Does David Duke belong on CNN?

Sure, in the context in which he appeared.

He's in the news for going to Iran, and he hanged himself in the interview anyway.

Comments

[E Cone Levy]

I saw the interview. While I don't want to give Duke any credibility, I think that Blitzer made some mistakes. An interview is bound to get off on the wrong foot if the first thing you ask is " Mr. Duke, do you hate jews?".

I found another stupid question in Blitzer's, "If the media is biased, why are we letting you on here?" No doubt, Duke's answer was "to put a spin on things and make me look bad", not that anyone needs to put a spin on things to make Duke look bad anyway.

I just thought that the interview lacked tough questions and allowed Duke to attempt to take an intellectual high ground along the lines of " you're just trying to make me look bad and not concentrating on the issues".

One thing I came away from the issue asking myself is, do Duke and his fellow deniers add any intellectual value to the discussion of the Holocaust? Surely the issue of the Holocaust is so obviously one-sided, yes it did happen and was very evil. Perhaps the truth about the Holocaust is one of the only issues in which examining the "other side" can only take away from the terrible atrocities committed, and give idiots like Duke credibility?

[Jill Williams]

ECL,
Although I wasn't able to hear the sound in the CNN clip, I think I would tend to agree with your assessment of Blitzer and Duke. What I find particularly interesting, though, is your last comment. And I'm not sure how to respond to it other than to ask you to say more about it. The Holocaust was clearly an extreme example of historical oppression and violence with its own unique characteristics. But is it really qualitatively different in terms of the value of examining the "other side"? If so, I wonder what makes it an exception? On the one hand, I think that to give the "other side" a public voice in a way that seems to balance its perspective with the way most of the world remembers these murders is clearly wrong. On the other hand, I wonder if there isn't something to be learned about why the "other side" might cling so tightly to its interpretation of the Holocaust, particularly given what seems to me to be a growing level of worldwide support for those views. That said, I'm pretty sure that my ambivalence about this question applies to other situations of historical oppression and violence.

[E CONE LEVY]

Jill,

I would say that the "other side" clings so tightly to its views because of bigotry. When you say "growing level of wordwide support for those views" do you mean views of bigotry, or views that show discontent with Israeli policy?

Duke does have a point when he criticizes Israeli policy (although it must be clear that he is a follower, not a leader). Perhaps a Palastinian state is a good solution to the problem (although it could also be a launching ground for attacks) and Israel should certainly be held accountable for its actions. While I personally agree with a lot of what Israel has done, they certainly can do wrong (e.g. allegations of Sharon wiping out Palastinian villages full of women and children)

To elaborate on my first comment: I am not really sure. The views of these deniers is deplorable. When Duke asked Blitzer if people like David Irving should be in prision, I tend to think, on one hand he is just speaking his mind, no matter how hateful is mind may be (and I guess that should be/is allowed?) while on the other hand, he is in prison in Austria, not the USA. Austria and Germany have definately dealt with the neo-Nazi movement in a heavy handed way, as they should.

When I learned that Irving was in prison, I wondered if it there would be justification to imprison people for such views in the USA (probably not, but my conscience was hardly breached when I learned of his imprisonment in Austria. As far as I'm concerned, he and other people with similar views can rot there are long as their legal system allows it.

In conclusion I would shy away from open exploration the "other side" of the Holocaust issue, because it is grounded in bigotry, and not based on fact.

What do you think?

[E Cone Levy]

Furthermore, clarification must be made between outright bigotry and discontent with Israeli policy, as they are different.

That being said, discontent with Israeli policy can go to far. Lately I have been shocked by the resemblance between Jimmy Carter and David Duke.

Israel as not undermined the peace process, nor was land "illegally taken" in 1967 (Israel was attacked first!). The Palestinians have never missed an oppurtunity to miss an oppurtunity at peace, and Carter's failure to realize this makes him look even worse than he already is.

[Jill Williams]

ECL,
When I used the phrase "growing level of worldwide support for those views" I was talking about Holocaust denial. (I said that "it seemed to me" that there was a growing level of such denial because I actually have no empirical evidence for such a claim. I'm merely basing that on Ahmadinejad's recent conference.) My guess is that you and I would probably disagree on some issues of Israeli policy, but I don't know for sure and that's not the reason I jumped into this discussion.

