Inner thoughts say, OK, Mark, let them know about your thoughts on the subject.

Even more inner thoughts say.........
Run, baby, run.

I run now.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

'Sins of the Father'?

I think the light bulb has begun to glow.

---

http://time.com/3645699/the-1919-theory-that-explains-why-police-officers-need-their-guns/

In 1919, with the smoke still clearing from the battlefields of the First World War, the German sociologist Max Weber began a systematic study of the nation-state by defining a state as any “human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.”
...
it requires trust in the state in order to work. That trust is lacking for many black communities in America; a 2013 Gallup poll, for example, found that 25% of whites but 68% of blacks believe that “the American justice system is biased against black people.”
...
Urban violence from the 1950s through the 1980s was commonplace, a regular feature on the nightly news; it’s now mostly relegated to historical documentaries. And racist attitudes of Americans really are on the decline. Polling data show, for example, that in the 1940s nearly three-quarters of Americans agreed that “black and white students should go to separate schools.” That figure collapsed to almost zero by 1995, when pollsters quit asking the question. In 1960 almost half of all white Americans said that they would move if a black family moved in next door. Today that figure is also close to zero. At the turn of the 20th century lynchings were commonplace, averaging a couple a week through the 1920s, finally coming to an end by the 1950s, as shown by data from the Oxford University economist Max Roser. A 2013 Gallup poll on interracial marriage also shows the positive trend in tolerance over the past half century; in keeping with other rights revolutions where age is a factor in becoming more tolerant, the younger respondents, the population of the future, were the most approving of interracial marriage. And think about the case of Donald Sterling, forced to sell his basketball team, the Clippers, for racist remarks he made in private to his mistress. In the 1950s an old white guy who thought of blacks like Sterling seems to today wouldn’t have needed to be especially private about his prejudices. Today, the few who still think like this mostly keep it to themselves or publish their views in fringe white supremacist newsletters or web sites.

---

Flickering?

I hope not. That could mean AC power and the light could only be on half the time then. :)

---

In a simple alternating current (AC) circuit consisting of a source and a linear load, both the current and voltage are sinusoidal. If the load is purely resistive, the two quantities reverse their polarity at the same time. At every instant the product of voltage and current is positive, indicating that the direction of energy flow does not reverse.

But it does reach zero and for a light to glow enough energy must be radiated to reach the visible spectrum, black bodies.

Flickering would denote a DC circuit with indeterminate disconnections. In both cases and in this context, the light may be on but nobody's home!

Yes.

---

Ah, yes you are:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/1/are-millennials-tolerant-racists.html

Are millennials tolerant racists?
America’s newest generation think they are postracial, but data suggest otherwise

Millennials are considered the most diverse, tolerant and racially progressive generation in U.S. history. “The younger generation is more racially tolerant than their elders,” the Pew Research Center declared in a 2010 report based on analysis of more than two decades of data. Commenting on the report, The Chicago Tribune’s Ted Gregory went one step further, arguing millennials are “the most tolerant generation in history.”

America’s newest generation is more racially progressive than its predecessors’. For example, the Pew study shows that millennials are more likely to support interracial marriage and dating and are generally more accepting of immigrants. They see themselves as racially progressive as well. According to a 2014 survey (PDF) of millennials conducted by MTV and David Binder Research, nearly all respondents said they believe “everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race,” 72 percent said “their generation believes in equality more than older people,” and 58 percent believed “racism will become less and less of an issue” as they take on leadership roles. More than half believe that racial bias is “small but real” and “subtler” than it was in the past.

However, such pervasive sentiments do not reflect reality. In fact, beneath the facade of a colorblind generation remains a deep underclass. And millennials are not as racially progressive as the narrative suggests. Studies show that white millennials share similar opinions as older generations on issues such as race. A closer look at the Pew Center’s data and other relevant research shows a less-reported but revealing fact: Much of the purported tolerance of the millennial generation is due to the inclusion of more people of color in the pool.

A good read and follow the links too.

