Paula Deen Discrimination Suit Settled – Racism, Not [Updated w/ Incredible Statement From Lisa Jackson]

By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

paula-deen2_custom-0b30419dbbe077460d439775b6a773a8fdd8c906-s3-c85We’ve been following the discrimination suit brought by an employee of restaurants owned by  food maven Paula Deen. Lisa Jackson, who is Caucasian, claimed that she was subjected to a racially hostile work environment at Deen’s Uncle Bubba’s and The Lady and Sons restaurants. Jackson alleged that Paula Deen’s brother, Bubba,  routinely used derogatory racial epithets and sexually suggestive comments during her working hours as a manager at the restaurant. She also alleged that Deen acquiesced in the treatment and used racist comments herself.  A firestorm of negative publicity formed after Deen’s deposition transcript was leaked to the media in which she admitted using the term “nigger” many years ago. Deem lost two national cable television shows and a host of endorsements following the story. Her two video apologies did little to assuage the sentiment that she was a racist.

Early this month, U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. dismissed the key elements of Jackson’s racial discrimination claim ruling that, as a Caucasian, she could not claim that racial epithets directed against African-Americans resulted in discrimination against her — which does meet both the legal and common sense test.  Jackson did not rule that Jackson’s claims were true merely that IF they were true they still would not meet the test for racial discrimination against her.  Jackson’s other claims for sexual harassment and abusive treatment were still pending until the suit was settled yesterday.

According to the court filings, the parties agreed the dismissal would be “without any award of costs or fees to any party. ”  Meaning Ms. Jackson did not get any  reimbursement of attorney’s fees or litigation costs suggesting she may not have received much, if anything, by way of a financial settlement. Ms Deen released a statement saying  that she believes “in kindness and fairness for everyone. While this has been a difficult time for both my family and myself, I am pleased that the judge dismissed the race claims and I am looking forward to getting this behind me, now that the remaining claims have been resolved.”

Left unexplained are the claims by Jackson and her attorneys that scores of other African-American employees were subjected to the same discriminatory  treatment and who wouldn’t be subjected to the prohibition to sue imposed by the law against Jackson who is white. Nor have any complaints been filed by the Rainbow/PUSH  organization who say their investigation has “found evidence of systemic racial discrimination and harassment” by Deen and that “a family member consistently referred to a black cook as ‘my little monkey.'”

The net result is that a self-made celebrity chef has been brought low by unproven allegations of racial discrimination and subjected to vilification usually reserved for mass murderers simply based on comments she admitted she made decades ago. If there truly are people out there with bona fide claims of racial discrimination against Paula Deen they should bring them on and not hide in the shadows releasing dribbles and drabs of allegations through civil rights organization spokespersons.  Anonymous statements, lurid narratives, and innuendo are not proof and guilt rendered by character assassination is not law.

Paula Deen may be an unjustified victim of a media fueled racial divisiveness and unwarranted rage or she may be a closet racist with much to hide. Despite all this turmoil and public fall from grace we simply do not know. What we do know is that she –as any accused citizen — deserves  the benefit of the doubt until the allegations are proven. Sadly, this recent episode proves only that we have a long way to go in our national struggle with racism and  that trial by newspaper and leaked court documents to leverage money settlements will not aid us one iota in ridding the country of the scourge of racism.

In fact, rush to judgment situations such as this only gives hate groups ammunition as they always contend that progressives and the news media are habitually harping on racism claims that, in their view, do not now exist, unless, of course, it’s reverse racism.  The blame the left-wing media for hyping these claims for profit and fostering the reverse discrimination. Here’s one comment we can print from a white supremacist site:

They’re at it again, folks! Another successful White entrepreneur goes down in flames, over supposed “racist” jokes, and the use of “the n” word. The food network fired Paula today, over these supposed “racist” jokes. Apparently, quite a few years back, Paula was joking about hiring all black waiters or something. I’m really sick of seeing successful White people ruined/destroyed, because of these jealous/lazy/White hating savages. These are the same hypocrites eating her food, watching her shows, using her cookware, and buying her books. No, I’m not a Paula Deen fan, but, she’s older/White and from the South. So, it’s hardly a surprise that suddenly, she’s now labeled a “racist.” I suppose now, she’ll be making her rounds on all the liberal talk shows, getting grilled by the slew of “anti-racists'” on the daytime television circuit. It’s pretty scary/disgusting, seeing how much power blacks have over White America, now. How they can blatantly destroy someone’s life and career just like that, is absolutely frightening. How much longer are we gonna sit back, letting these thug creeps run wild on White America?

For a lot of our fellow citizens, downtrodden by life and resentful of  America’s social programs, this sadly rings true– whether we like it or not. If we truly want to move past this sad chapter in our history we will have to adopt the seemingly unattainable virtue that Martin Luther King, Jr. embodied in his prescription for fixing  the problem.  That’s going to require “a nation where [one] will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” It will also require that we exercise some restraint when judging emotionally charged allegations at the time they are made.  There is always time to see if the those complaining are motivated by principle or greed and this is doubly true when the allegations are against the most lucrative of targets, the rich and famous. Even “they” are entitled to the benefit of  blind and equal justice.

It was the Greek philosopher and playwright Euripides who reminded us that a tree is best judged by its fruit and not its leaves. That was good advice two and a half millennia ago; it’s good advice today.

Source: CNN


From the Huffington Post:

Before the settlement, the magistrate judge found that Lisa Jackson’s lawyer, Matthew Billups, Esq.  had engaged in conduct warranting disqualification. He was accused of using the media to pressure Deen into a settlement by leaking information and asking irrelevant, embarrassing, and personal questions at her deposition.  Here’s the order requiring Billups to show cause why court-ordered sanctions shouldn’t be imposed. Read the order now.

Here’ a post-settlement statement from Lisa Jackson singing quite a different tune now that the case is settled to what she called her “satisfaction”:

“I assumed that all of my complaints about the workplace environment were getting to Paula Deen, but I learned during this matter that this was not the case.The Paula Deen I have known for more than eight years, is a woman of compassion and kindness and will never tolerate discrimination or racism of any kind toward anyone. I now know that the workplace environment issues that I raised are being reviewed and will in the future no longer be at issue. I wish Ms. Deen and her family all the best in all of their future endeavors and I am very pleased that this matter has been now been resolved and can now be put behind us.” [emphasis mine]

Principle or greed? Do tell there, princess. Do tell.

But a more important question: Where does Paula Deen go to get her reputation back?

~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger

112 thoughts on “Paula Deen Discrimination Suit Settled – Racism, Not [Updated w/ Incredible Statement From Lisa Jackson]

  1. Al Sharpton paid less for his actions in the lawsuit that launched him into fame: false accusations against police about a hate motivated crime involving rape. Since when does that match up to using the “n” word. Apparently Al got past it and supporters paid his fine. He is definitely better off today for the lies.

  2. Mark.

    I think you mean two and a half millenia, not centuries.

    By the way do you know where the link to the corrections thread has gone?

  3. You lost me at “decades ago” when we know by Deen’s own admissions her usage was more recent than that. Paula Deen is not “maybe” a racist, she IS a racist, and in my view she was punished less for that than she deserved. I do hope the lawsuits continue.