I was actually interested in what I consider your important question of whether people with views based in bigotry rather than fact should be heard in examinations of the Holocaust; and the secondary question of whether or not the Holocaust is the only (or one of the only) historical event that deserves such a position.

I'll start with the second issue. Personally, I find it unhelpful to hold the Holocaust apart from other experiences of genocide, terrorism, or state-sponsored or tolerated violence. This is not to say that the Holocaust did not have unique characteristics that get lost when it is lumped together with other historic human rights abuses. I just think that "divide and conquer" strategies tend to create environments ripe for such tragic events and that using a similarly divisive analysis of the events is unhelpful, at best, and creates/perpetuates an environment ripe for future abuses, at worst.

On the first question, I honestly don't know. On the one hand, I agree that providing a platform for ideas that grow out of bigotry rather than fact is problematic. (No offense, Ed.) Furthermore, I think it is important for us to remember that, although "freedom of speech" is part of the first amendment to our constitution, it isn't the only one and should not necessarily supercede other amendments, like the fourteenth. I also think that there is something to be said for each government considering these questions for itself. My previous paragraph notwithstanding, the US has a different history to consider in such questions than Germany and Austria, even if its own historical problems grow out of the similar seeds of anti-Semitism, racism and classism.

On the other hand, I think the fact that there are people out there who espouse such bigoted opinions is a symptom of a larger problem that is probably not cured by muzzling the "bigot."

[meblogin]

I wonder how many people younger than 35 can explain what the Holocaust issue is and why is it relevant?

This may shed light that it needs to be identified and discussed from many angles for many years to come.

Recently I asked a few younger (35 and less) life residents of Greensboro to tell me about the 1979 shootings. They knew nothing of the event.

The Holocaust should be educated over and over...the CWP shooting...not so sure that it is not a singular micro event that should drift into history.

[Jill Williams]

Just curious, meb, but why would you draw a distinction between the two events in terms of educating young people over and over about their importance? Obviously there are many differences between the two events, but I'm just curious what criteria you would use to discern which events merit being part of an educational plan and which should be left out.

[E. Cone Levy]

Jill,
Personally, I do not think that people with views based in bigotry rather than fact should be heard in examinations of the Holocaust, I agree with you. This is because there is no debate about the Holocaust (among sane individuals), it happened, it was catastrophic and most importantly: the Jews did nothing to provoke, it other than succeed in German society. Furthermore the Holocaust is the only genocide (that I can recall)in which there is debate about whether or not it happened. When asking the question in a comparitive perspective, the question becomes not "did it happen", but "why did it happen?" and this leads to the important: " was it was provoked?".

When looking at genocide in this framework, events must be categorized, clearly because some are debatable, while others (like the Holocaust are not)
).

Example: Stalin's Purges (The millions of people killed did nothing wrong other than disagree with Stalin, there should be no denial of whether this atrocity ever occured or whether the people killed provoked it)

Example: The Rape of Nanking ---- this genocide of the Chinese by the Japanese should not be debatable as to whether it happened or if it was provoked : the more than one million chinese killed did nothing wrong besides "being chinese"

However, there are examples that should be debated and many sides to the issue should be heard because they were carried out not by governments, but by ordinary citizens. Example:

Rwanda: People forget that the Tutsi Massacred hundreds of thousands of Hutu under Belgian colonial rule. While the Belgians should ultimately be blamed and the 1994 genocide should not be condoned, sorry Tutsi, but you had it coming.

South Africa: If hundreds of thousands of Afrikaaners were to suffer at the hands of the ANC due to an apartheid-like system favoring blacks, or some sort of genocide, I wouldn't condone such action, but I'd say, "sorry guys, you had it coming". While the RSA government was responsible for the apartheid, the Afrikaaner ciztizens knowingly benefited from it and did nothing to stop it

Atrocities need to be categorized because in some cases there should be no debate (Holocaust, etc.. because such incidents were unprovoked) while others must be analyzed from all sides because the victims (or their ancestry) provoked it and "debate" is the best, if not the only way to achieve concilitation.

