Jackson Free Press

In 1964 Jim Giles would have fit perfectly into Mississippi society. His public appearances would have brought cheers and applause from people who would publicly and proudly call him a friend and a great leader. Unfortunately for Giles, though, the year is 2004, and in the past 40 years the rules have drastically changed. Those people who years ago would stand in line to shake his hand now hide their conviction for his cause. Though it is possible that privately, very privately, they might still pat him on the back, it is difficult to live and work in today's multi-cultural, mixed society while exclaiming loudly, "This should be a white America again!"

But as a self-proclaimed representative of working and middle-class whites, a "white America" is Giles' ultimate goal. To accomplish this he has chosen to run for political office so that he might be able to use the system to change it—this time for U.S. Congress against incumbent Chip Pickering in the 3rd District.

Many people have come across Giles in some not-so-friendly encounters. There were the young people, black and white, who were disgusted when he started railing against "the negroes" at the recent JFP voter rally. There are the few drivers who shoot him the middle finger on Highway 49 as he is riding with his huge mobile Confederate battle flag "Jim Giles for Congress" billboard. Councilman Kenneth Stokes and Giles shared some less-than-fuzzy words after a city council meeting downtown. Giles has even found himself in Internet wars with fellow white supremacist and Nationalist Movement leader Richard Barrett over Giles' constant accusations that Barrett is a "fraud" and "a sick pervert." And his current opponent, Pickering, has felt some of the heat of Giles' passion, including when he dressed up in a chicken suit and followed Pickering around saying he was too "chicken to debate" Giles (Pickering has, indeed, refused to debate him.)

Despite the fact that some have found Giles' conviction a bit misguided, he does have the courage to continually fight for his cause, even as it has gone out of style for many Mississippians.

JFP: Why have you decided to run for office?

Jim Giles: The flag. The flag is what really got me involved in politics. When I was a regular person working private jobs in private industry—something Pickering has never had, he has never had a private-sector job in his life—the (then) governor of Georgia, Zell Miller, proposed … changing the Georgia state flag. I became a political activist at that time. I started publishing a newsletter called Counter Attack. And I have been at it ever since! I first ran for governor against (Mike) Parker and (Ronnie) Musgrove in '99, but I did not make it onto the ballot because of residency requirements. Then I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 against (Trent) Lott. I ran for Congress for the first time in 2002, and I am running this year in 2004. And my campaign for Congress will begin Nov. 3 for 2006.

Why have you settled on the 3rd Congressional district this year?

Well, other than the fact that I live in the district, I find that running for statewide office is way too large for my resources. Also this position requires that I simply am a representative of the constituents, and I am that!

Why do you feel that you should be the voice for working and middle-class whites?

Because they don't have representation. Pickering represents rich whites and blacks. He bent over backward trying to get his daddy (Charles Pickering) on the court (5th Circuit Court of Appeals). They promised everything in the world to blacks. Just like Lott, it is all about them and not about their constituency. Lott got on Black Entertainment Television and told (Ed) Gordon, the black news reporter, that he supported affirmative action across the board. Now my people are against that 100 percent, and he is pretending to represent us. That's a joke; he is a joke! They are unpatriotic liars! More to the point, they are sending poor white boys to fight in Iraq, and Lott had the opportunity to fight in the Vietnam War and did not. Just like all the others, they are big at sending other people to fight their wars. It is whites who have rifles primarily on the front lines, the combat troops. Blacks are in supply or support functions.

What are the differences between you and Chip Pickering?

I am an honest patriot, and he is a dishonest traitor. He represents a very small segment of our population, rich whites and blacks. I seek to represent working and middle-class whites. Democracy in America has collapsed; it is a joke! … (Pickering) has traded his principles for money! Pickering gives lip service to things that he does not really believe in. The state flag would be a good example; he did not utter a word before the state flag issue. He had the state flag on his Web site. When all this heated up about the state flag, he took it off. Then after the vote he put it back up. He is a phony just like all of them. They are ashamed of being white, all they care about is money; they are the modern-day plantation owners.

Really, all they care about is staying in power, and continuing to enjoy a lifestyle that most Mississippians can only dream of. They live in the big house, so to speak. They live in the plantation, and low labor is a big component of their overall philosophy. That's why they love immigration, that's why they love shipping U.S. jobs to India, China and Mexico, that's why they send our factories to India, China and Mexico. They're rich people who exploit others—plain, pure and simple. They have no genuine patriotism.

Pickering has total disregard for what's truly best for America. And America that I'm talking about is White America, a white nation, that's what I'm talking about. That's what I want. We started out a white nation; we no longer are. I want it to be a white nation again. I'm advocating separation of the races. I'm a white separatist. Blacks are supposed to be equal to whites, and I think black should be given the opportunity to prove that, on their own. There are members of the black community who share that view with me.

How do you feel about the war in Iraq?

It's a war for Jews. First and foremost, it has nothing to do with America's security. If we were serious as a country, a government, about making America safe from terrorism, we could end it in a heart beat, we could end it in one second. All we had to do is end all monies we are currently giving to Israel, which amounts to $10 million a day. I didn't say a year, or a week or month. I said a day. We gave them $10 million yesterday, we're giving them $10 million today, we'll give them $10 million tomorrow, and for as far as the eye can see. It's all about Jews, they run our country for the most part. The ones who don't are Zionists who suck up to them, rich whites, all they care about is Israel. Israel, Israel, Israel! There are a lot of Christian Zionists. They're the number one threat in Mississippi and America—people that follow Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberson. They believe they're supposed to be these high and mighty Christians but yet they're all for these bloody wars. … They say, 'Why do Arabs hate us so much?' They hate us so much because we are giving Israel all that money to kill their people. That's a fight that's been going on for thousands of years; just withdraw all money and all troops from the Middle East and all threats to America ends. Of course, Israel will cease to exist. Ultimately, they've got nuclear weapons now; they can put up a fierce fight. … We should not side with anybody; leave them alone and get out of there. Let them fight it out amongst themselves. We don't have a dog in that fight.