  4. Tony, How is you know she “is” a racist? Are you the divine that can look into a persons soul?

    Great Blog post, too bad Tony C doesn’t understand it.

  5. Mespo, Posts like this keep me coming back. The profit driven media has learned a horrible lesson, “racism” sells. It sells better than “sexism” and certainly better than “ageism.” The “open discussion on race,” is never going to occur in this climate. When you have race pimps like Sharpton, Jackson, etc., white, PC police, and the media instigators, it is a toxic wasteland. Ironically, w/ all the bad feelings about our judicial system, it is maybe our last bastion of reason and hope. Because, as we know, there are rules there in the courtroom.

  6. I’m not a bible verse quoting person, but this one came to mind as I read this post and comments:

    The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000.

    The Gospel according to
    St. Matthew

    Judging Others

    Lk. 6.3738, 4142

    1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
    4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
    5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
    6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

  7. If one is white, one doesn’t think about one’s statements as racist quite simply because one doesn’t have to. It’s a markedly privileged point of view. To get beyond that requires effort, compassion, and an ability to step outside of one’s closeted culture.

    How often have we heard or read these words from a white person, “I don’t care if you’re black, brown, red, or purple …” knowing that the speaker has no idea that comparing someone’s equality to something that doesn’t exist (purple) is insulting. To see beyond white privilege requires a direct challenge to the indulgence received as a white person. It is a very real handicap built into the culture.

    Paula’s wish for a slavery-themed wedding is excused by many white’s as “We don’t like slavery, we just like the way it looked.” We like the visual, not the reality. Confront them with, “But the visual was only made possible by the reality.” And their response is, “What in the hell are you talking about? Nobody supports slavery!”

    That’s white privilege and that’s what took a real beating in the Paula Deen case. Priceless.

  8. She should have lied in her deposition when asked if she used the “n” word. It would have saved her career.

    The truth shall not set you free.

  9. gbor387, Yes because lying in a legal proceeding is ever so much better behavior than using speech to create a hostile work environment.

    Often, it’s not “me” who is set free by the truth. Sometimes, it’s only the truth that is set free.

    And what Blouise said. Priceless!

  10. “She should have lied in her deposition ”

    Actually she should have stonewalled and said ‘I don’t recall’.

    No lawyer in the world can prove if you do or do not recall.

    But if she lied there might be evidence to demonstrate that.

    I have stated my view on Deen and won’t labor the point. But she did pay a heavy price for acts that are not much different from those committed by many.

    I think it has been useful to consider the issues raised by Deen.

    But the real problem, in my opinion, lies elsewhere. People with power like Bloomberg and Kelly who do real damage to ordinary people while ignoring the obvious racism of their policies should be the focus of our attention. .

  11. Paul: Tony, How is you know she “is” a racist?

    I read what she said, and I deduced it beyond any reasonable doubt.

    To me, Paula Deen being a racist is not just the most plausible reason for her actions, her statements, and her terribly executed “apologies” that only reaffirm her bias, Paula Deen being a racist is the only plausible reason that uniformly explains all of that.

    It is the same way I know the Earth rotates relative to the Sun. I have never been in space, I have never heard the Earth “admit” confirm that it rotates, but it is the only plausible explanation for a whole host of phenomena I have observed.

    Paula Deen’s actions and statements leave me no room but to conclude she is a racist.

  12. Hmmm.

    In fact, rush to judgment situations such as this only gives hate groups ammunition as they always contend that progressives and the news media are habitually harping on racism claims that, in their view, do not now exist, unless, of course, it’s reverse racism. They blame the left-wing media for hyping these claims for profit and fostering the reverse discrimination.

    Uh, if the left wing media is hyping race claims for ulterior motives, then why is it necessarily HATE to bring that out? Wouldn’t a better word be TRUTH??? Because RACE-BAITING is bad whether it is Lester Maddox or Al Sharpton. And race-baiters are bad evil people, even when they are white liberals.

    Let’s see, we have all the Trayvonazi stuff, the Paula Deen stuff, the idiotic “Photo ID is racist” crap, and now we even have some Oberlin College stuff!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  13. ‘I don’t recall’….if Ive ever read anything about Bill Clinton reviewing President Reagans Iran/contra testimony prior to his Monika deposition

  14. Paul: Tony, How is you know she “is” a racist?

    I read what she said, and I deduced it beyond any reasonable doubt.

    No, what actually happened is that you found something to confirm your own bias, and latched on to it for dear life. You see racists everywhere the same way John Birchers saw commies everywhere. Somehow liberals and leftists think they are incapable of confirmation bias, that it is the province only of people on the right. Actually, it is why most liberals quickly resort to name calling, because they can not frame articulate arguments and counter-arguments. It so often devolves into, “But we are nice empathic people! And if you don’t agree with us, then you are mean, bigoted people! Because we’re nice!”

    This only guarantees that any real racism or prejudice will get lost among all the chest-thumping. FWIW, to whoever:

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  15. >> The net result is that a self-made celebrity chef has been brought low by unproven allegations of racial discrimination

    Unproven to whom? Only unproven to one sitting judge, and that is not a standard we are required to accept in making our own decisions about the character of other people.

    >> Rush to judgment…

    Except for most of us that believe Paula Deen is a racist there was no rush to judgment at all, for those of us sensitive to and accustomed to the linguistic dodges and excuses routinely used by racists, a reading of her deposition is enough to come to an initial conclusion, and watching her talk show performance and apologetics is enough to finish the job.

    You only call it a “rush to judgment” because you disagree, you have no proof whatsoever (other than that disagreement) that those of us that think she is a racist began with a presumption of innocence and concluded her guilt only after deliberation, perhaps using experience and study of which you are unaware.

  16. Squeeker: No, what actually happened is that you found something to confirm your own bias,

    No, squeek, I am a professional scientist and I am quite aware of confirmation bias and logic errors. That did not happen. I do not conclude everybody accused of racism is guilty of it; I know quite well it is an easy charge to level and therefore leveled by those seeking unfair advantage.

    Unlike you, I do not trust anybody else to do my thinking for me, my professional peers are the smartest people on the planet and I do not take even them on faith, I know they can be wrong and have been wrong. I think independently. I did not assume Deen must be a racist because she is old, or from the South, or because she was accused of it. I have an 89 year old white neighbor and I am sure she is not a racist. I have in-laws from the South and I am sure they are not racists. I have seen managers accused of racism and I knew they were not racists. I have black in-laws that I know have accused people of racism when I do not believe racism was involved.

    I concluded Deen was a racist.

  17. @tonyc:

    No, Tony, you didn’t conclude nothing. Look at what you yourself just said:

    for those of us sensitive to and accustomed to the linguistic dodges and excuses routinely used by racists, a reading of her deposition is enough to come to an initial conclusion, and watching her talk show performance and apologetics is enough to finish the job.

    See, you judged her by your own subjective biases. You think that because you are a scientist, that you are somehow immune to confirmation bias, but you aren’t. But look at how you yourself say the process worked for you. You have put yourself in the role of a Witch Hunter, and you have your various Witch Hunter tests, and if Paula Deen has a mole, then that is a Devil’s mark! Why? Because as a Witch Hunter, you are “sensitive to and accustomed to” the Devil’s mark. Then, you can watch her “apologetics” and just know that she is lying! Because she has a Devil’s mark, and she is a witch.