---

In the future (if we survive), with all the Inter-Racial 'Couplings'. And we ALL look alike:

Does the Concept of Different Race's Disappear?

I doubt it. Then you will have the Your skin is just a shade darker than mine is. Many years ago Saturday night live did a skit on that same theme.

---

[/quote]

Old James

HuWoMan will not Legislate, Breed, Genetically Modify or Surgically remove 'Differences'.

And 'Differences' will always Stratify, hierarchically and Purposely Position Peoples AGAINST EACH OTHER.

Unless We Are Robotically Drugged into LoveMeisters.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Irrefutable Proof The Civil War Was About Slavery

---

Reality Internet Personality

America is the most racist country in the world against black people.

Sorry to be a troll Chris, but have you ever been to Mexico?

---

Irrefutable Proof The Civil War Was About Slavery

Irrefutable huh.... Yeah right...

The title of the article:

Irrefutable Proof The Civil War Was About Slavery

TFA wrote:

There are various things that conservatives and liberals disagree over, and for some insane reason, whether or not the Civil War was about slavery is one of them. Sure, the war ended with the abolition of slavery, but many individuals still claim that the entire war was over states’ rights as opposed to the tradition of owning another human being.

Ok, let me start by saying this...

Slavery is WRONG. It is EVIL. Not everyone in the South was pro-slavery. Some of the most vocal opponents of slavery were, yes, white Southern men. Most white Southerners did NOT own slaves. NONE of my ancestors that were ethnically white Europeans EVER owned a slave. Quite a number of them were quite strident abolitionists.

Got it? Slavery BAD!!!

Yes, the article is correct, as far as that goes, in saying that there were a bunch of racist bigots in the South. There still are a few. Also, there were a bunch in the North too. And yes, there still are some up there as well.

But... Slavery was NOT the reason for the Civil War, "State's Rights" was.

You want proof? How about the most extremely authoritative source possible for the REASON for the Civil War (and no, it was not a Southerner).

A LETTER FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN.; Reply to Horace Greeley. Slavery and the Union The Restoration of the Union the Paramount Object.
Published: August 24, 1862

EXECUTIVE MANSTON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/news/letter-president-lincoln-reply-horace-greeley-slavery-union-restoration-union.html

There ya go. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The most authoritative primary source possible on the question. The President of the United States of America DURING the Civil War himself. In his OWN words, the Civil War was NOT about ending slavery, but about 'saving the Union'. In other words, "State's Rights".

Yes, opposition in the US Federal Government by the Northern States to slavery was *one* of the reasons the Southern States in the CSA seceded from the Union, but only *one* of them. Once the Southern States exercised their democratic Right of Self-determination and seceded from the USA, the remaining Northern States vigorously objected. The question was NO LONGER 'Is Slavery right?' but became 'Do States have the right to leave the Union?'. The remaining States in the USA then invaded, attacked, and did War upon the CSA, which the CSA then lost due to a lack of industrial capacity.

The Civil War (Apr. 1861 to May 1865) did NOT end slavery. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (Dec. 1865) did.

As you can see, the Civil War didn't end Slavery. It wasn't about Slavery. It was about State's Rights, namely, 'do States have the right to secede?'

This question was decided well AFTER the War by the US Supreme Court.

In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), the US Supreme Court ruled that the Union was perpetual and NO State has either the right or the ability to secede.

The US Civil War was NOT fought to end slavery, although that was an eventual side-effect. The US Civil War WAS fought over the question of State's Rights, specifically the Right of Self-Determination. So said Lincoln, President of the United States of America DURING the Civil War. Any statement to the contrary is Revisionist History.

The Article's Statement is Refuted. Quod erat demonstrandum.

America is the most racist country in the world against black people.

Sorry to be a troll Chris, but have you ever been to Mexico?

+1 from Little Tijuana, California del Norte, a/k/a East LA or more formally, La Ciudad Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles. I'd include most of the Central American countries in that as well.

---

America is the most racist country in the world against black people.

Sorry to be a troll Chris, but have you ever been to Mexico?

