When it comes to a discussion about race, the Democratic Party, in general, wants to dictate the rules of the discussion.

That way the Party can create non-falsifiable arguments which prove that the Democratic Party is superior to the Republican Party when it comes to race.

Anything goes in order to keep the Democratic Party propped up on its pedestal.

Son? I am old enough to be your younger, and much better looking brother. I did see the film, which is why I say it was a foot stomp, then he walked away. History is written by the victor.

The Goldwater statement was for the other rightwing nut job

Luxury Condo in Manhattan Will Have a ‘Poor Door’ for Low-Income Tenants
The 33-story tower received approval from the city to have a separate entrance for affordable-housing tenants.
13 COMMENTS13 COMMENTS



A A A
Email
Print

Photo Credit: Shutterstock/Pjard

July 21, 2014 |




In a stunning example of “separate but equal” logic, New York City has approved a developer’s controversial plans to construct two separate entrances for their new luxury condo on the Upper West Side: one for low-income residents and one for those who can fork over the market rate. As the New York Post reported, the firm, Extell, is building a 33-story tower with 219 units facing the Hudson River and 55 affordable units that face the street.

Extell is part of the city’s Inclusionary Housing Program, which requires real estate developers to create a percentage of affordable housing units for low-income households either on- or off-site. In exchange, developers often receive permission to construct higher or larger buildings (Extell’s new luxury condo is a case in point). According to the Department of City Planning, this model of development “promotes economic integration in areas of the City undergoing substantial new residential development.”

But segregating poorer residents into their own sections of mixed-income buildings and creating two entrances so that wealthier tenants never have to interact with them is not conducive to economic integration. Instead, it reinforces a two-tier model of housing, where the rich can pay a premium to remain isolated in their waterfront apartments and developers can profit from their extra square footage while feigning a social consciousness. As Bryce Covert reports for Think Progress, “some low-income residents in luxury buildings are prohibited from using the amenities offered to the wealthy tenants…several buildings in the city ban affordable housing or rent-regulated tenants from using perks like gyms, rooftops, and pools.”

Bill de Blasio made access to affordable housing a cornerstone of his administration, releasing a housing plan in May that promises to create 200,000 new units over the next ten years. But the Inclusionary Zoning model doesn’t even brush the surface of New York City’s housing problem, as the city lost 400,000 units of affordable housing between 2000 and 2012 alone. If the mayor wants to address the housing crisis and begin to combat New York’s rampant income inequality, he should start by forbidding developers from integrating discriminatory policies right into the design of their buildings.

Allegra Kirkland is AlterNet's associate managing editor. Her writing has appeared in the Chicago Reader, Inc., Daily Serving and the Nation.

this op was not begun by a party, it was begun by an individual....

there are no 'rules' that have been dictated by any party
noone has purported that any party is 'superior' or on a 'pedestal'


though, to me, it is 'superior' to discuss and acknowledge racism, rather than hide from it, deny it, avoid it, and make the topic some elephant in the room that its shameful to bring up at all,,,,

'huge' amount? can you be more specific?

I am an individual, right now, trying to discuss race,

the article was about a specific incident (with rockefeller), used as a segway to the topic of discussing race

where a republican happened to be one claiming that its 'ridiculous' to consider racism could be present in the republican base, and then also saying its impossible to know whats in someones heart,,


which says, its impossible to so completely deny any possibility of racism existing in the republican party

but, it does seem, in this case, that particular republican did just that,,,

Want to have a conversation about race? Really?

Then let's include the following comments made by African-American columnist Star Parker:



Also, let's include African-American columnist Thomas Sowell's review of a recently-published book written by African-American journalist Jason Riley:



Then let's add a commentary by African-American Deneen Borelli:

The goal is to silence opposing views through intimidation


A GREAT POINT< like the intimidation of accusing people of playing a card when they discuss their experiencs with racism,,,


talking about race and racism can't exclude conservatives who feel 'attacked' by liberals (or other conservatives)either, I agree. I would never concede to any attempt to do so.



as far as 'counterproductive' policies, that is always a possibility


, it would seem easy to validate such a claim with actual numbers showing that prepolicy numbers were BETTER than post policy numbers,,

I would be open to and interested in seeing such evidence , I would be delighted to hear contributions or suggestions of what would work better.

Going BACKWARDS to what wasnt working before is not a viable answer for me.


I have seen no quantifiable evidence that the connection is there between policy causing these fails though, and have heard of no suggestions for something that would work better.

Racism- when anything not specifically targeted to a minority group is considered white.

which dictionary is that from"



examples of racism:

children not being permitted to a school due to race
people hung due to their race
people born into slavery because of their race
people kept out of institutions because of race
,,

these are things that are RACIST because they do TARGET a race, not because they dont 'specifically target' a minority group











Full Definition of RACISM


1

: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


2

: racial prejudice or discrimination

On the contrary, complaints about the race card are legitimate when when someone cries "Racism!" in an attempt to direct people's attention away from the errors and misdeeds made by the one crying "Racism!"