    If that is NOT the person that you wish to be, you need to listen to what the author of this post is trying to tell you. Because God knows you are sure aren’t going to listen to anybody who disagrees with you. What he said was, that there isn’t enough evidence for anybody to know anything. it may not be a comfortable thought, but you need to consider that you have become what you do not like, an extremely prejudiced and closed minded individual.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  18. Squeeker: See, you judged her by your own subjective biases.

    No, I judged her in light of experience, and that is not a subjective bias. It is experience that lets us see patterns of commonality in racists, like anybody else they learn the most effective ways to do anything, including leave themselves room to wiggle out of any charges of racism. But the patterns themselves, when used, produce the question of why they are being used, and why they were learned. One of those patterns is, “I was just quoting what I heard one black person say to another black person,” which Deen uses. And there are others, which the plaintiff’s attorney called her on, because these dodges usually work in normal conversation but fall apart under aggressive questioning (like in a deposition).

    There is no subjective bias.

    >> you need to consider that you have become what you do not like, an extremely prejudiced and closed minded individual.

    No, for the purpose of this argument what I do not like are racists, and I have not become one. If I am closed-minded because I am not open to racism, or racial hatred or racial resentment or nostalgia for slavery, so be it. If that makes me “prejudiced” against the likes of Deen, I am okay with that. The day Deen leaves this world I will applaud the world becoming a better place for it.

  19. @tonyc:

    It is experience that lets us see patterns of commonality in racists, like anybody else they learn the most effective ways to do anything, including leave themselves room to wiggle out of any charges of racism. But the patterns themselves, when used, produce the question of why they are being used, and why they were learned.

    Hmmm. “Pattern” evidence, even when the pattern is that of a sole person, is not usually admissible in court. “Pattern” evidence, here between Paul Deen and third parties unknown, is of even less probative value. You are entitled to base your personal opinion on whatever you like, reasonable or not, because this isn’t a court room. But the logic does transfer to real world. A lot of people are going to find that “She’s a racist because she does stuff we think other racists do!” is far less than reasonable.

    I would submit this blurb from a Salem Witch Trial site, regarding “spectral evidence”:

    But the problem of spectral evidence remained, for the only ones who could see the witches in their spectral form, and thus say who it was that caused their pain, were the accusers themselves. Here Mather could find no answers in his library. He must leave it and enter the world of ordinary people. No abstract theory or abstruse theology could dictate commonly accepted contemporary notions of the truth of testimony.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  20. She is Jimmy Dean’s mom. He changed the spulling of the last name to get some space for himself. Whether she is a bigot or not is neither here nor there. She is a fat, squirrel, hillbilly, fat food cooking, joke of a tv cook.

  21. Squeeky: Who says the pattern is discernible only by one person? I didn’t say that, and basically everything we learn is pattern recognition and correlation, as much as that is maligned.

    The brain (human or not) is a pattern-making organism, from the neurons up. Neural training is the recognition of patterns from partial evidence, including the partial evidence of other neurons firing.

    The theory of gravity and uniform acceleration laws of Galileo arises from recognizing patterns; the geocentric model of the universe arose from pattern recognition, the better heliocentric model of the solar system arose from recognizing an underlying pattern that was less necessarily complex.

    You seem to think learning comes from others, but there has to be a way to learn something new that nobody else knows: Newton wasn’t taught a anything about his theory of gravity, he justified it by showing that it was a simple explanation of patterns he and others observed in the behavior of orbiting objects.

    We discover new knowledge by recognizing patterns and finding ways to explain why the patterns occur; the objective is to accurately predict the future and traits of things that are important to us. When oil companies explore for oil, they don’t just drill anywhere, they use patterns of geomorphology that are correlated with underground oil reserves; and they then use probes (like deep explosive echo processing) that can be predictive, all to predict the probable future (if we drill here, will we strike oil?)

    For blacks and others that regard racism to be a cruel and unfair trait to be avoided, shunned, despised and punished, predicting the presence of that trait is worth learning to do by recognizing the patterns of speech and linguistic gymnastics engaged in by racists to justify their racist actions without defeating their discriminatory objective by simple open admission.

    It isn’t just one person’s learning or recognition, it is a collection. And it isn’t a witch hunt, because witches do not exist: Racists actually exist, racial discrimination does exist, and racism is engaged in by people that purposely try to obscure the truth of their motivations.

    A court finding is not proof of innocence, and even if it were, Paula Deen was not on trial for being a racist. Being a racist is legal. If Ms. Jackson has no case for Discrimination, that doesn’t acquit Paula Deen of being a racist or prove she is not.

    Her words and actions prove to many of us she IS. And for us, we are inclined to punish such words and actions by economic boycott as an object lesson to others that we find such words and actions socially unacceptable, legal or not. She has free speech: So do we, and I think we have shown her and her racist sympathizers who can speak the loudest.

  22. gbor387: She should have lied in her deposition …

    She probably wasn’t quite that dumb. She probably considered that it was at least possible somebody had her on tape, sometime and somewhere, using the n-word, and that is the most probably explanation for why she waffled when asked if she used it later, and claimed she couldn’t remember exactly, and admitted it was used in jokes by her husband and family. She couldn’t know who else would testify or had testified or what they had said.

    Lying in a deposition is perjury and a crime in itself. She could have been in MORE trouble if she were caught lying.

    Perhaps she should have plead the fifth and said nothing. I think she thought she could breeze it away with a little Southern charm; her opening gambit was jolly admission (“Of course!”). Lying would have been really, really stupid.

  23. Paula Deen

    Date of Birth
    19 January 1947, Albany, Georgia, USA

    Birth Name
    Paula Ann Hiers

    5′ 6″ (1.68 m)

    Mini Biography
    Born in Albany, Georgia, Deen is a notable graduate of Albany High School. She married her first husband after graduating high school in 1965. Her parents both died by the time she was 23, and a resultant fear of death led to chronic agoraphobia. She was a proficient Southern cook, and used it to help deal with her condition. in 1986, she felt okay enough to take a job as a bank teller. She was robbed at gunpoint the next year, and that incident led her to deal with her agoraphobia head-on. After the family moved to Savannah in 1989, she decided to parlay her cooking experience into a clandestine catering service. She made sandwiches and other meals, and her sons delivered them.

    IMDb Mini Biography By: Brian J

    Michael Anthony Groover (6 March 2004 – present)
    Jimmy Deen (1965 – 1989) (divorced) 2 children

    Her first business, The Bag Lady, lasted for five years out of the kitchen in the Best Western in Savannah.

    Owns the “Lady and Sons” restaurant in downtown Savannah with her two sons, Bobby Deen and Jamie Deen.

    Films her cooking show, “Paula’s Home Cooking” (2002), out of her kitchen in Georgia.

    In 2007, Forbes Magazine estimated her earnings for the year to be $4 million.

    Editor-in-chief of “Cook with Paula Deen” magazine.

    When she was 18, her uncle, Bob Hiers, took her to the 1965 World’s Fair in New York City. He used to be a water-skier in water shows, which is where he met Carol Burnett and they dated for four weeks.