I might also add a few parts of Asia to that list.

Yes, opposition in the US Federal Government by the Northern States to slavery was *one* of the reasons the Southern States in the CSA seceded from the Union, but only *one* of them.

What were the other reasons for seceding? Is it not true that the call to end slavery was the biggest reason for declaring secession?

The Civil War (Apr. 1861 to May 1865) did NOT end slavery. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (Dec. 1865) did.

If the Civil War ended in May, and if it wasn't about ending slavery, then why bother passing the 13th in Dec?

Yes, opposition in the US Federal Government by the Northern States to slavery was *one* of the reasons the Southern States in the CSA seceded from the Union, but only *one* of them.

What were the other reasons for seceding? Is it not true that the call to end slavery was the biggest reason for declaring secession?

It was about two issues. The south wanted states rights to keep their slave economy going and the north wanted the federal right to end slavery.

The Civil War (Apr. 1861 to May 1865) did NOT end slavery. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (Dec. 1865) did.

If the Civil War ended in May, and if it wasn't about ending slavery, then why bother passing the 13th in Dec?

Because now the north could dictate.

---

Yes, opposition in the US Federal Government by the Northern States to slavery was *one* of the reasons the Southern States in the CSA seceded from the Union, but only *one* of them.

What were the other reasons for seceding? Is it not true that the call to end slavery was the biggest reason for declaring secession?

It was about two issues. The south wanted states rights to keep their slave economy going and the north wanted the federal right to end slavery.

So then, ostensibly, it was about slavery if the south wanted to keep their slave economy.

The Civil War (Apr. 1861 to May 1865) did NOT end slavery. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (Dec. 1865) did.

If the Civil War ended in May, and if it wasn't about ending slavery, then why bother passing the 13th in Dec?

Because now the north could dictate.

Interesting choice of words. Wouldn't a better choice have been "Now they can enforce that all men are free"? Dictating freedom doesn't sound much like dictating to me.

Yes, opposition in the US Federal Government by the Northern States to slavery was *one* of the reasons the Southern States in the CSA seceded from the Union, but only *one* of them.

What were the other reasons for seceding? Is it not true that the call to end slavery was the biggest reason for declaring secession?

No, the call to end slavery was NOT the biggest reason, although it WAS a subset of the biggest (indeed the ONLY) reason.

Economic Freedom.

After independence from Britain, the North developed somewhat an industrialized base with a relatively dense population. The South remained almost totally agricultural and predominantly rural.

The north greatly dominated the US House of Representatives, with the US Senate leaning towards the North on MANY issues.

The Federal Government in Washington, DC then used its power of taxation (customs duties, tariffs, etc.) to somewhat require the South to both sell its agricultural produce to concerns in the North at prices somewhat below the global market prices. Also they somewhat required the South to purchase its manufactured goods from concerns in the North at prices somewhat above the global market price.

Every time the Southern members of Congress would bring it up, the Northern members would go on another series of threats against the economic underpinning of large-scale for-export Southern Agriculture... yes, Slavery.

The power-brokers in the North didn't so much seriously oppose slavery as they wanted to retain the South as a 'captive market'.

The Civil War (Apr. 1861 to May 1865) did NOT end slavery. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (Dec. 1865) did.

If the Civil War ended in May, and if it wasn't about ending slavery, then why bother passing the 13th in Dec?

Simple. Remember the Letter from President Lincoln that I quoted? Read it again. To paraphrase, Lincoln said that while slavery was not the reason he led the nation to war, he would use the issue to help prosecute the war if he felt it would help.

The US Government hyped the slavery issue greatly to the people in the North to get them to... go off and fight. They might not have if they told the truth.

The US Government felt that they had to follow through on the lie, else they might find themselves under... pressure from those with relatives that died in the War. Since slavery was somewhat enshrined in the US Constitution (3/5th of a person, etc.), many saw that neither Executive Order nor acts of Congress could end the institution of Slavery. They HAD to pass and get ratified a Constitutional Amendment (the 13th) ending Slavery (not to mention any sort of involuntary servitude not due to a criminal conviction) to 'cover their butts'.