What is your position on tort reform?

Tort reform is to help rich people hang onto more of their money. If a corporation maims or kills or wounds somebody, I think they ought to have to pay for it. Again, this is the plantation owner just trying to protect their wealth and assets. So I am against it. I am for the poor man, not for the rich man. And tort reform is for the rich man.

What is your response to what the governor is doing with Medicare/Medicaid?

Barbour is definitely for the rich man; there are a lot of poor people who resent what he has done. But there are a lot of people who like him because he is Republican, and they think he is for them, conservative and stuff, but he is really alienating a lot of poor working whites. I am for giving money to working and middle-class whites. … Barbour, Musgrove all the rest they are for foreigners, they are for women, and when I say women I mean feminists, not upstanding white women; they are for non-whites. Our problem is that we have traitors within our own race. I tell people to stay away from conservative politics and start practicing white politics again. Being pro-white. But not rich white—pro working and middle-class white. Mississippi hasn't changed; my people are still out there. They don't like turning on their TV and seeing (Kenneth) Stokes ranting and raving. It is OK for Stokes to rant and rave about black this and black that, but we don't have a representative on our side. I would be that voice, but they won't give me a podium. They are scared of me. If there is no one who thinks like I think, then what are they so afraid of?

Should blacks have a voice or be represented?

I think blacks should have the chance to fail or succeed on their own. Blacks are supposed to be equal to whites, so they should be given the opportunity to prove that. I believe in a separation of the races. I believe integration has failed, and I believe that the world we live in is hostile to working and middle class whites. With all the preferential initiatives, everything is against us. Our country was founded by whites; our government, our existence in this country was rooted in white. Slavery was a huge mistake, and we continue to pay a price for it today. Everything is geared toward correcting the institution of slavery. I did not adopt nor do I support slavery, and I resent having to pay the price for that institution. I think blacks want power and self-rule and should be given that opportunity, separate from whites.

What kind of job do you think President Bush is doing?

I am voting for John Kerry! I want to destroy the Republican Party, and I think the best way to do that is to elect John Kerry. The Republican Party—Bush, Lott, Pickering, the whole lot—they are phony, fake, false white leaders! They are supposed to be pro white when they are in fact pro black or pro rich white. I think that John Kerry will be easily ousted and defeated by someone who is genuinely pro white as opposed to someone who is falsely pro white.

What do you think of gun control?

I am opposed to gun control. It is a no-brainer, I reflect the views of the majority of Mississippians. I generally view guns positively, being a hunter myself. And unlike Pickering, I would cause trouble for those who are for gun control and abortion and other issues along those lines. I would roar like a lion, but Pickering and none of the rest do anything without permission from those higher on the food chain.

How do you think you are viewed by the public?

The people who are in the Legislature think I am a redneck or a racist. The people I am trying to represent would think I am a rebel.

Would you consider yourself a racist?

Racism has lost its meaning because it only applies to whites. If you try to call a black person racist, then they get into this long argument about how black people truly cannot be racist. All politics and all life is about race. They try to escape it and try to hide it, but there is no escaping that reality.

The facts asserted in this interview by Mr. Giles have not been verified.

Dossier: Jim Giles

Giles, 45, was born at the Baptist Hospital in Jackson. His father, James Stanton Giles, now deceased, was a diesel towboat mechanic. His mother, Margaret Rose Hutchins, a retired frame-shop owner, lives next door to Giles and his grandparents. Giles grew up in Clinton and is a 1977 graduate of Clinton High School. On a football scholarship, he attended Mississippi State University where he earned a B.S. and a M.B.A. Currently, beyond his political endeavors, Giles' major responsibility is taking care of his two grandparents who live with him in Rankin County.

Previous Commentsshow

Well he is defintely entitled to his views and opinons, but it seems that he is angry with the very people he claims he wants to assimilate with Whites.....he says that Whites are on the front lines of the battlefield of War and Blacks and others are only subjected to supply duty, I seriously doubt that...in fact I think there are plenty of Instances of Blacks, Mexicans, etc.. can be found serving in the Military on the Front lines so that is simply not true from my Perspective.... He also states that "Blacks are supposed to be equal to whites, and I think black should be given the opportunity to prove that, on their own. There are members of the black community who share that view with me." I don't think any Black person in this day and age has anything to Prove to anyone, except ourselves as Collective Individuals (regardless of race) because Blacks have Contributed Significatly to Society in many different Areas and Fields...... He made so many off base comments pertaining to Blacks like Chip Pickering and Trent Lott being just Panders to Blacks........He then goes on to Blame the Jews...... Seems that he is just whining and Pointing the Finger in every direction and his only solution is having himself a segment of the world void of all other races except Whites... I wonder do Whites like this fail to realize that Rich White Men Run this Country and make most of the Major Decisions that affect the population of the world it is so easy to point the finger at other races when you haven't walked in there shoes.....also seeing as how Discrimination in all aspects of life from Hiring Practices to Healthcare to Scale of Pay is disproportionate amongst all races Why do these people always want to blame those with less power that those with it..........also when will whites like this understand that they can't have there cake and eat it too in this world God put all of us here for a reason and it wasn't to just Separate ourselves from one another........every since the Indians/Native Americans have been damn near eliminated the world has been on a downward path we are messing up the Environment...we have lost Valuable Teachings about Protecting the Earth and It's resources....(stay with me!!) I say that to say all races are put here with god given talents to learn from each other we can't just run and blame another race for problems that are in our own race. If the world was Segregated each race would still face it on set of similar problems......it's when we learn to come together and learn from each other that we gain true knowledge of ourselves and others......... So everyone take the time out to Imagine a World with Simply your race up in it and not others? I am sure if that Hypothetical Thought would playout in reality things would be pretty much the same way our world is today there would still be Plenty of Backstabbing, Lying, and stealing and so forth...... Getting back to the Natives which I feel passionately about more than my own sometimes I think the world lost a valuable segment of society through the rapid decline of the Native Population and I also feel that we lost a lot of Spritual teachings that would be/is invaluable today!!! And there is really know way to get this knowledge back once the Population is gone some say it is evolution but we are Supposedly a Civilized society with Civilized teachings and should be working together Collectively instead of running from each other all the time........... Anybody understand were I'm coming when I speak about the Native Indian Population?