    Grand Marshal, Tournament of Roses parade. [2011]

    Named “TV’s Sexiest Female Chef” by Maxim magazine [October 11, 2011].

    In January 2012 she announced that she was diagnosed with having Type 2 Diabetes.

    Diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes [January 17, 2012].

    Mother-in-law of Brooke Deen.

    Grandmother of Jack Deen and Matthew Deen.

  24. @tonyc:

    We discover new knowledge by recognizing patterns and finding ways to explain why the patterns occur; the objective is to accurately predict the future and traits of things that are important to us.

    True. That is why Jesse Jackson is glad the footsteps at his back in the dark belong to white folks. But in the art of using patterns, the existence of substantive evidence is kind of important. The oil company, who detects a pattern in the rocks, similar to other patterns which have proven successful, has an opinion that the same is true here also, and drills. On this endeavor, they are either successful or not.

    With Paula Deen, you see a pattern. You express your opinion. There is no way to prove whether your opinion, based on pattern, is correct or not as regards her. You must turn to the underlying incident(s). Where, I am not seeing much evidence of racism.

    But, from my point of view, I also see a pattern. One the author also sees, although with less malice than me. I see a pattern of race-baiting. It is also an established pattern, with a lot of history. People who do this usually seek some kind of power. Or to satisfy some personal needs. They do this by ascribing all sorts of bad intent to the racial scapegoats.

    The only way to figure out whether it is race-baiting, or a sincere desire to root out racists, is to look at the actual underlying incident or event. Here, I see one where people claim she is a racist, without much evidence of the same. My conclusion is obvious.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  25. We made copies of the photo of Jimmie Dean’s mom and printed it on toilet paper which we placed next to a similar sample of the Kardasian family in the outhouse. The Paula Dean version was not used once. No one wanted her ugly pus near their uttBay. The bugs all retreated from the outhouse though and there will be more data in on that topic as time goes on. The word “data” gets employed by a lot of journalists and other writers and we at the dogpac are becoming skeptical of any writer who employs that term. Data this and data that.

    The depiction of this fat southern slobbering so called cook is too much to look at in the morning.

  26. Squeeker:There is no way to prove whether your opinion, based on pattern, is correct or not as regards her. You must turn to the underlying incident(s).

    There is no way to prove it to you, because you are ignorant and without experience in what those patterns mean. If an oil field geologist provides me with ten samples of rock and asks me to put them in order of increasing probability of oil, even if I have a full lab to do it I am not going to pass that test, I am not learned in what the patterns are that indicate oil or a lack thereof. She has spent a career learning those patterns, both explicitly (in class) and by her own experience in the field.

    You are in the same position with regard to racism; a few million people in this country have a lifetime of experience with being on the wrong end of racism, from grade school on up. Without proximity to those experiences (either by family, by friendship or by profession, such as sociologist, psychologist or therapist) you have not been exposed enough to develop your own pattern recognition.

    And as usual, you think you already know everything so you won’t accept anybody else’s opinion on it. But if we polled the experts in racism (the millions of blacks in this country) on whether Paula Deen is a racist, after they have read her deposition and watched her video crap, I think we’d find a super majority echoing her deposition answer: “Of course!”

    What you think is race-baiting is not at all, you are just too ignorant to see racism where you do not want to see it.

    Paula Deen is a racist, the “underlying incidents” are the proof of it to those versed in the ways racism is practiced in modern culture, under the light of political incorrectness, when overt statements have adverse consequences, so covert statements and logic concerning motivations for actions are the evidence with which we work.

    And that is enough, for me it is well beyond a reasonable doubt, Paula Deen is a racist, so is her husband and brother, and they should be socially and financially ostracized by those of us that regard racism as a corrosive disease in a society, that ostracizing is society’s immune system to prevent the spread of a destructive disease.

  27. Very interesting article Mark. It is amazing how quickly Paula Deen’s world unraveled. However, I agree with Blouise and Tony C.. She made her own bed.

  28. Blouise, That is the difference between the public discourse and the courtroom. No one needs to inhibit their expression of Deen in the public sector. Their are very few rules. Minorities, disabled, etc. have gotten justice in the courtroom that certainly doesn’t always transfer to the public. I happen to think Deen[who I despise for her cooking and smarm] got a raw deal and now has been vindicated in court. You think the decision was wrong and continue to say that. This is how it’s supposed to work.

  29. @tonyc:

    Well, the more you talk, the more you expose your own biases. Your theory is, one person should hold a black person by both feet and ankles with the face down and the legs wide apart, while another person lifts the upper parts of their bodies. Then we can just DOWSE for racism! Just point their heads at somebody, and if they start bouncing up and down, then there’s a racist! How wonderfully scientific!

    Yeah, that gets rid of that whole, troubling “objective criteria” thingy! Because you know, the only proof was her self admission that she said the n word a couple of decades ago and if you just go with that, then you have a pretty weak case. And, by the way, wasn’t it Lyndon Johnson who said:

    “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”

    Hmmm. I wonder how a Black Racism-Dowser would act around his grave???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  30. nick,

    Whatever made you think I thought the decision was wrong? The lawsuit was weak from the getgo. But the “verdict” you admire won’t save her empire for it was the publication of Deen’s sworn statements in the deposition and her subsequent mea culpas that led to the unraveling of her empire.

    I wasn’t the least bit interested in the lawsuit itself but Deen’s reaction to it and the reaction to her reaction from those who supported her was such a blatant display of white privilege that the opportunity to shine a light on it couldn’t, and shouldn’t, be ignored.

    There are so many points to white privilege that I did not address and one of them is the use of the n-word by blacks. I decided not to go into it because such a discussion probably belongs on one of the Social Science blogs but suffice it to say that taking back the power of the word unto themselves and redirecting its use is something people like Paula Deen would never understand in a million years. It’s too far outside the parameters of white privilege.

  31. tony c:

    can you clarify on your pattern recognition is learning statement? Do you mean that pattern recognition [perception] is the start of learning/understanding or do you mean it is learning?

  32. Blouise, I believe the ruling was righteous, I have never “admired” a verdict. I was wrong on your take of the lawsuit. But, that “white privilege” flag you wave is often indiscriminate. IMHO, if you take the white privilege, white guilt, black race hustlers, out of the equation, then that “open dialogue” would be possible.

  33. @nicks:

    True. Because that racism doesn’t tend to get more votes for the Democratic party. Plus, I imagine the party higher ups view it as good race-baiting training. Same as with the liberal plants who hold up “N -word” signs at tea party rallies. Wouldn’t that be confusing to some of the “scientists” here!

    This would be kind of quantum-y like Schrodinger’s Racist. You wouldn’t know if they were racist or not until after they went on Oprah’s show. Where their attitude alone would collapse the wave function.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  34. It’s usually better to err on the side of not doing anything remotely that would get you arrested, sued, or pilloried. Good faith goes a long way in trying to do the right thing.

    Simple advice that is often ignored by too many.

    Even if Ms. Deen had the court go in her favor for this incident, it certainly is a very pyrrhic victory.

  35. Blouise, Great posts. It’s so sad that those infected with white privilege are unable to see it.

    I think if Ms. Jackson had been Black there would have been a verdict. Charges being dismissed due to lack of standing doesn’t mean the underlying charge isn’t true. The charge itself hasn’t been argued.