I repeat, they HAD to lie about it being about slavery, or they would have faced ruin from everyone in the masses that gave their fathers, sons, and brothers over to be maimed and killed as cannon fodder in the War.

It was a lie then, it is a lie today, and Lincoln's OWN WORDS show it to be so.

Now, all that said, was the end of slavery in the USA a good thing? In my opinion, the only possible answer to that is a resounding H*LL YES it was.

The end of Slavery was a VERY GOOD thing indeed. But it was not the reason why The North attacked the CSA and started the War of Northern Aggression.

The Reasons for Secession
A Documentary Study

With graphs!

---

Reality Internet Personality

Economic Freedom.

After independence from Britain, the North developed somewhat an industrialized base with a relatively dense population. The South remained almost totally agricultural and predominantly rural.

The north greatly dominated the US House of Representatives, with the US Senate leaning towards the North on MANY issues.

The Federal Government in Washington, DC then used its power of taxation (customs duties, tariffs, etc.) to somewhat require the South to both sell its agricultural produce to concerns in the North at prices somewhat below the global market prices. Also they somewhat required the South to purchase its manufactured goods from concerns in the North at prices somewhat above the global market price.

...

The power-brokers in the North didn't so much seriously oppose slavery as they wanted to retain the South as a 'captive market'.

Surely such claims would be backed by several sources of documents and such?

Simple. Remember the Letter from President Lincoln that I quoted? Read it again. To paraphrase, Lincoln said that while slavery was not the reason he led the nation to war, he would use the issue to help prosecute the war if he felt it would help.

Isn't it a bit difficult to take a single document without any contextual clues as to what motivated him to write it at that time and conclude that it was not about slavery? At least the counter examples provided by Es99 gave direct quotes from 4 states' own 'Independent Constitutions' declaring slavery was to be enshrined in law... with no mention of economic hardships emburdened by the North. Surely if slavery was not paramount, their documents wouldn't have touched so boldly and definitively on the topic?

It was a lie then, it is a lie today, and Lincoln's OWN WORDS show it to be so.

Words that may not have belied intent. Indeed, those words sounded like a very concerned President under which whom he would be known as the final President of the Former United States. It surely sounded like his concern with his reputation could have been reason to state that, paraphrased, "All I want to do is reunite the States".

Do we have any additional documents, not written during such stressful times for Mr. Lincoln, that suggest slavery was not the paramount issue?

The Civil War (Apr. 1861 to May 1865) did NOT end slavery. The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution (Dec. 1865) did.

If the Civil War ended in May, and if it wasn't about ending slavery, then why bother passing the 13th in Dec?

Because now the north could dictate.

Interesting choice of words. Wouldn't a better choice have been "Now they can enforce that all men are free"? Dictating freedom doesn't sound much like dictating to me.

Ah, they could dictate how their economy worked. Originally, before the war, it would have been done through the commerce clause as the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 would have been enforced. Today teapugnants hate how that clause permits the federal government to be superior to the states rights. Of course Lincoln was a republican and that must smart.

As to the cause, it was political in nature. The southern states had spent time negotiating to be allowed to be slave states, but they did not have enough population to hold such a position in congress due to the proportional voting for congress. The northern abolitionist states had the votes to renege on those agreements. As they saw themselves losing they decided to withdraw. Withdrawal could not be allowed so blood was shed.

It may or may not be coincidence that at the same time period the USA reneged on most every treaty negotiated with the first nations.

Now as to the word dictate, it is correct. The tyranny of the majority. Public opinion shifted, correctly, that slavery was wrong. So the majority dictated to all what their morals were to be. A similar thing happens today, but cigarette smoking isn't seen as something to go to war over. Government revoking a former right will always be seen in the same light by those who exercised the now forbidden right, no matter how correct the ban is. Today of course it is seen from the other side of the fence as granting freedom to the oppressed. It is all a choice of perspective, as every view of the universe is different.

---