JAC

Oct 14 2004

I think Mr. Giles has a lot of company (who don't have the intestinal fortitude to speak up and just say it like they think it, the way he does): http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041014/NEWS01/410140390/1002 Any of these named who don't agree with the statements of the CCC should have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and repudiate this organization and others like them, that promote racist agendas and legitimize themselves with the support and presence of both powerful and wannabe state politicians. And if you want to read the whole story, along with a longer list: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=487 I have another, even longer list myself: http://www.mississippipolitical.com/list.htm I've seen Jim Giles in action several times. High drama, flapping flag and energetic dance steps. Most entertaining. My compliments, Mr. Giles; at least you don't try to hide what you are.

C.W.

Oct 14 2004

I was surprised at some of the names on your list...those on the list need to be questioned about there affiliation with the CCC.....

JAC

Oct 15 2004

Surprise is a mild word for what I felt about some. I already had the list up from the newsletter archives of the CCC and was adding to it as I found names on the CCC websites or in newpaper articles on the web (usually of the sort that groups write and turn in themselves to get a little publicity - such and such a group met at the whatever restaurant, speaker was blah blah, meeting was led by whozit). Had asked other people to let me know of ones they might find, vowed to publish them all. Then I found THE name. Someone I know personally and of whom I have always thought highly. I had a few moments of hesitation, a bit of anguish, then realized I couldn't leave that one name off because I liked that person. To keep this in perspective, one must realize that there are black politicians who have attended the now infamous Black Hawk BBQ. I don't believe they ought to be excused any more than the whites, although their motivation is easier to discern than that of their white brethren. What it comes down to is pandering for votes. It comes down to more than than among some of the melanin-challenged folks, but it would take a mindreader to separate the mere voter panderers from the downright racists among them. Whatever color, they are all doing something morally reprehensible, and are artificially propping up this organization of race haters by showing up and having their photos taken as casually as though they were going to a church picnic rather than a shindig put on by a bigoted and separatist group. I say it's time to pull the props out from under groups like this. Might be time to ask each and every state candidate if they will stay away from the CCC events and if they will repudiate the CCC. If not, I'd have a serious problem voting for them. This is a very small list comparitively, mostly people who have spoken at a CCC event or belong to the CCC. I have heard that if you go to the Blackhawk BBQ, you can see half the state's politicians there. Might be interesting to find out for sure.

C.W.

Oct 15 2004

My compliments to Ayana Taylor and the Jackson Free Press for reporting honestly and thoroughly on my campaign, something the other media in Mississippi do not do (have never done) even as I am indicted by a grand jury for a felony and the Mississippi Attorney General takes legal action against me to suppress my political speech. Democracy in America has collapsed. Jim Giles http://www.rebelarmy.com

Jim Giles

Oct 15 2004

Strange how much I agree with *some* things Mr. Giles, and others of his persuasion say (when I disagree with him so strongly on so many other things). I might not say that democracy has collapsed, but it is definitely being weakened. And here I am, a "race traitor" (unless I misunderstood him the last time I encountered him). I see the Alabama papers are covering Alabama Republican Supreme Court Candidate Tom Parker's association with the CCC and the League of the South, and he's both unapologetic about it, and trying to disassociate himself with a number of excuses: "Potok identified the man on Parker's right as Leonard Wilson, "a board member of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens," and on Parker's left as Mike Whorton, a leader with the League of the South, "a neo-secessionist hate group. . . . Parker said he was invited to speak at the birthday party for Forrest, which was held at the home of Pat and Butch Godwin, who tried unsuccessfully to display a bust of Forrest on public property in Selma. The SPLC article said Pat Godwin now is fighting to block acknowledgment on the Capitol grounds of the Selma-to-Montgomery march." http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1097918199269830.xml The hypocrisy of these guys is hard to take.

C.W.

Oct 16 2004

I'm with you on the hypocrisy, C.W. I, too, prefer Mr. Giles honesty, even if it's distasteful, over all the coded race-baiting of Lott, Barbour and the rest. So many people have commented to me about this piece and about Mr. Giles, saying they are surprised at how many of his ideas (which, as he says, they never get to hear) that they agree withóexcept the bigotry. That part is so sad to me, and gets in the way of what could be very strong coalitions of poor and middle-class people against these powerful machines that Mr. Giles nails so well in his answer about tort reform. And, thank you, Mr. Giles, for your comments about the JFP and Ayana. I'm very proud of her. She is on her way to being an amazing reporter. I hope you keep reading the site.

DonnaLadd

Oct 19 2004

I hope that Mr. Giles and all the other Kerry supporters find solace in one another. As a candidate for the U.S. Congess, Mr. Giles should have been included in all the Kerry Rally's!!! Hip, Hip, Hooray for Kerry and Giles. Two of a kind!

Hayes

Oct 21 2004

Hayes, funny you should lump Mr. Giles with John Kerry. On certain issues, that's true. However, on the topic of race-baiting, he has more in common with Haley "Attacking Our Flag" Barbour than John Kerry. And I suspect Mr. Giles would, like George W. Bush, would be more apt to speak at Bob Jones University than John Kerry would. At least Mr. Giles admits his race strategies.