  36. bettykath,

    “It’s so sad that those infected with white privilege are unable to see it.”

    That is the real handicap and it is one that even when recognized within oneself has to be re-recognized on an almost daily basis because the handicap is built into the culture and never goes away.

    Look at the term male privilege. If both men and women believe that women are, due to their nature, subservient to men then subjugation of females by males becomes natural and acceptable. If the configuration of that oppression is invisible then it seems natural, even inevitable. Look at Saudi Arabia as a modern day example. Then look at the feminist movement in this country starting with the struggle to get women the right to vote to see just how difficult combating male privilege was/is. Men were flummoxed by the feminist movement for male privilege seemed the natural order of things.

    White privilege runs along the same path. White privilege is not suffering from an irrational fear that some minority is going to take your spot in a university … white privilege is thinking you had a spot to begin with. White privilege is at work when talking about whiteness is considered reverse discrimination because white people don’t consider themselves as white … they are just people. White privilege is invisible which is why it seems so natural and why it is, like male privilege, so easy to deny.

  37. Wow, Mark. Jackson’s statement is a stunner. It does provide context though to consider the lawsuit and media manipulation as a form of propaganda though. Conflict is conflict and war is war and although her and her attorney’s tactics didn’t produce a court victory, they certainly illustrate what a Pyrrhic victory is: a wasteland.

  38. White privilege is so rampant because there only the select few imbued w/ that special ability to spot it. What privilege pray tell, does Lisa Jackson and her barrister suffer?

  39. nick,

    White privilege is covert. Denying its existence is part of the invisibility upon which its continuation of an unearned set of privileges depends.

    Remember Rachel Jeantel and the characterization of her appearance at the Zimmerman trial? The ridicule describing her testimony as ghetto speech, stupid … that condescending play of white privilege on a 19 year old girl who had been speaking to her friend on the phone right before her friend was “disappeared forever” by Zimmerman was going full blast.

    At the same time and on the other hand we had poor Paula … my goodness, whatever shall we do about her reputation.

    As I said initially way back upthread … this is really a matter for the Social Science blogs as I’m addressing a social construct but the juxtaposition of the two legal proceedings and the different role white privilege played in each, simultaneously, was a perfect storm not to be ignored.

  40. p.s.

    I nearly forgot … both legal proceedings resulted in victory for white privilege and lisa Jackson is now comfortably back in the fold and who in the hell is Rachel Jeantel. All is right with the world.

    Whew! That was a close one.

  41. I’m having a chuckle.

    Sometimes equity crafts solutions that please no one.

    That is simply the Tao of things.

    To fight the Tao is to invite disaster.

  42. Gene,

    Deen would have been a lot better served if she’d hired Zimmerman’s lawyers the minute that depo was released … of course that’s assuming she would have had the brains to listen to them and do as they advised.

    There are times in one’s life when a good lawyer is worth twice his/her weight in gold.

  43. White privilege seems to occur at the strangest times, such as when liberal white folks get to freely pretend that they are out there saving the black folks with all their misplaced pity and patronization. Other times, it is pretty open, like here, not from 16 years ago, but only a few months back:

    Why doesn’t the mainstream media ever report Democrats calling blacks “niggers”? Oh, I forgot, because it doesn’t fit liberals’ false narrative that only Republicans are racist.

    Buena Vista, Michigan Township Clerk Gloria Platko had enough of the Township Supervisor Dwayne Parker and thought the appropriate word for expressing her frustration was to call Parker a nigger. In a phone call with Interim Township Manager Dexter Mitchell, who is black, Platko said:

    “You know what I think of Mr. Parker right now and you know, you’re not even going to like this. He’s just an arrogant nigger, and I’m sorry to say it that way but that’s the way I see Dwayne Parker right now.”

    There is more at the link:

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  44. Can Asians or Hispanics see white privilege? Presumably only enlightened men can see male privilege. What about black men? Does their understanding of white privilege help them see male privilege? Let me answer that one myself. Black men are Middle Ages vis a vis male privilege. What about Asian and Hispanic males? Can they see male privilege what w/ the paternal Asian and machismo Hispanic cultures, again probably not. What about Tiger Woods? Never mind, this is way too complicated. Just tell me when I’m not seeing black or female issues correctly and give me my penance please.

  45. White privilege? I think it’s a mistake to deify any race or to coddle any race. I also think its a mistake to toss glittering generalities around like they are fact.

    I prefer the micro approach of judging each person according to their own circumstances and actions after all the evidence is in.

    Call me madcap!

  46. nick,

    White privilege is not a value judgement.

    Acknowledging white privilege is not threatening and it doesn’t mean you owe anybody something. Your defensiveness on the matter is understandable as I am challenging your ideas about being white in America.

    You keep introducing other races into the discussion as a means of avoiding the very nature of white privilege being only white and then ask for a penance (caustically) in an attempt to spin white privilege into white guilt. Your reaction is both commonplace and classic.

    The power of being white in this society grants advantages without
    acknowledging same. Some whites argue against this because they don’t “feel” privileged. Others because the privilege has been with them for so long that it is part of their sense of self … but that’s the way it’s always been mantra.

    Like it or not, agree with it or not makes no real difference … white privilege is tightly woven into the fabric of this society. So tightly that it is almost invisible.

    That was the beauty of the Zimmerman Deen legal situations occurring at the same time … the threads of white privilege popped out for all to see … and then deny.

  47. Blouise, I understand a white person generally has advantages. I am not the least bit defensive, guilt ridden or ashamed of that. It’s simply the reality. Short men, fat people, ugly people..I could go on, have distinct disadvantages. Tall people, trim and good looking people have advantages. Life’s hard, wear a freakin’ helmet. However, I tire of talks of race. I much prefer talking about class. There are different classes of every race and CLASS is the topic that virtually everyone avoids. As mespo said, white privilege is way too general. I have a pretty good self awareness, a quality of introverts. I too, like mespo, assess people as they are. Please don’t think some poor white kid living in a trailer park has “white privilege” over the black children of a successful attorney. Damn, the Obama kids have an advantage over virtually all kids in this country. All this said, I respect your views and you. We just have a fairly fundamental disagreement on this issue. C’est la vie.

  48. Yep. Privilege, whether white privilege or male privilege, doesn’t recognize privilege.

    White privilege and male privilege aren’t about how you judge others. It’s about how you take advantage of your privilege (or not!).

    In our society, if you are white, you have privileges that those who are not white don’t have. In our society, if you are male, you have privileges that females don’t have. It takes work and introspection to recognize when you have the opportunity to take advantage of your privilege and then refuse to do so.

    If you are white and think you don’t have white privilege, or if you are male and think you don’t have male privilege, you are deluded and in serious need of self-examination.

  49. Okay.

    You’re madcap, Mark.

    Possibly even zany. :mrgreen:

    You and your paying attention to the situations and individuals in analysis . . . why that’s almost scientific!

  50. nick,

    “I understand a white person generally has advantages. ”

    Of course you do which I never doubted for a minute. I was addressing you because you were willing to debate the matter, not because I thought you needed to have your conscious raised or even be educated on the issue. After all, you were a history teacher and you know a great deal about the white, protestant, landowners and the cultural views of race and the expectation of dominance as a structural feature of society the British brought with them when they came to North America. British cultural predisposition to see themselves as inherently superior as a distinct race of people is well documented and we were, after all, British colonies.