AND , complaints about the race card are ILLEGITIMATE means of intimidation , when someone (usually black) partipates in a discussion on race or discrimination INITIATED by someone else (often white)

Race is only an issue for people that wish to make it so.

Most I know don't



Some might consider that a divisive statement bordering on racism. Why not just say "you crackers are all racist!"?

it can be said of any 'issue' , that it is only an issue to those who wish to make it so,,, including government, politics , or anything else

obviously, like Obama and government are an 'issue' for some who start threads

racism is an 'issue' for the person starting this one

and , situational deafness is a common ailment in these threads as the words like 'usually', and 'some', are in no way synonymous with the word 'all'


how often do you hear of white people being accused of playing a 'race' card? is your experience different in terms of which race of people are usually involved when the charge is leveled?

Your whole reply is an attempt at the "white race card" blaming, accusation thing!

so,,,

no answer,,,



just more ad hominem to add absolutely NOTHING to the topic,,,,quel surpris,,,

OhMyGorsh!

http://allenbwest.com/2014/07/naacp-member-tells-black-conservatives-theyre-welcome-convention-video/


NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and at the turn of the century, Booker T. Washington had a three-pronged agenda for their advancement: education, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance. Those three values completely align with conservative principles.

At the NAACP conference this week, a member was quite upset that black conservatives were there at all, including Deneen Borelli and CL Bryant, and made it clear they were not welcome at the event. This video is quite telling because it provides a clear window into what ails the black community: the advancement of grievance mongering and the welfare state.

actually the video shows ONE person objecting to the presence of the two people she spoke to

NAACP has had conservatives speak and does not discriminate based upon race or political affiliation,,,

(The Root) -- America is not yet done with the illness of racism, the electoral success of Barack Obama notwithstanding. Yet most white folks don't want to talk about or hear about race anymore. And a good many black folks fret that it is strategically wiser for us to let it alone for now.

I am uncomfortable with both prescriptions. Some underlying maladies, to be sure, do heal on their own. Despite its modern subtlety and complexity, however, the current strain of racism infecting the U.S. is unlikely to be self-healing.

Let's be honest: Our culture is still deeply suffused with anti-black bias, despite an African-American president in office. National surveys (pdf) continue to reveal commonly held stereotypes of African Americans as less hardworking and less intelligent than whites. Political resentments of blacks remain a centerpiece -- indeed, a genuine third rail -- of American domestic politics: Do anything to seriously activate these resentments, and you run the risk of immediate political electrocution. The last time we saw any major political figure come close to touching the rail, of activating these political resentments against blacks, occurred when Obama offered his off-the-cuff remarks about the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., The Root's editor-in-chief, by the Cambridge, Mass., police.

The level of negative stereotypes and attitudes tapped in polls and surveys may only reveal the most easily observable symptoms of the illness. A number of powerful psychological experiments show the extent to which blackness for Americans is intimately tied to images of violence and danger. Indeed, one of the most depressing lines of research suggests a core underlining psychological association of blackness with apes, an ugly, old racist trope from the age of the Great Chain of Being, in which the African was seen as closer to primitive animals in the hierarchy of species (pdf).

To be sure, this whole issue of racism had a more straightforward quality in the past. We did not have to resort to complex surveys and experiments to reveal its depth. There used to be something loud and obvious and terrible about racism -- circumstances with some ironic virtues. A visible and openly declared enemy is so much more directly confronted than one that operates stealthily.

And that is the dilemma of racism in our times. We have hints, suggestions, indications, if you will, of racial bias all around us today. But it is typically unspoken, if not altogether invisible, much of the time. And where it's not invisible, there is often a plausible cover story that can be told as to why racially differential treatment was somehow justifiable or legitimate.

All of this makes waging the fight against racism much tougher. It is now quiet -- or rationalized on some nonracial grounds and thereby hidden in plain view -- and seemingly, as a consequence, perhaps not such a bad thing after all.

But it is a bad thing. Let's be clear: There is plenty of research showing that actual discrimination remains remarkably common. For example, one major study of low-skilled workers in New York found high rates of bias against black job applicants. Princeton sociologist Devah Pager and her colleagues showed that otherwise identical black job seekers were 50 percent less likely to achieve success in a job search (pdf) than their white counterparts.

The discrimination was so subtle that only a systematic experiment could reveal it. This was not the loud de jure discrimination of the era of "no blacks need apply," but instead today's quiet bias of "Oh, we already filled that position" or "We were actually looking for someone with more experience" or "Maybe you'd be better suited to this lower-paying job."