DonnaLadd

Oct 21 2004

No lumping of anything. Jim Giles wants John Kerry to be our President. Jim Giles is a racist and he is for John Kerry. As for you conjecture...well...it's just that.

Hayes

Oct 21 2004

Haley Barbour (et al) race baits, and he wants George W. Bush to remain president. What's your point? find solace in one another. I think lumping. Maybe it's not so either/or as you're trying to make it, Hayes. Perhaps there are issues (like the right to sue and collect damages; or the corporatization of America; protection of civil liberties) that both racist and non-racist non-Republicans can agree on (and non-corporate-shilling Republicans for that matter). If that disgusting southern strategy was mothballed, and all the wink-wink race-baiting was stopped in the south, perhaps more people could put aside the racism and realize they have a helluva more in common with each other than with a party they can't afford to vote for.

DonnaLadd

Oct 21 2004

Hayes, I really don't think it follows that Giles is for Kerry *because* he's a racist, which is what you imply. Their common ground is not racism, it's a basic view that the government should serve the interests of someone other than the wealthiest americans and the corporations they control. Giles would be more interesting if he'd get over his anger/racism, and focus on economic justice, which seems to really be the core of his platform. But, until then, I'm not voting for him. Just like I'm not voting for LeSeur, with his hatred of gays. And, I think we might be able to find one or two racists that are supporting Bush. Maybe even 3 or 4. Or more. Tons, even.

kate

Oct 21 2004

Besides, Hayes, you are conveniently ignoring what Giles says above in black and white, right after he says he's voting for Kerry: "I think that John Kerry will be easily ousted and defeated by someone who is genuinely pro white as opposed to someone who is falsely pro white." I'm not thinking he's ready to turn into a Democrat just yet. He's still firmly stuck in the Dixiecrat clothing (but, again, at least he's honest about it, unlike way too many). And I repeat that I think it's sad that someone with populist ideas like Giles is also racist. He'd be much more effective if he'd let the racism go and realize that blacks and whites and other races alike are getting screwed by corporate Republicanism. As the bumper sticker says: "I can't afford to vote Republican."

DonnaLadd

Oct 21 2004

>And, I think we might be able to find one or two racists that are supporting Bush. Maybe even 3 or 4. Or more. Tons, even.< That's funny. And sad because them 'racists' 'is' throwing their votes away on a man that no more represents them than Jesse Jackson.

Jim Giles

Oct 21 2004

Mr. Giles, your ears must have been burning. I disagree with you on so much, but boy do I agree with that statement. It's absolute tragic that poor and middle-class whites (or whomever) would support the Bush administration.

DonnaLadd

Oct 21 2004

Mr. Giles, I repeat what Kate said above: economic justice. It dawned on me after reading Ayana's interview with you that corporate Republicans use people's racism in order to enforce classism. Therefore, when someone "excuses" racism by saying something is "classist," as many whites often do, they're often right. But it's often facilitated by racism and wink-wink race-baiting (not what you do; nothing wink-wink there!) Face it: There are deadbeats and criminals and liars and cheaters of all races. But there are also good hard-working people of all racesóand all of them would have a boatload of power if they'd get together and find their common interests. That is so my dream for Mississippi. Call me naive.

DonnaLadd

Oct 21 2004

The following is from a friend of mine and my reply: >>I remain hopeful that someday you might broaden your tent to include people of all colors that share the basic values of freedom, hope, opportunity, and justice for all.<< Please explain: 1. The outcome all over Africa following 'decolonization'. 2. Haiti's 200 years of independent history. 3. Why this Big Tent always results in taxes on, retreats by and surrenders by whites. 4. Why negro bloc voting is higher now than its ever been before. 5. Why the Jewish supporters in America of your Big Tent philosophy urge it here with all their power while denying it in 'Israel'? 6. What scientific evidence exists for the proposition that 'wez all ekwals'? As opposed to a legal principle. If you were to say anything different, I assume you would become unemployed. Best regards, Jim

Jim Giles

Oct 21 2004

If you were to say anything different, I assume you would become unemployed. If you're talking to me, I'm self-employed, in effect. So I can say whatever I want. I guess I asked for your answers, Jim, however distasteful they are. After I saw you post this last night, I decided to think about how to answer for a while. Your answers are classic "scientific racism" arguments that were very much in vogue back in the 1960s (anyone remember the Citizens' Council's Bible, Carleton Putnam's "Race and Reason"?)óand they are arguments that are easy to debunk, and have been many times. One can also come up with parallels about other races, including whites, if one wanted to come up with easy insults of whole races of people. I do not, and I also am not going to go point by point with you here because I fear that your answers are going to be very insulting to an entire race of people, many of whom are my readers. And the JFP site, as much as we promote free discussion and ideas, is not here for that purpose. I assume people can visit your Web site, which you linked above, to delve further into your arguments if they so wish. The only point I will make goes back to the discussion before you posted that listóthat this kind of racism, and the whole promotion of eugenics, is not limited to people with rebel flags on their pick-up trucks. In fact, the Manhattan Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and other "respectable" conservative think thanks who support the ideas today of corporate Republicans (and vice versa) have spent a lot money supporting research to prove that blacks are inferior to whites. For instance, the support and funding of the pseudo-scientific book, "The Bell Curve," by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, was supported by Manhattan Institute and the AEI, that band of neo-cons who pushed so hard for a preemptive Iraqi war, assuring us that "shock and awe" awaited on the other side. Much of the current GOP establishment and corporate America is part of AEI. Here's the Board of Trustees and here's the list of current fellows/scholars. Their point seems to be to develop premises (such as "Bell Curve" and then come up with pseudo-science to support those premises and prejudices). I have the "Bell Curve" on my office shelf; right next to it is a book called "Measured Lies: The Bell Curve Examined" by Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley Steinberg and Aaron Gresson III. I regularly encourage readers to delve deeper into the think-tank world, which operates so under the radar but has so much power in this country. It is simply hypocritical, or naive, for people to disparage Jim Giles' comments and not try to understand that the same ideas are institutionalized in many corporate-funded circles and underlie the policies of many of today's corporate Republicansóthe sames ones that he disparages above. Here are a couple good reports/articles, but there are many more out there. Americans have the right to know who is shaping our domestic and foreign policy, and what their real goals are: American Enterprise Institute Finds Profit in Prejudice The 'Right' Books and Big Ideas Otherwise, Jim, you have been respectful with us and I believe we have been with you. But please do not try to use our site as a forum to disparage entire races of people. We can simply agree to disagree.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