[meblogin]

Hi Jill,

I was thinking a macro perspective of the USA or even the world and Greensboro 1979 becomes a very tiny topic when compared to many other topics in world history.

Don't get me wrong...I hate that there was a loss of life here in 1979...but it is small when compared to 911 or Oklahoma...etc.

The lessons that can be learned from some of the larger events like the Holocaust should serve all societies as to what is right and wrong and how humans should be treated.

ECL does an excellent job of touching on other huge ugly events that many of us do not understand....and should.

Does this help?

[Jill Williams]

ECL,
Thanks for floating a theory out there. It is an interesting one. As I see it you make two different distinctions: (1) whether or not the "victims" of a genocide, etc. provoked the killings and (2) whether or not an event was state sponsored or committed by "ordinary citizens." I'm not sure I understand the second distinction within your framework, but I do think it is an important one in some ways that could be fleshed out further.

Regarding your first distinction, it seems to me that laws (limited as they can be), collective memory, media, amount of time passed and other types of perspective all play into how we determine whether a murder was provoked or not. So, while I think it is an interesting distinction, it seems a tad artificial.

For example, what about the way white colonialists treated the native Americans? I've seen the Western films, so I know that those Indians weren't "innocent." (That's sarcasm, of course.)

Or what about Emmett Till? He was accused, after all, of whistling or saying something inappropriate to a white woman. Did he provoke his murder? Does that mean that we should forever allow people public space to voice that opinion?

What about Rosewood, FL, where a black man was accused of raping a white woman and then a mob of white men burned down an entire town, killing many black people in the process?

We might not now think that the people killed by Stalin did anything to provoke their killings, but, at the time, didn't some people argue that the killings were in the name of national security and that in that same name, these victims shouldn't have spoken out against the government? I mean, there were at least lots of informants who seemed to believe that the killings were provoked.

I think you are right to say that, in the hopes of reconciliation, there needs to be some kind of way for people to speak their minds about these issues, even if their opinions are repugnant. I just worry, like you, that this voicing of opinions can turn this "truth-speaking" into a post-modern exercise in relativism that is ultimately unhelpful in terms of remembering an event accurately and learning from it. I don't know what the answer is, but I'm still hesitant to draw the line in the exact way you've posed it here.

[Jill Williams]

Meb,
I agree that ECL does an excellent job of touching on large examples of world atrocities. I also agree that it is important for students to learn about 9/11, Oklahoma City, and other widespread atrocities.

But it still makes me sad that the 35 and younger Greensboro crowd with whom you spoke had never heard of Nov. 3rd. Like the start of the sit-in movement and the Underground Railroad, it is a big (and more recent) event in their city's history and continues to shape/inform much of what goes on here today. I am afraid that without a working knowledge of what happened that day, they are disadvantaged in the sense of being educated citizens.

For many people, Nov. 3rd was not a "singular micro event" that should drift into history, but a part of a larger pattern of what Greensboro has been and continues to be. Even if that is not your experience of Greensboro (or especially if it is not), I think that one way to work towards a stronger, more healthy city is to understand why you might have a different perspective of Greensboro than those folks do. And if these 35 and younger folks haven't even heard of Nov. 3rd then they are even less equipped to deal with these divisions than you and I are.

[ECL]

MEB and Jill,

As a life resident of Greensboro who is much younger than 35, and quite informed about the shootings, I thought it may be good to shed light on the issue.

I agree with MEB, that the 1979 shootings should drift into history. It does not seem far-fetched to claim that Greensboro has healed from the shootings, and that further racial tension was not spurred specifically from the incident. Who shot whom when I wasn't even alive is irrelevant. Many of us, especially the young ones have moved on.

It is ok to try to find out what happened, but to call it a "TRC" and try to make a big deal out of it really misses the point. The real TRC in South Africa was necessary because the country could not move on without it, victims had to live side by side with perpetrators.

Our incident was just that, an incident. In the grander scheme of things, the 1979 incident showed one thing: the Klan was still around. But today they really aren't. Heck, even David Duke wants to downplay his involvement (just watch the interview.)