    The need for cheap labor led our “superior” forefathers to first attempt to convert indentured white servants as slaves but since most of those servants were from England with a strong a sense of their rights as freemen, the plan failed. Next on the list were Native Americans but they could easily escape and disappear into native populations. This left black Africans, who were in an unfamiliar land, looked very different from the rest of the population and thus had no place to hide. Permanent slavery became their lot and white privilege became ours.

    White privilege is not a code word for racist. Far from it. Understanding white privilege allows the white person to move out from the constraints of race without guilt and into empathy. But it is a wholly personal move, a self epiphany, if you will. And once having moved beyond the invisible constraints of white privilege, one never moves back.

  51. bettykath,

    Do you think I dare suggest that women have an easier time grasping the actuality of white privilege because we have to deal with male privilege?

  52. nick,

    I was going to let it go but …

    “Please don’t think some poor white kid living in a trailer park has “white privilege” over the black children of a successful attorney. Damn, the Obama kids have an advantage over virtually all kids in this country.”

    Two words … Trayvon Martin

    (white privilege is not “privileged”)

  53. “I prefer the micro approach of judging each person according to their own circumstances and actions after all the evidence is in.”

    I think we have to agree with you that each individual should be judged on his or her own gifts, efforts and accomplishments.

    But I think your disparagement of the concept of white privilege is misplaced.

    ‘White privilege’ may not be a technical term. What it refers to may not always determine the outcome of social encounters.

    But, I am pretty sure we could find many careful studies that demonstrate that appearance, specifically skin color, confers and advantage in social encounters related to employment, housing, and many other areas where face to face contact occurs.

    I seem to recall a study that sent similar applicants with identical credentials to job interviews. There was a clear bias for the white applicant.

    That is not the fault of the white applicant. It does not even demonstrate conscious racism. But it does document something that might reasonably be called ‘white privilege.’

    There is also a well known study of unconscious racism based on a few hundred thousand calls by NBA referees. That study was contested by the NBA. But many readers of both studies discount the NBA defense and agree that in the data studied, there was a significant bias in the foul calls of NBA referees. The authors did not accuse the referees of conscious racism. The point the article was that under the best of circumstances, with the best of intention, individuals may still make biased decisions of which they are completely unaware.

    The relevance of unconscious bias to this discussion is that unconscious bias is one mechanism through which ‘white privilege’ might operate.

    People can dispute the existence of ‘white privilege’.

    But again and again in many aspects of life it seems that people with lighter skin color come out better than those with similar abilities and darker skin. And that is no ‘glittering generality’.

  54. bigfatmike:

    “But again and again in many aspects of life it seems that people with lighter skin color come out better than those with similar abilities and darker skin. And that is no ‘glittering generality’.”

    then how do you account for the phenominal success of Indians [from India] in this country?

    Personally, if a white American and an Indian with identical credentials applied for a job, I would hire the Indian. And many employers do just that.

  55. “then how do you account for the phenominal success of Indians [from India] in this country?”

    I have not read anything regarding success of Indians as an ethnic group so I really cannot give a good answer.

    But a couple of factors that might be relevant come to mind.

    The Indian population in this country might be selected for characteristics that make them very different from the general population.

    The population might have family or cultural characteristics that give them a better chance to overcome any prejudice they encounter.

    The ‘phenominal success” might be a bit of an illusion based on impression of average success of the general population compared to perceived success of part of the Indian population in this country.

    I don’t know if any of those would hold up under careful study.

    It is an interesting question.

  56. Elaine, You missed my point entirely. GENERALLY there is male and white privilege. However, we all know, or at least should know, that generalities are fraught w/ problems. Of course men still pretty much rule the world and many..most feel they are owed that privilege. Myself and mespo are merely saying that to trot out that paradigm every time an issue arises, w/o looking @ the evidence, is generalizing a specific incident. Our justice system is righteously based upon not generalizing an incident. There are rules of evidence. In the public domain there are virtually no rules. As it should be by virtue of the 1st Amendment. Maybe the difference between us, you and Blouise is we have spent our adult lives working in our justice system. And, that’s the reason we have differences on this, Trayvon Martin, and other racial, gender issues. We admit these privileges exist. My question to you is, do you think they exist in every case?

  57. Blouise, I will not generalize black males. They run the gamut. We are dealing w/ gender and class as well as race in that incident. It was a perfect storm.

  58. We are still not discussing class. That’s an “open discussion” IMHO that needs to be held more than gender or race. I’ve had this experience too many times to think it’s a coincidence. Class is a VERY uncomfortable topic for people of our status. I only have good discussions on class w/ folks in lower classes than us. And, my experience is, even black folk down the ladder understand it.

  59. Elaine:

    Just might. White men have been building this country for a long time, almost 300 years, dont you think they have learned something in that time and passed it along to their sons? And now are also passing it on to their daughters because the times have changed.

    Women have been in the work force, in earnest, for only about 30 years. My aunt was a highly competent woman but she was only able to be an executive secretary in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, today she would run a major company. My grandmother worked as a manager in a doctor’s office, today she would have been a doctor.

    There is plenty of opportunity for everyone in this country and blaming failure on white privilege is BS. It gives women and minorities an out if they dont make something of themselves.

    You dont think white men work their a$$es off to achieve success? Many dont get where they wanted to for all sorts of reasons, they dont blame it on minority quotas or black privilege.

    In a free society with a capitalist system, you better be willing to pay a heavy price to be successful or it isnt going to happen. You can do pretty well just working 40 hours a week but you are never going to be wealthy or be in control of much more than a very small business.

    Maybe white males understand that simple fact and I see many minorities and women who understand that fact as well. They are very successful and doing very well.

    Maybe white privilege is better characterized as hard work privilege, those who work hard usually end up running things no matter their race or sex. I see it all around me.

    I would never tell my daughter that she couldnt be successful because of white male privilege, what a horrible thing to do to a person. Start them out in the world with failure thinking? No wonder women and minorities dont do well in life if that is what they are constantly forced to hear.

    What a crock of negative, failure inducing/reinforcing BS.

    I seriously wonder about the motives/character of a person who would destroy a child’s dreams.

  60. Unless, of course, that child is poor or otherwise socially disadvantaged. Then it’s perfectly okay for the ownership class to exploit them as they will. Economic slavery is just as effective as shackles and much easier to pass off as “a good thing”. Property rights are paramount and absolute. Right?

    You should never brag that you’re willing to exploit people for profit, Bron.

    People remember that sort of thing.

    It makes a lasting impression.

    Not a good one either.

    Your Objectivist ideology requires an underclass.

    Your indignation about “on noes! think of the children!” fools no one.

    Except maybe yourself.

  61. Gene H:

    Property rights are or should be paramount. There is an economist from Spain or South America who makes a very compelling case that identifies property rights as one of the most important factors in lifting third world countries and the people out of poverty.

    What does exploit people for profit mean anyway? You cant even hire a person if you dont make a profit on their labor.

    Socialist ideology creates an underclass, a permanent very large underclass with a very few anointed socialists running the show.