Also, for the record, a few months back, someone came on the site and started making fun of rednecks and making vast generalizations about poor whites. We also asked for that commenter to refrain from insulting entire groups of people on the site.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

Donna, thanks for those last two replies of yours. It's certainly true that this sort of racism is not just the provenance of 'rednecks'. Truth to tell, I know a lot of folks who don't mind being called what they are - rednecks - who are not prejudiced at all. I also know some much more 'sophisticated' people who are nothing less than racist under the skin (they're just a lot smarter in the way they express it). I've been doing a little reconnecting with my own redneck roots in the last year or so and have come to realize how many wonderful traits rural people in this state share (and I mean both black and white and some others) and how much more alike they are to each other than their urban kin of whatever color. You might say that we are all rednecks under the skin. (are you smiling yet?) It's sad that the very people who should be working together (those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder) allow themselves to be manipulated and turned against one another by whatever dividing means unscrupulous individuals (particularly politicians) can come up with. The funny but sad thing is watching politicians trying to use 'sleight-of-mouth' language that will get their (racially-charged) message across to the people they believe will respond to it by voting for them, while providing plausible deniability if that message is replayed in the mainstream media. It's even more interesting to watch them do verbal high-speed tap dances for a general audience; some of these guys are so skilled they have become the Riverdancers of code language (now you hear it, now you don't). When you said, "Mr. Giles, I repeat what Kate said above: economic justice. It dawned on me after reading Ayana's interview with you that corporate Republicans use people's racism in order to enforce classism. Therefore, when someone "excuses" racism by saying something is "classist," as many whites often do, they're often right. But it's often facilitated by racism and wink-wink race-baiting (not what you do; nothing wink-wink there!)" you were right on target, as was Kate. Regarding your dream for Mississippi - there are so many of us who share that dream, but I don't think we all realize the power we could have if we found each other. There are so many who would agree, yet who are ordinary citizens, not prone to activism and not fully realizing the potential if we were networked and united. Hayes, your statements are so silly, there's no point in trying to answer them.

C.W.

Oct 22 2004

Mr. Giles, you have a friend whose ideas are worth consideration. I hope you will listen to him/her. ****The following is from a friend of mine and my reply: >>I remain hopeful that someday you might broaden your tent to include people of all colors that share the basic values of freedom, hope, opportunity, and justice for all.<<**** I hope your friend has the time and the educational resources to answer some of your questions, because two or three of them would take a lot of time (and print space) to adequately answer (if you were willing to listen without closing your mind). Some of your questions are really statements, and I?m not the person who is going to try and go thru them point by point, particularly not the last one (with it?s demeaning attempt at what I suppose you believe is ebonics), but I would like to offer one or two thoughts. On your question #4 ****4. Why negro bloc voting is higher now than its ever been before.**** This is not a question, it is a fallacious statement, in my view. I don?t believe bloc voting among blacks is higher than ever before (although it wouldn?t bother me if it was). I see a lot of evidence that African-Americans are beginning to enter the mainstream middle class (albeit in smaller numbers than I might wish) and are taking on middleclass values. It?s doubtful that you believe or realize how alike most people are (no matter their discernable external differences) in their goals and reactions to life. There is such a human tendency to do things in fairly conventional ways when they are not marginalized on the basis of color, class, ethnicity, religion, etc. Bloc voting is likely with either shared beliefs or shared marginalization. If the disenfranchised in this state could be persuaded to vote in concert and refuse to let themselves be divided by race, ethnicity, religion, or any of the wedge issues that politicians have been using so vigorously, there would be a peaceful revolution here. If you could get beyond your prejudicial limits and work on the purely populist issues you've brought up here, you might be a political force to be reckoned with. I can?t see that happening, though I suppose stranger things have (happened). If, if, if - this could be the state motto.

C.W.

Oct 22 2004

The funny but sad thing is watching politicians trying to use 'sleight-of-mouth' language that will get their (racially-charged) message across to the people they believe will respond to it by voting for them, while providing plausible deniability if that message is replayed in the mainstream media. It's even more interesting to watch them do verbal high-speed tap dances for a general audience; some of these guys are so skilled they have become the Riverdancers of code language (now you hear it, now you don't). C.W., I haven't seen many more precise definitions of that shameful "southern strategy." There is probably nothing that makes me angrier than greedy southern poliiticians/lobbyists sell out their own people to use our own difficult history to score cheap votes for corporate America. I will never forgive this tangent of the GOP for the trail of race-baiting that started when Reagan came to the Neshoba County Fair. But you know what? The strategy's time is limited, and the signs of that are everywhere. It'll be interesting to see what these guys do when that trick has run its course.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

If, if, if - this could be the state motto. Indeed, it could. It sure would beat that dumb-ass "only positive Mississippi spoken here" -- as if Mississippians don't have the right to demand the most from our state, elected officials and selves. And we have the right to demand the end to coded race-baiting, and to turn out to pasture the dudes who have absolute contempt for the intelligence of Mississippians and who play to our worst instincts to benefit tobacco and drug companies. Argh. Ommmmmmmm.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