I don't see the value in preserving the history of a black mark that did not in itself perpetuate any further black marks. However sad the incident may have been, we have moved on. If people really want to make 1979 a big deal and preserve its memory I guess that’s ok. However, to say that I am ill equipped as a citizen because I don’t care about one incident that happened 30 years ago is pretty silly

[PotatoStew]

Irving may hold some repugnant and delusional views, but merely expressing a point of view should definitely not get one thrown in jail. The state should not be the arbiter of what ideas one is allowed to subscribe to.

[The CA]

Duke makes an ass of himself every time he tries to distance himself from his Klan past. People can be redeemed, but in Duke's case he has done nothing in the 30 years that he says have passed since severing his ties from the Klan to demonstrate any redemption. He tried to recraft himself as a mainstream conservative, but he wasn't. It is clear from his actions that he still holds many of the same repugnant views as he held when he was with the Klan.

I also find it ridiculous that he would try to hold himself out as some kind of true patriot by going to Tehran and participating in a Holocaust denial conference with an enemy like Iran who would blow us off the face of the earth if they had the chance. It's the same thing with the American Nazis- to cloak patriotism while wearing a swastika- the symbol of a government that killed thousands of American soldiers is repugnant and idiotic.

Duke is and always has been a racist in the truest sense of the word.

[Jill Williams]

Thanks for shedding light on the situation, ECL.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I should say that I worked on the staff of the Greensboro TRC, which was modeled after the thirty or so TRCs, including one in South Africa, that have taken place around the world. I should also say that I am younger than 35 myself and, though not a lifelong resident of Greensboro, I do live here now.

The fact that conversations about the Holocaust can so quickly lead to heated conversations about 1979 in the Greensboro community is part of what makes me think that healing has not really occurred here. (For the record, I was not the one who raised 1979 in the context of this conversation.)

As I said in my previous post, the other thing that makes me think healing has not occurred are the numerous people with whom I’ve spoken who say that the 1979 events reflected a pattern of oppression and racism in Greensboro that existed prior to and continues to exist in some form here. Whether or not you buy this analysis, the fact that it is a very real perception among many people in this city (young and old) shapes current dynamics here. (Look at the current police issues for a good example.) Put that perception next to the fact that you think that the city has healed sufficiently and that who shot whom when you weren’t even alive is irrelevant and we’ve got some serious divisions here that are related to current problems in this city. I don’t think it is necessary to claim that the 1979 events caused the current problems and I don’t know many people who would make that claim. But I do think conversations about 1979 can lead to honest conversations about the larger issues in a way that generic dialogues about race relations might not.

I did not say that you were ill equipped as a citizen because you do not care about what happened here 27 years ago. I said that people who know nothing about the shootings are ill equipped as citizens to deal with these divisions that exist in a very real way here right now.

Finally, I personally believe, along with the seven commissioners who wrote the report that can be found here, that the 1979 events showed us more than the fact that the Klan existed. Feel free to read the report or its executive summary for more on this assertion.

But back to the previous, and in my mind, still-unanswered questions: Is there a line that we can draw between historical events in which the collective memory (or mostly collective memory) is declared accurate and, therefore, untouchable, so that people with dissenting views should be disallowed from speaking opposition? If so, where do we draw that line?

[ECL]

Jill,

I am enjoying this discussion and respect the time you put in as exec commissioner of the TRC. I will formulate a response to your question in due time. Right now I have finals to study for

[ECL]

above should read: "respect you for the time put in"

[meblogin]

Jill,

What have been some of the new benefits that Greensboro has recognized by the TRC work that did not already exist?

thanks

PS...I did read the full report months ago and found it interesting.

[Ed Cone]

"the Holocaust is the only genocide (that I can recall)in which there is debate about whether or not it happened." Ask the Turkish government about the Armenians. Ask a lot of Americans about Manifest Destiny.

Nobody "has it coming." I understand that the phrase may be shorthand to describe historical grievance, but it is far too casual for the situation, and seems to legitimize rather than contextualize mass killing.

GSO 1979 as a one-off incident obviously pales before genocides around the world, but there are other ways of viewing it within the context of US race relations that go beyond the one-off view. That doesn't make the event the equivalent of, say, Kristallnacht (and of course at some point comparisons and lists are futile) but it argues against writing off the Greensboro event quite so easily.

[Bubba]

"Put that perception next to the fact that you think that the city has healed sufficiently and that who shot whom when you weren’t even alive is irrelevant and we’ve got some serious divisions here that are related to current problems in this city."