    I’ll take Objectivist philosophy any day of the week to socialist ideology.

    Pay top dollar for top talent, that is what an Objectivist would say and make a big profit by selling an excellent product for as much as the market will let you sell it for.

    Many poor children are poor because people are like crabs and dont like others crawling out of the bushel basket.

    Are you a crab?

  62. Bron,

    No. Property rights are not absolute. That’s a common delusion among both libertarians and Libertarians. Everyone has a right to own property and not to be stripped of it arbitrarily, but the right is not absolute. Never has been since the inception of formal governance. Even in the state of nature, your property right is absolute only insofar as you can kick the ass of someone wanting to take it from you.

    There is a difference between profit made by adding value and profit made by exploitation. Ask those kids working in Asian operated American owned garment factories being paid $3 a day for 10-12 hour days so you can buy cheap shirts and underwear.

    Also, you know very well – or you should – that my political ideology is far more syncretic than simply saying it’s socialist. I’m not crippled by binary thinking.

    And as far as ocean life goes, I’m more like a dolphin. Maybe a giant squid or cuttlefish.

    But your bad choices are your choices to make . . . including embracing the dehumanizing, tyrannical and sociopathic ideology of Objectivism.

    I’m all for freedom of religion. And from it. But especially freedom from one that worships ego, selfishness and profits.

  63. property rights should be almost absolute. When the state takes your property it needs to be a valid reason and the government should pay slightly above market value to compensate for the disruption.

  64. “property rights should be almost absolute.”

    The fallacy of appealing to wealth and the mind projection fallacy.

    Property rights are not absolute in the real world, nor have they ever been, despite that you think they should be, Bron.

  65. Say I own a piece of land in fee simple absolute (don’t let the term of art fool you) – the most basic and total form of ownership possible. On this land are uranium deposits. That ore is mine . . . to mine even. Say I mine some ore and refine it – at facilities on said property that I paid for – to make weapons grade uranium. I then build – again on that property with facilities that I bought and paid for – a nuclear weapon. These are all within my rights as a property owner with absolute property rights. I owned all the materials and facilities outright to make the weapon(s). Would I be allowed to be the world’s first private individual nuclear power?

    Only for as long as it would take for my property to be taken from me and/or destroyed – possibly me along with it.

    Not coincidentally, I could have all of my property seized for failing to pay taxes on it.

    Or seized to satisfy a judgement a neighbor got against me for the radioactive runoff from my property poisoning his land and ground water.

    The notion that property rights are absolute is pure fantasy in any form of society that has a government and courts.

  66. I know a guy who has an agreement with a company in India to help with engineering and the Indian firm charges him 1/3rd of what he charges his clients. He [my friend] takes all of the financial risk and finds the projects. By your way of thinking it should be the Indian engineer who makes the most money because he [my friend] is not really doing any value added work except reviewing the plans and putting a stamp on them.

    The Indian firm has access to a new market, my friend can work on other projects and a few Indian engineers are employed which wouldnt have been otherwise. The benefit is that my friend can make more money because he has leveraged his time.

    So while an American engineer is displaced by cheaper labor, the extra money my friend makes can be spent on a new car, a new house, stocks, or something else which raises the standard of living of Americans.

    The Indian engineers make about $7/hour vs. 25-50 for an American engineer. Is the Indian engineer being exploited?

    Child labor for young children is wrong but what are poor countries going to do? Reality is a harsh mistress.

  67. Actually, you are making my point for me. American engineers being paid the value of the services locally would have roughly 3 to 5 times the disposable income of their offshore counterparts to spend in the domestic economy – which none of the offshore engineers participate in. So for one guy to maximize his profits by not using domestic labor, you’ve removed several engineers from participating in the local economy by rendering them unemployed in the pursuit of higher profits through the exploitation of cheap labor.

    Well played, Chumley.

    Yeah. Reality is a harsh mistress. Too bad you and she aren’t on regular speaking terms.

  68. Gene H:

    First of all you would be better off selling the mineral rights. Secondly, your neighbor should have the ability to sue you for damage.

    The atomic bomb is absurd. Government should be the only entity which has the right to use/control that degree of force.

    Property rights should be one of the foundations of a free society. No matter the absurdity of your argument. You assume, in that example, that property rights exist in a vacuum. They dont which is why I think property rights should be held in high regard and should be near absolute.

    I linked to a cartoon because I thought it would better hold your attention.

  69. “Actually, you are making my point for me. American engineers being paid the value of the services locally would have roughly 3 to 5 times the disposable income of their offshore counterparts to spend in the domestic economy ”

    prove that.

    The profit the owner made is what would pay for those other engineers, so all that has happened is that money is spent elsewhere to create different jobs, the net result is the same.

    Stick to political “science”.

  70. The net result isn’t the same. The Indian engineers spend their money like the American engineers: locally. It’s called logic. I know it’s a hard for a binary thinker operating under the constraint of outcome determinism to follow that, but do try to keep up.

    Also, we do have property rights, Bron. They just aren’t absolute. Thanks for acknowledging that reality.

    As for cartoon? I enjoy a good cartoon. That didn’t qualify. However, a format traditionally used to address children is appropriate for a philosophy geared toward adolescent and/or otherwise stunted intellects.

    You keep forgetting, I’ve read your source materials.

    I just don’t worship them.

  71. nick,

    I didn’t address my comment to you.


    Chill out. My husband is a white male who has worked his butt off. That said, it is usually more difficult for women and minorities to make their marks in the world. Some people work their butts off all of their lives and never catch a break.


    My rhetorical question was meant to address the issue of exceptions to the “rules.” Some folks seem to think that the exceptions prove that there is no discrimination against minorities and those often discriminated against.

  72. “You dont think white men work their a$$es off to achieve success? ”

    I do think that most men and women work very hard for their success.

    But I think it is a fallacy to believe that the concept of ‘white privilege’ implies that white men do not have to work hard. Nothing about the concept of white privilege suggest that white men do not have to work hard for their success.

    White privilege goes to what happens when individuals with similar skills and different skin color are evaluated for the same position. Studies demonstrate a phenomenon that might reasonably be called white privilege.

    Whether white men have to work hard for their success goes to the employment pyramid and the number of high level positions available compared to the number of white male job candidates. Getting a job or a promotion is not easy no matter who you are. Any position is likely to have many qualified white male candidates. White males work very hard for success.

    But white males are more likely to be selected when they compete against women or dark skin males who have the same skill level.

  73. Gene H:

    As for the cartoon, that was from a book called Rich Dad, Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. So I am not sure how much of Von Mises/Rand you have read if you cannot distinguish between Kiyosaki and Von Mises. It is quite obvious whatever the amount, you dont understand the basic principles behind free markets and free people.

  74. Gene H:

    the profit from the use of Indian engineers is used locally by the owner. The net result is the same. Money the owner doesnt use to pay for salaries is used in America.

    If 2 American engineers are put out of work because of the Indians all that means is that about $200,000 more dollars is going into the owners pocket for him to spend locally. The net result is the same. Dolce Vita doesnt care if Robert comes to eat 4 times a month with his wife or Dick and Jane dine twice a month with their spouses.

    Mr. Vitale still serves 8 meals a month.