OK C.W. I'll drop my silliness and say your attempt at making "deep" points fell incredibly short of target. You want a racist statement...your "blacks are coming into the mainstream middle class and TAKING ON MIDDLE CLASS VALUES?!?!...talk about racism! middle class is not white, black or hispanic, etc., middle class is colorless and the fastest growing group in it is the African-American. That is a fact, not yours or anyone elses opinion. You see, the problem with this "blog world" that we "junkies" love to live in doesn't represent the real world out there. I really enjoy the debate here and respect your right to have AND post your views, it is simply not reflective of what is real in America today. Most of what I read from the left is rooted in some strange feel of anger. There is alot of anger on the left. I think that is probably due to general "counterculture" feelings that the "Cups" crowd thinks is cool. It's cool to be angry at George Bush. I was in Oxford at ballgame recently and for a kick would approach folk with Kerry stickers on and say (very respectfully) "I'm undecided, tell me why I should vote for Kerry". What would usually follow was a rant about Bush. No real purpose, just cool rant! The Bush sticker crowd was more positive about Bush. Less anger and a sense of optimism. The way Miss Ladd and other angry leftists write here you have to think that people on the right are stupid and mean. I have never seen more people that preach tolerance, be so intolerant. Again, I respect your right to feel a certain way towards public policy issues, but why don't ya'll respect me and mine. I also know that the forum is more opinionated, but really, it's much more effective to us thinkers (I think on the left and right) to tone down the meaness. At a level way above all of us, of course, is the real deal. The big conspiracy, if you will. The democratic party is so angry right now because of what this President is trying to do. Once competition is injected even into government, there won't be a need for as many jobs in the public sector. And with seven million democratic voters having passed away since the 2000 election, it is getting harder and harder to win elections. That anger trickles down. On the other hand, America is a great country where young americans, white, black, and otherwise, all have a shot at prosperity. It takes hard work and playing by the rules. It can and does happen to people everyday. My advice is to take advantage of all America has to offer. Lastly, as whoever begins to try and dissect my little rant here, don't focus in on one tiny part, look at the whole and argue against that. Remember, this is fun, enlightening, debate!!

Hayes

Oct 22 2004

I hope that Mr. Giles and all the other Kerry supporters find solace in one another. As a candidate for the U.S. Congess, Mr. Giles should have been included in all the Kerry Rally's!!! That's how you introduced yourself to this blog, Hayes. Had you commanded respect from all us, uh, "angry leftists" before you just castigated us? Had you tried to talk civilly about an issue? Or, were you just depositing a drive-by nastygram for us pinkos? Look after your own house before you start calling *me* angry, or anything else for that matter. This blog is not for calling each other names. As for your last order, I don't quite know how to take your little "rant" as a whole -- we go from angry leftists to dead Democrats in a handful of words that seem pretty angry to me -- so I think I'll just go on over and hang out with the "angry rightists" at American Conservative. They're making a lot more sense than you are at the moment. And I say that respectfully. I realize you are angry, and your point is probably lost in there somewhere.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

Uh, wow, Hayes. I really don't know where to begin. Your argument seems to stem from the fact that anyone to the right of Bush is trying to be cool. And that there's no justification for anger at the current administration. Let's see: in terms of "meanness" - Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter are two angry meanies on the right - so I don't think that the left has any choke hold on anger. And, according to the report yesterday, Bush supporters are optimistic because they don't know what he believes in and what he does. The one that stuck out for me was that 51% of Bush supporters believe he supports the Kyoto Treaty. Which he plainly doesn't. There's a laundry list of mistaken perceptions. I'd be more optimistic and less angry if I weren't actually aware of the lies the Bush administration was telling. And, for my own part, I do have "purpose" beyond cool rant. But, getting rid of Bush is such an overwhelming first step to getting any of it done, that's where I tend to focus right now. Also - who was it that told a Senator to go fuck himself? Oh, yea, the soft and cuddly and not angry at all VPOTUS. Not sure why you started off on the rant about middle class values being racist, since it pretty much is what you said - middle class values are about, well, class. not race.

kate

Oct 22 2004

Yeah, I didn't understand the middle-class point, either. All that anger must be clogging my thinking muscle. ;-) What kills me are the people who la-la-la-ing along as if this administration hasn't done a thing wrong. Let's all join hands and sing: "Don't worry. Be happy" as more Mississippians die in Iraq on a war hyped up by neo-cons and we run out of soldiers to fight the *real* war on terrorism. As a sticker someone gave me yesterday said: "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention." I'm paying attention, and we've got some damned big problems to solveóand some potential ones if Bush gets back into office without re-election hanging over his head. And, Hayes, I learned a long time ago that many not-so-smart folks will call any woman speaking her mind "angry." And I quit giving a damn about what not-so-smart people say about me a long time ago.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

Kate, good point about Limbaugh and Coulter. It is very clear from the totality of both postings that everything I said about anger is true. Macro...Macro! The middle class is not racist, C.W. is for his statement...see above. The middle class all over this country is getting ready to go watch thier favorite high school football team! As for my house, we are happy. The Senator...Kate...was Pat Leahy (D-VT)

Hayes

Oct 22 2004

And the man who told Sen. Patrick Leahy to go fuck himself was Vice President Dick Cheney, the husband of American Enterprise Institute scholar Lynne Cheney. Gotta love the circle of life. Glad you're happy, Hayes. I am, too. I'm also scared about America's future. Cheers.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

Oh, this is so much fun. Stick to the point. I love women, angry or happy, to speak thier mind, succed in the marketplace of her choosing (even in the home). I'm glad you mentioned Iraq, I've thought about it alot since 1990 when I was in the first gulf war. We are fighting a war on terror that equates to the cold war. Our children will see it end, but truthfully, we may not in our lifetime. It is important to stop the state sponsors of terror. It is a fair debate about how involved Irag was in terror sponsorship, but Khadafi has said it best, "I shut down my terror mills, because I saw that America was serious about this" Enough on that, it's boring. How about a question...Is there ANYTHING on the right that makes sense to ya'll or is worth considering in public discourse???

