stating that it was "convinced that the day come when non-profit groups no longer be able to rely on support through mail because of posting and printing costs". For 2016, its endowment was approximately $319 million per its annual report and SPLC spent 68% of its revenue on programs."
A reasonably intelligent person would have to ask themselves if any of this 'hit piece' is true outside of the side show equivocation and resourceful apologetics...It's a bit disturbing and disappointing if not illuminating. Wish I had the time to look further. I always respected this organization for taking on the 'Klan' but it seems like as in everything else, money spoils the day again... Admittedly I'm not clearly informed if my shallow perception is askew to reality in this case.
This strikes me as more of a hit piece than credible journalism.
He's got some tepid scare quotes, but where is the context? He could have easily done some digging on the hundreds/thousands of other 501(c)3 nonprofits in the US, both conservative, progressive, nonpartisan, etc. to buttress his insinuations, i.e. to find out if other such orgs. hold offshore assets, how much their salaries for top employees tend to be, etc.
The inclusion of editorializing comments and criticisms from anti-LGBT organizations it has labeled "Hate groups" (not sure how that's not true) seems to be fairly irrelevant to the issue of whether what they are doing is a) unusual, b) illegal, or c) unethical.
They seem to have been upfront about wanting to have a nest egg stashed away to deal with the vagaries of fundraising, and started decades ago. Not surprising that like many businesses and entities, they want to shelter their assets from taxes if possible. From Wikipedia:
"The SPLC's activities, including litigation, are supported by fundraising efforts, and it does not accept any fees or share in legal judgements awarded to clients it represents in court. Starting in 1974, the SPLC set aside money for its endowment stating that it was "convinced that the day come when non-profit groups no longer be able to rely on support through mail because of posting and printing costs".<117> For 2016, its endowment was approximately $319 million per its annual report and SPLC spent 68% of its revenue on programs.<1>"
Left-wing nonprofit pays lucrative six-figure salaries to top management
Tax experts expressed confusion when being told of the transfer.
"I've never known a US-based nonprofit dealing in human rights or social services to have any foreign bank accounts," said Amy Sterling Casil, CEO of Pacific Human Capital, a California-based nonprofit consulting firm. "My impression based on prior interactions is that they have a small, modestly paid staff, and were regarded by most in the industry as frugal and reliable. I am stunned to learn of transfers of millions to offshore bank accounts. It is a huge red flag and would have been completely unacceptable to any wealthy, responsible, experienced board member who was committed to a charitable mission who I ever worked with."
"It is unethical for any US-based charity to invest large sums of money overseas," said Casil. "I know of no legitimate reason for any US-based nonprofit to put money in overseas, unregulated bank accounts."
"It seems extremely unusual for a ‘501(c)(3)' concentrating upon reducing poverty in the American South to have multiple bank accounts in tax haven nations," Charles Ortel, a former Wall Street analyst and financial advisor who helped uncover a 2009 financial scandal at General Electric, told the Free Beacon.
Jack Johnson knocked out Jim Jeffries, and black people were murdered for it
(...) The fight itself made for an odd pairing. Jack Johnson was the world’s premier up-and-comer. Born in Galveston, Texas, the son of two former slaves, he had shaken the sporting public when he won the heavyweight championship in Sydney, Australia two years before.
Johnson - witty, charismatic, rich, well-dressed, and apparently unstoppable - practically dared an uneasy white public to find a counterweight. “But one thing remains,” wrote novelist Jack London who reported with dread on the boxer’s Australian victory, “(retired boxer Jim) Jeffries must emerge from his alfalfa farm and wipe that smile from Johnson’s face.”
Though a fearsome heavyweight boxer in his day, Jim Jeffries’s prime was behind him, having quit boxing six years before to spend his days on his Burbank ranch. Yet Jeffries, who had always refused to fight black opponents, was finally persuaded to come out of retirement (the $101,000 purse ($3.7 million today) helped). He was billed as “the great white hope.”
It was easy for a fighter in his prime like Johnson to welcome the high-profile fight. He loved the spotlight, and was known for his sharp dressing and wit, and in some sense anticipated the time when star athletes would become above all entertainers, ready to perform on stage and pose for the camera. (In Johnson’s case, he appeared in a string of vaudeville shows in the months leading up to the fight.) And this new match was shaping up to be the fight of his career. (...)