Such as the actions by David Wray, the racist ex police chief?

[Jill Williams]

Meb,
Thanks for reading the full TRC report. I know that doing so is a major commitment of time. I don’t really have the time to craft a thorough accounting of all of the ways I think Greensboro may have benefited from this process and I’m not sure that it isn’t too soon in the process to be making such claims – it is a bit like planting an acorn and then walking outside the next day to determine whether or not your planting was successful based on whether or not an oak tree grew. But, at the risk of taking this conversation totally off track, I’ll share a few of the stories that leapt to mind when I read your question. I hope you will forgive me in advance for taking up so much space.

The first person I always think of when someone asks this question is Candy Clapp; then I think about her sister, Jackie. Both of these women were teenagers living in Morningside Homes on Nov. 3. When we were trying to find former Morningside Homes residents to give statements to the Commission, many people declined, mostly out of either fear of speaking out (even 26 years later), lack of hope that anything would really change or anger at the people who were raising the issues again and who they felt had put them in harm’s way in the first place. But when we called Candy Clapp and told her why we were calling, she told us that she would love to talk with us because, in spite of the fact that Nov. 3rd shaped her life in really significant ways (she’s still afraid to be in crowds), no one - at home, church, school, neighborhood - had ever asked her to talk about it. Candy later spoke at one of our public hearings and was scared to do so. Her family was scared for her to do so, too. But after speaking, she said that she felt so good about her participation that her sister, Jackie, later agreed to speak at the report release ceremony. And, since then, their mother, who was previously nervous about her daughters speaking out, has participated in many activities in which she has spoken out against what she sees as injustices.

The Greensboro TRC can’t take full credit for this shedding of fear in this family, but it was a catalyst that allowed these women to challenge each other. And we can’t really trace or evaluate all of the ways that a process like this might help people to shed fear and become stronger participants in democratic process. One promising shift I have seen with regard to the former Morningside Homes residents is that, since the report release, a group of them have requested a meeting with Nelson Johnson, saying that they have had anger towards him for 27 years and would like to voice that anger and understand his perspective more now.

I also think about Signe Waller and Roland Wayne Wood when people ask this question. Signe’s husband was shot and killed on Nov. 3rd and Wood was one of the shooters that day. I don’t claim to fully understand the rationale (if there was one) for their doing so, but a year ago, Wood apologized to Signe and Signe forgave Wood and both reported feeling much lighter afterwards. Numerous other apologies have been offered through this process.

I also, in a self-centered way, think of my mom and others (mostly white) who attended the public hearings and read the report and reported that, although they lived in the area in the 1970s, they had no working memory of the racial disparities or movements that existed to address them. One white woman told me that her first son was born in 1960 and that, after reading the report, she remembered thinking at the time that if her son was black she would have been a militant activist because she wouldn’t have allowed him to grow up amidst such disparities. She had forgotten her outrage since then, but reading the report allowed her to access those parts of who she was at an earlier time that she said she appreciated.

Another older white woman told me that she had always known what she felt about the events of Nov. 3rd, but that she had never been able to discuss her feelings with people who believed differently until she read the TRC report. Now, she says, she is not only more equipped to carry on dispassionate conversations about the events with people who see them differently from her, but she is also better able to understand, from reading the report, why these folks might be opposed to a TRC process in the first place.

I also think about the hundreds of college students who have become more invested in and knowledgeable about this community by studying the report. Even City Manager Mitchell Johnson told me that, when you put aside the political stuff (I’m not sure exactly what he meant by that), the report was a good tool for him in understanding Nov. 3 and related parts of Greensboro’s history.

Finally, the positive publicity this process has brought the city of Greensboro as people in other parts of the country and the world hear about this effort is hard to measure, but I hear it from people every day. I doubt it will end up reflected in Greensboro’s new branding project but I do think this is the kind of effort that not only, in a sense, blesses the brokenness in the city’s history (which could be found in countless other cities of this country), but also highlights much of what is right about Greensboro.

I’ll stop there, but thanks for asking the question, Meb.

Good luck on your finals, ECL.