Hayes

Oct 22 2004

You left out that his daughter is a lesbian. Doesn't that influence his thinking as much as the American Enterprise Institute. Next you're going claim they are all members of the trilateral commission! Come on, this isn't so bad!

Hayes

Oct 22 2004

Is there ANYTHING on the right that makes sense to ya'll or is worth considering in public discourse??? Which right do you mean? The corporate right? The social conservative right? The libertarian right? The fundamentalist right? The southern-strategy-racist-panderers right? The populist-racist right? A combination of some or all? As you can see, I'm not much for the left-right spectrum. It only benefits a handful on either extreme of said spectrumóand those who are defining it at the moment. Besides, it's irrelevant in today's world, and the Bush administration proves that in living color. I suspect I have more actual conservative ideas than Bush hasóif you don't include his pandering to the fundamentalist right. Of course, to anyone who likes that little so-called "compassionate conservative," er, rightist, corporate-pandering world Bush has carved out is going to call anyone who doesn't agree a "leftist," or even more shocking, an "angry leftist." But Bush's ideas are so extreme and unworkable that people who are actually conservative are starting to shatter those myths. Progressives of all sorts just need to get out of the way. It's going to be interesting to watch the "conservative" movement try to put itself back together again, no matter who wins in November. I've never seen a party flounder as the GOP is now with all these disparate factions vying for power. And Bush gets credit for that.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

Next you're going claim they are all members of the trilateral commission! No, I'm not. Hayes, you're floundering in your attempts at ridicule. Save it for talk radio.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

And, er, Hayes, L. Cheney *is* a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Even if the truth hurts (Bush supporters), it's still the truth. Also, I'm not sure why you're bringing up Mary Cheney's lesbianism. Watch it: Lynne Cheney is going to get mad at you. Apparently, it's a shameful thing to mention, according to Mary's Mama. OK, Hayes, the thrill of our little battle o' wits is wearing off. Must get to the football game. Ciao, Bella.

DonnaLadd

Oct 22 2004

I just read this interview and I am disgusted that is is what the JFP probably considers "edgy" or "alternative" journalism...good gawd. What would this look like if the interviewer was WHITE? This is just stupid pandering, what a joke. I hope you people understand that Giles would only be fodder for parody just about everywhere else in this country. I don't blame Giles for being a myopic and ignorant idiot, there are plenty of those everywhere. Poor thing. I blame the JFP for giving him a forum and treating him like a legitimate politician. My defense of Mississippi and Mississippians to other people officially stops now. ray

RayDavies

Oct 25 2004

Ray, You have totally missed the JFPs point. The point is NOT to glorify or give legitimacy to Giles. Nor do they in any other interview portray itself as "edgy". The point is to hear the candidate in their own words - including those who are distasteful. The JFP regularly runs columns by Trent Lott, hardly a favorite of the JFP staff as a whole, from what I've seen on this board. Interviewing "edgy" candidates alone does not make a paper "edgy", it just makes it a blatantly partisan rag. Given the above, what else can this paper do but take a non-partisan approach when interviewing candidates about their positions on the issues. They HAVE to if they are to maintain even a shred of credibility. If it makes you feel better, Ray, think of this interview as the JFP giving such people enough rope with which to hang themselves.

Philip

Oct 25 2004

Philip, Thank you for your thoughtful response and I do appreciate your arguments. I guess the point I am trying to make is this: The Mississippi I wish I came home to is one in which he would not be considered a "candidate" by anyone except the occasional crack-pot and would only be considered a source of amusement. He is just such a Mississippi cliche and it's sooo embarassing. Regards, Real name is Emily, someone took it already.

RayDavies

Oct 25 2004

I was in the federal courthouse today and had an interesting discussion with one of the court's personnel, a genuinely nice and respectful man. He doesn't believe there exists a free speech right to obtain death scene and autopsy photos because it's a violation of the privacy rights of the surviving family members. I explained to him that such photos would inform the public of the reality that most violent crime is committed by blacks against whites. He responded by saying "80% of crime victims are white but the perpertrators are 50/50 black/white." I asked him to tell me the last time a private white citizen killed a black person in Mississippi. He could not answer the question. Do you know who Peggy Nowell, Edith Blackwell, Harry McGuffee, Tiffany Miller and Jon Steckler were? They were all white people killed by blacks, 'recently.'

Jim Giles

Oct 27 2004

Wow... I didn't realize that crime scene photos showed the perpetrator.

Martin

Oct 27 2004

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041028/NEWS01/410280403/1002

Jim Giles

Oct 28 2004

I saw that story, but there is no indication that it's race-motivated. And, I suspect, Mr. Giles, they will be criminally prosecuted -- unlike the murderers of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner. All crimes should be prosecuted. That's the point.

DonnaLadd

Oct 28 2004

Race? Who said anything about race? The 'story' does not state the race of the murderers or the victim.

Jim Giles

Oct 28 2004

Hey Giles, I woulda thought you would be more concerned with all of your Meth-Cookin' cracker-ass brethren killing each other. I mean...when they are gone who gonna hang out with and do the whole bonfire thing? It sure could hurt the attendance at the family reunion this year huh? Another question inquiring minds want to know? Do you find it a burden to carry around all that stupidity with you?