    This is pretty simple stuff Gene, I am surprised you dont understand. Well not really.

  75. Bron,

    I understand both just fine. That’s why I’m so easily able to point out the flaws in your arguments and to why Objectivism’s necessary outcome is tyranny. Which is what I was addressing by mentioning your source materials since Rand and von Mises informs damn near everything you say.

    As for Kiyosaki, I would never buy an adult’s book giving economic advice from a guy who bilked his partners for almost $24,000,000 according to a U.S. District Court and then bankrupted one of his companies attempting to avoid paying damages much less a book he wrote for children.

    Then again, picking bad books from dubious sources seems to be your specialty, not mine.

  76. “the profit from the use of Indian engineers is used locally by the owner. The net result is the same. Money the owner doesnt use to pay for salaries is used in America. Money the owner doesnt use to pay for salaries is used in America.”

    By one guy instead of many.

    Like you said, simple stuff really.

    Greed is stupid. Thanks for that illustration.

  77. bigfatmike:

    yes, discrimination is real.

    I know a person who owns a restaurant who will not hire white middle class kids because he says they are lazy, dont know how to work and expect too much for their limited skills.

    How does he know this? He has hired some and interviews others and all have come up short in his opinion.

    He only hires Hispanics because they work hard and make him money. When it comes to making money people discriminate at their own risk. Try being a racist basketball team owner, you would never win a championship let alone a game. Well you might win a couple but the fans wouldnt come to watch a losing team.

    I think most company owners would agree that the only color which really matters is green. Unless they are just completely racist a$$hats.

    Make yourself useful by gaining skills and doing a good job for the owner.

  78. ” profit from the use of Indian engineers is used locally by the owner. The net result is the same.”

    You are right I have not read a lot of von Mises. But your analysis, which I think you have to admit is pretty simple, leaves out a lot.

    You seem to assume that because the owner captures the income not paid to US engineers, then the same kinds of goods will be purchased. That seems unlikely to me and in fact there are studies to demonstrate that the market basket of goods consumed changes dramatically with income. As a practical matter it might make a lot of difference to all of us how much income we devote to luxury cars and how much income we devote to school books – of course that is a very simple example, but maybe you get the gist of my remarks.

    In addition you seem to assume that if the owner captures all the income from the US engineers then the same proportion of income will be consumed and saved. Again that seems unlikely to me and again I am pretty sure we can find some studies to show that is just not true. Even the most extravagant lifestyle may have trouble spending all the income available to the top earners. Income not spent would be saved. Savings are not always invested, and even if invested not always invested in social useful ways.

    The fact is that changes in the distribution of income also change the way society works. Sometimes those changes don’t matter very much. Sometime they make a great deal of differences. Your analysis does not seem to recognized those changes at all, let alone distinguish which changes are OK and which ones might cause problems.

  79. Gene:

    I dont think you pointed out any flaws. You insulted me, you pointed out that Kiyosaki has legal problems. And then you said greed is stupid.

    What argument did you make?

    So what if $200k is spent by one person? The net result is the same in the local economy. The additional benefit is that consumers of engineering services can pay less and our owner could grow his business by taking business from higher priced engineers. Or they lower their prices to compete.

  80. “So what if $200k is spent by one person? The net result is the same in the local economy.”

    No, Bron. It’s not the same, because he’d have had to pay the American engineers 3 to 5 times more than the Indians and that difference would be spent in the American economy. One guy spending $200,000 isn’t the same as 10 people spending $70,000.

    I insulted your ideology. I and others have more than amply illustrated its flaws in the past but I can pound you into the ground again if you wish. I’d rather not repeat that simply because you want to pout. I pointed out that your children’s book was from as dubious a book as your adult choices in reading material and due in no small part to the credibility of the author. I said greed was stupid.

    Are you greedy, Bron?

    Because unless you are, I didn’t insult you.

    I insulted your ideology.

    I can if you’d like though.

  81. bigfatmike: ….”You seem to assume that because the owner captures the income not paid to US engineers, then the same kinds of goods will be purchased. That seems unlikely to me and in fact there are studies to demonstrate that the market basket of goods consumed changes dramatically with income.”

    Exactly. That’s why having 60%+ of the world’s wealth in the hands of 1% of its people causes world-wide economic stagnation and IMO, destruction.

    Your comments on this thread have been excellent.

  82. bigfatmike:

    of course it is leaving out a lot. All I am saying is that there is a net gain to the economy through spending or investing. Money saved in a bank is being used to make loans even if it isnt invested in the stock market or some other investment.

    All money not put under a mattress is used in the economy. Actually it is really better to invest the money because consumption does not grow economies. You need production first before you can consume. If you eat the chicken, you cannot have eggs and more chickens.

    You seem to assume that the economy is a 0 sum game. If someone wins then they do so at the expense of others. That isnt the way it works. Some people win big, take Steve Jobs, but typically they benefit society in many ways even if profit was their motivation.

    I love my Iphone and could care less if Steve Jobs is a billionaire, he benefited me and millions of others.

  83. “You seem to assume that the economy is a 0 sum game.”

    Actually no.

    Your analysis “The net result is the same. …Dolce Vita …still serves 8 meals a month.” seems to express, if not rely, on the concept of ‘zero sum’ in the equality of what the US engineers loose and what the owners gain.

    But what ever the fine points of your argument, my whole point is that it makes a big difference how we divide up the income pie precisely because it is unlikely that what the US engineers loose will be exactly made up by what the owners gain. My remarks definitely do not rely on or express the concept of ‘zero sum’.

  84. To what situation, Bron?

    I already explained the problem and the fact that wages paid overseas are spent overseas. Or don’t you understand the concept of volume and what constitutes a domestic economy?

  85. I’m also guessing that Dolce Vita would rather sell three meals a month to eleven people than eight meals a month to one.

  86. Speaking of the upper crust of Americans who worked their butts off to get where they are today:

    Taxpayer Dollars Paid A Third Of Richest Corporate CEOs: Report
    By zach Carter & Katherine Burkhart
    Posted: 08/28/2013

    “We take a disciplined approach for determining compensation based on four principles: pay for performance, promote a culture of risk management that avoids unnecessary or excessive risk taking, attract and retain highly qualified executives with competitive pay, and align executives’ interests with those of stockholders,” Wells Fargo spokesman Michael McCoy said.

    “Sky-high CEO pay purportedly reflects the superior value that elite chief executives add to their enterprises and the broader U.S. economy,” IPS wrote. “But our analysis reveals widespread poor performance within America’s elite CEO circles. Chief executives performing poorly — and blatantly so — have consistently populated the ranks of our nation’s top-paid CEOs over the last two decades.”

  87. nick,

    A discussion on white privilege creates discomfort in white people so let’s ignore it and talk about class structure instead.

    The power of white privilege depends on invisibility and that’s exactly how the invisibility remains intact.

  88. bigfatmike:

    I see what you are saying and agree that in a small isolated economy it would hurt some businesses which those engineers patronized. But in the economy in general, the loss of a couple of engineers wages being offset by the increased income of the boss would have no net affect one way or the other.

    In a healthy economy those engineers would find other employment or retrain and start another career. Capital is always going to try and find cheaper labor or faster service or a better product depending on circumstance.

Comments are closed.