[Jill Williams]

Bubba,
I did not call David Wray the racist ex police chief. In fact, I’ve not even mentioned David Wray here. Are you asking me if I think that the events of 1979 led directly to the current goings on in the GPD related to Wray? If so, then, no, I have seen no convincing evidence that there is any direct causal relationship between the two events.

But if you are asking me if the divisions that existed in Greensboro around the 1979 events are similar to those that exist here now around the current police issues, then of course I would say yes. Who wouldn’t?

Furthermore, I would argue that any effort to work towards the truth of what happened here in this current mess needs to be informed by a knowledge of the events in the police department in the decades leading up to today. (That is one place where Jerry Bledsoe and I agree.) And any effort towards building up more trust between various parts of Greensboro and the GPD will definitely need to be informed by this history.

[meblogin]

Thanks Jill

[Bubba]

"If so, then, no, I have seen no convincing evidence that there is any direct causal relationship between the two events."

Interesting way of wording things.

Is there an indirect causal relationship, based on this next next part of your comment?

"But if you are asking me if the divisions that existed in Greensboro around the 1979 events are similar to those that exist here now around the current police issues, then of course I would say yes."

I am interested in hearing your basis for believing this.

[Jill Williams]

Good question, Bubba. What I was trying to do in those statements, perhaps ineffectively, was to draw a distinction between (a)claiming that the events of 1979 somehow directly caused the current alleged scandal (which I don't) and (b)observing some of the similarities in community response to the two events (which I do).

One way to see the similar community fissures to which I am pointing, I think, is to look at the newspaper articles around 1979 events and the current police issues. (For the current situation, Jerry Bledsoe's coverage may provide the most evidence.) I think you see some of the same individuals, organizations and institutions aligning themselves in similar ways in both cases. (Though I'm still unclear about where the city staff and government, in this current case, lies, so my observations are still in process.)

Personally, I think that one conclusion drawn by the GTRC applies equally to community responses to 1979 and to the current issue (change "police were deliberately absent" to reflect current allegations):

While most of us find that the evidence that police were deliberately absent is strong, we also unanimously concur that how one perceives the weight of this evidence is likely to differ with one’s life experience. Those in our community whose lived experience is of government institutions failing to protect their interests are understandably more likely to see “conspiracy” while those who have routinely benefited from government protection are more likely to see “negligence” or even “acceptable action.” We believe this is one reason for the strong divisions in the community in interpreting this event.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you disagree with this working assessment.

[Bubba]

I was not a resident of Greensboro in 1979, and I had not heard of the events of that November until just a few years ago.

During my 14 1/2 years of residence here, my contact with the GPD has been positive. Any experience I have of government institutions failing to protect my interests have generally come from actions (or inactions) by other parts of our city government, sometimes in connection with elements from outside the formal government structure.

I believe that these actions relating to outside elements are a major reason for the division in our community not only in reference to the events of 1979, but also to the events of recent years regarding the GPD.

Indeed, some of the same individuals, organizations and institutions are aligning themselves in similar ways in both cases. That fact leads to an increase of the severity of the problem, and becomes a significant detriment to making progress toward a solution.

[Jill Williams]

Thanks for your thoughts, Bubba. I think I agree with most of them, but I'm left with a couple thoughts of my own.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "outside elements." It seems like an important part of your analysis, but I'm a little vague as to how.

Second, I agree that the similar divisions around events might increase the severity of the problems and become a significant detriment to making progress towards a solution, but I think I'd put a different spin on it. I think that the similar aligning of local parties around 1979, current issues in the police department and the 1969 A&T events where Willie Grimes was killed (mentioned today in the N&R) are symptoms of a deeper problem, rather than the causes of it. I see these similar divisions on a national level around interpretations of issues like O.J. Simpson, Rodney King, Hurricane Katrina and even the Duke lacrosse team case. It isn't a random aligning of parties, so I believe that we need to invest some time as local communities and even as a country in figuring out why we see things so differently on such a consistent basis.

[Nathan Tabor]

David Duke is a racist fool who's an anachronism. CNN uses people such as Duke to inflame racial tensions and keep up the myth of rampant racism in America.

In North Carolina, men such as State Sen. Fred Smith is working towards a "color-blind society" as are many other true conservatives. But there are too many people making too much money on the "racism industry" and Sen. Smith and his colleagues are fighting an uphill battle.

