Can’t wait to see it on a care plan.

1) Ditto
2) Hopefully
3) I hate this argument.  It’s basically the affirmative action argument.  "Hey, there are much better candidates for the job of CEO and this guy comes across as a mongoloid; but, hey, we’ve gotta show the world/nation/our peers that we are enlightened so we gotta give him the position!"

I’m not that old, so maybe someone with a little more personal experience can fill me in. As far as civil rights goes, in the 1940′s and -50′s, was the rest of US society ignorant about what was going on in the south, somewhat willfully blind to the problems, or just out and out jerks about it?

Was it just something that flashed across the consciousness of the rest of society, and maybe even bothered it for a moment, but was also easily pushed aside, until the marches and the protests kept it in the front of people’s minds on a regular basis?

Did the presence of televisions in more and more homes make the issue more real to the rest of society? Was seeing, in your own living room, what was going on in some far off place, a key or major part of the success of the civil rights movement?

Heh, don’t mind them.  Arnold’s just cantankerous.

 civil disobedience is just an excuse to commit some crime

Some civil disobedience is clearly not crime even when the law disagrees, which was sort of the point of those blacks sitting at white-only lunch counters illegally.

I recommend that you file suit in a federal court of law, and see to it that the suit is taken all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

Sometimes the courts are wrong.  But in our system, there’s a better way to ensure the innocent are not persecuted for their non-crimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

I was looking for a little engaging discourse. Oops, guess I poked an old wound.

And it was a very small box unsuitable for more than one ego person.

That he became a pariah seems self-evident and a lot of smucks followed/follow him.

Went to a local junior college bookstore, today, nearly by accident. The smucks are now teaching from the textbooks of (perfessor in situ) one Al Gore.

More later

The whole thing that makes civil disobedience work is the hope that others will see the punishment, think that the punishment is unfair or unreasonable, and foster a larger movement to change or abolish the unfair law.

Those today who think civil disobedience is just an excuse to commit some crime without punishment are not honorably practicing civil disobedience.

Thoreau fully expected to go to jail and serve his time. Being willing to accept the punishment was a sign of how strongly he believed in the cause.

I assumed that as a staunch Second Amendment defender, Arnold would be equally staunch in defending principles like innocent until proven guilty. When he came out in favor of guilty until proven guilty, I lost a lot of respect for him; but since I know from his other posts that Arnold doesn’t care one way or the other about our respect, I know that won’t impact his opinion one bit.

I would have if I could work Dean’s broken archives of old posts. After the Duke rape acquittals, Arnold remained vehemently convinced that the accused must be guilty because the accused were rich white frat boys and the accuser was a poor black woman; and he said that if they suffered some mob violence, they had it coming to them.

After Arnold supported mob violence and bypassing of the justice system, I just see a little irony in him now drawing a strict law and order line. Guilty of drug infractions? Throw the book at ‘em! Innocent of rape accusations? Throw the book at ‘em! So I’m curious whether his answer to civil disobedience — which in our history has been a tool to advance racial equality, a cause Arnold has always staunchly supported — will also be "Throw the book at ‘em!"