[Ed Cone]

But CNN didn't just pluck Duke from his well-deserved recent obscurity, it interviewed him in the context of the Iranian Holocaust-denial conference in which he participated. The conference, sadly, was news, and Duke was a part of it.

[PotatoStew]

So is that comment above actually from Nathan Tabor or not? I'm confused. There have been numerous Tabor postings recently that are essentially Fred Smith spams, yet another Tabor denies it's him.

[Bubba]

"....so I believe that we need to invest some time as local communities and even as a country in figuring out why we see things so differently on such a consistent basis."

And how would that be structured? Something on the lines of what the Ad Hoc Committee to Improve Race Relations recently proposed?

[PotatoStew]

I've done a little more research into all these alleged Nathan Tabor comments. Very interesting.

[rod]

It is amazing to realize the incredible domination that Zionist Kazaar Jews excersise over the minds of so many Americans through iron control of the mass media, as shown by the opinions of the blind idiots (or indoctrinated jews) above...who foolisly talk, talk, talk with supine ignorance of the central truth known to that small minority of us who have researched and found the core of historical facts in reference to jewish supremacism.

Poor America if it doen't wake up!!! It will go the way of Asiria, Persia and other ancient empires infiltrated thru the power of the purse (gold)and betrayed by the enemies of humanity.... the samewho are destroying our nation from within.

[Jill Williams]

Bubba, I actually don't know anything about the process proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee other than what I read in the News & Record and Yes! Weekly. And, because no one has figured out a perfect way to have these conversations, I don't pretend to know exactly what they should entail, but my sense is that the following characteristics would be important:

1. Conversations should be anchored in some concrete event or events. My sense is that generic conversations about race relations tend to be abstract and don't really inspire honest sharing. Conversations about concrete events, such as the ones I mentioned before where we break down as a community/country in large part along racial lines (Greensboro 1979, Hurricane Katrina, OJ Simpson, Willie Grimes, etc.), however, make the discussion more honest, I think.

2. Even if conversations are anchored in a historical event from before anyone currently alive was born, the process needs to be connected to some issue currently facing the community - education, police/community trust, economic development, etc.

3. A priority and first step of such a project should be allowing people with traditionally less power to have a platform from which to speak and to be heard. Traditionally more powerful people have been heard on these issues through the media and other outlets. Traditionally less powerful people should probably be part of any group initiating the process as well.

4. On the other hand, there has to be some hook for people with more traditional power to participate in the process. If they don't participate, then any action plans that grow from the process are more difficult to carry out.

I think, Bubba, that you've asked the most important question and that any answer really deserves much more time and thought than I've given it here. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you care to share.

[Nathan Tabor]

Ed, hope you have a Merry Christmas. Numerous? There has been one - don't you find it interesting that David never corrected that post? As your post points out I am the last poster to that blog.

[PotatoStew]

Nathan,

Yes, "numerous". I pointed out about five specific examples in my post, and noted that a Google search turns up many more.

As for the comments on David Boyd's blog, you weren't clear on this in your replies to me, and you aren't here either - which of the Nathans over at David's is actually you? The first one, or the last one?

[David Boyd]

I made a new post referring back to Tabor's last comment on the post in question.

As for correcting the original post, seems that Tabor's comment(s) is(are) self-explanatory.

[Connie Mack Jr]

which of the Nathans over at David's is actually you? The first one, or the last one?*PS

Jim Kouri is fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and a columnist for several law enforcement publications and conservative websites - including Tabor’s The Conservative Voice. Kouri himself seems rather fond of Smith, having written at least one very flattering article about him.*PS

It appears that the Chief, Nathan and the rich Texas are working undercover for Pave them over Fred on the net in a new campaign tactic to seize the blogs in North Carolina. I would not be surprise that this tactic is a side affect from drinking too much Soybean milk.

Having all 4 of these persona's being undercover in the same bed will certainly affect the Rev Ted Haggard therapy recovery process.

[PotatoStew]

David, I thought they were self-explanatory at first too - I don't think any action was required on your part. But on my blog, in his first comment he didn't sound like he was disassociating himself from all the Fred Smith comments - in fact, he said "Yes, I am posting on all kinds of blogs these days," which makes it sound like he's claiming responsibility for them. That's why I'm unsure now if he has been making them or not. Even here in this thread, he didn't deny that the original comment (about David Duke) was from him.

If he has *not* been posting all the Fred Smith comments recently, I just wish he would reaffirm that and clear up any confusion. Except for the single comment on your site, he seems uninterested in the fact that someone is posing as him.

[David Boyd]

I was feebly attempting to be ironical with my self-explanatory statement. I'm confused about it too, but still can't bring myself to care.

[Bubba]

I wonder if Fred Smith knows about the use of his name on these blogs?

[PotatoStew]

David: Ah - sorry. It seems I'm too confused by now to parse irony. I didn't really care at first, but there seem to be more and more of the spam comments popping up. Plus, I have the week off. Gotta keep busy somehow.

Bubba: Good question. Someone should write to him and ask.

[Stanley Wertheim]

As a 76 year-old survivor of tne Nazi era and a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany whose aunt and cousin perished at Riga, let me advise you that a conference on the question of whether the Holocaust occurred is no more legitimate than a conference on the question of whether the American Civil War occurred. The eleven European countries that ban public denial of the Holocaust do so because it is widely understood that the debate over this non-issue is a thinly disguised rationale for anti-Semitism. European historians are free to conduct legitimate research into the realities of the Holocaust, but the conception of free speech in these countries does not include lying to the public for the purpose of inciting ethnic hatred. This is what the Nazis did and it resulted in the death of four million Germans. Perhaps we should also hold a conference on whether this really occurred.

[Nathan Tabor]

Ed, how can you allow a racist and bigot like Connie Mack Berry Jr aka Max to post on your site? I assume you approve of his behavior and message. No?

[Connie Mack Jr]

Ed, how can you allow a Soybean promoter and a retarded individual like Nathan Tabor aka 4567 stolen internet domain names from other individuals and candiates to post on your site? I assume you don't approve of his behavior and his message from his God along with his 1st amendment rights Yes?* Paraphasing Nathan Tabor

Nathan! Is it true that your hot selling book " The beast within your soul from 67 th street" is up to 2 sales, one from Pat Robinson, an another from Fred Smith?

Nathan! I understand the President of your former College got fired from his job the other day, because he unable to raise funds for the college when he use you as his poster child as a successful graduate of the school in politics.

[Ed Cone]

Nathan, my comment threads are open, and allowing people to comment here does not imply that I agree with them or approve of their behavior. At this point, I pretty much ignore Connie.

[Connie Mack Jr]

At this point, I pretty much ignore Connie.* Ed

Nathan! What really bugs Ed about ignoring me is called the "booboisie." How dare we not kowtow to "God’s commander-in-chief"? Was I "in the pay of Osama bin Laden"? Clearly, I am consider a traitor, anti-American, moonbat, "terror-symp," and even anti-Republican. I blasphemed the holiest holies of the regime: Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Bush, and all the rest. I reject the entire welfare-warfare state, and upheld the ideals of liberty, property, free markets, and peace.

After all, if you tell the truth about the "Great Emancipator" Lincoln you’re "pro-slavery." If you criticize the neocons on both the political right and left, you’re "anti-Semitic." If you disapprove of the religious right, you’re "anti-Christian." If you defend competitive capitalism, you’re a "tool of the Jews." If you oppose forced association, you’re "racist." If you disparage welfare, you’re insensitive and anti-poor. If you believe that the dark side of humanity has it's conspiracys in place though out in ancient and modern political history, than you are batshit looney. If you undermine the case for government, you’re "a traitor." If you censure the police state, you’re "pro-criminal and pro-terrorist." And if you’re against the long litany of aggressive wars, you should be "strung up" or "shot."

Yes Nathan! I plea guilty to those ideas and personal political thoughts. So when you line me up to shoot me on the internet, be sure to give me the finest Cuban cigar as my last request.

[Nathan Tabor]

Ed, point well taken.

[Connie Mack Jr]

Ed, point well taken.*Nathan Tabor

Well Ed! It appears that Nathan has adopted your position, which makes you a secret Religious Republican in Drag. How in the hell does that happen?