RayDavies

Oct 28 2004

Sorry if I assumed that's why *you* posted it. ;-) It's probably because they're juveniles, right?

DonnaLadd

Oct 28 2004

Ray, just as I asked Giles earlier to not engage in personal insults, I will ask you the same thing. I've already deleted one offensive comment you posted. You're welcome here, as is he, but if this turns into an insult machine, I will ask you to leave. And I would hate to have to close comments on this thread, but I will in a heartbeat if it heads into the gutter. That said, I understand your frustration at some of his comments and agree with them.

DonnaLadd

Oct 28 2004

Which of my comments have you seen fit to delete? I see each one I made... Would it be more appropriate to be offensive and disparaging to an entire RACE as Mr. Giles is?

RayDavies

Oct 28 2004

No, it wouldn't be more appropriate. However, you're not helping with personal insults, which are your right, but not here. And I would suggest that your "cracker-ass brethen" comment comes close to insulting an entire race, or at least a swath of one. I deleted the first sentence of your original post. I forget exactly what it said, but it was strong, because I don't usually delete without a warning as I just did here. I understand your argument that you don't like Giles' interview. However, he is running for office and has some support in this state. And people who think like him are the target market of today's GOP's race-baiting strategy, even though they won't admit it out loud. Just when all of 'em go speak to the Council of Conservative Citizens. (Oh, wink, wink, I didn't know what they believe.) As a result of this interview, I have engaged in and heard some fascinating conversations betwen people here about race. Doens't mean a damned one of them, though, agrees with his ideas. But it does mean that they are compelled to talk about tough issues that we must face. I happen to think that open, respectful dialogue about difficult issues will make Mississippians look very good to ourselves and to the rest of the country. However, if it disgusts you and you do not want to participate, that is your right. However, it doesn't mean you're any more welcome to post ad hominem attacks or insult swaths of people on this site than anyone else.

DonnaLadd

Oct 28 2004

http://www.darecom.de/RA/music.htm

Jim Giles

Oct 28 2004

Your argument is appreciated. I can also appreciate that Mr. Giles may have some "support in this state" but I'm sure you can understand why I might have a bit of trouble getting my head around the idea that he is a "candidate". I stand by my low-brow assertion that he is ONLY a candidate for parody and ridicule and little more than a oddity and horrible Mississippi cliche. I wish you luck in your pursuit of asking him the "tough" questions. I'll leave without having to be asked but I thank you for letting me express my opinions. The reality is that I am probably in the wrong state as much as the wrong message board. Regards, Emily

RayDavies

Oct 28 2004

I appreciate all your comments. But I will point out that this state has gone way too long without even trying to talk about these difficult issues. That's what we're doing now. The result is messy, but I think it's necessary. Again, you're welcome to hang around (I have a feeling you could really add something); just don't go down the ad hominem road. If I allow that here, from whomever, it just becomes a screaming match between imbeciles (we all have that tendency when cornered by personal insults), and nothing is gained. Oh, and our visitors drop significantly. These days, personal insults are a dime a dozen and boring. Real conversation, however, is gold.

DonnaLadd

Oct 28 2004

Hayes, you might want to wait until you actually see a 'deep' point before you decide to complain about an attempt at one. Just a thought. You're talking about an Ole Miss ballgame? Probably wasn't that easy finding Kerry stickers, considering how many people had theirs ripped off their cars. As far as anger, I can't speak for anyone else, but I am angry - I am angry that our country has engaged in a preemptive war that I consider illegal; I am angry that our young men are dying and being maimed over there for this 'preemptive' war. I am angry that innocent civilians are dying in Iraq. I am angry because I feel lied to about WMD. I am angry that we have thrown the Geneva Convention into the garbage can. I am angry that a surplus has been turned into a deficit. I am angry that our jobs are moving overseas. I am angry that we are spending so much in Iraq that the poor and elderly (which is almost synonymous with poor nowadays) have having their prescriptions cut and education is being shorted. I am angry at the way the 'No Child Left Behind' act has been regulated and funded. I am angry that we are losing high paying jobs and they are being replaced with minimum wage (part time, no benefits) "service jobs". Did you read what Mr. Leland Speed had to say about the 'reality' on jobs in Mississippi? It's not just here, though, it's all over the country. What I am NOT - is angry at people who don't see this war, this deficit, this president, the same way I do. It's your right to your opinion and your vote, it's my right to my opinion and my vote. Unless I am in a place (like this) where discussion of the issues among dissenting adults is allowed and encouraged, I don't argue my views with those who don't agree with me - for the same thing you cited from Kerry supporters. People are getting angry and hostile on both sides and I refuse to lose friends and family because our politics are not the same. I know that people are getting tense and angry and hostile about this election - and it's happening on both sides. That's why I tread lightly on the subject of politics in polite conversation (if I want it to remain polite). Mr. Giles, without hunting thru the papers of this whole state (many of which don't give a hint as to color of perp or victim) to try to prove what I know is right, let me remind you of something that immediately came to my mind. Think Meridian about a year ago. And lastly, to Emily, Donna is right. We don't talk about race in this state; we try to sweep it under the rug. Or, let me qualify that; whites don't talk about it; and no one talks about it in mixed company. It's been one of the longstanding problems in this state. A person can't understand something until they educate themselves about what is going on. Too many whites are oblivious of what is going on in the black community, and don't want to hear it; blacks are reluctant to speak up on a subject they already know will not be well received. Not to mention, blacks are sick and tired of having to deal with this whole issue, sick and tired of having to explain to whites what has been happening, what they are going thru, what they're on the receiving end of, and why it's disturbing to them. I imagine that sometimes it must remind them of having to explain things over and over to a halfwit, because frequently we're (whites) not using half our brains to listen to them.

C.W.

Oct 28 2004

I totally forgot the link I was going to put at the bottom, since we are on this subject: The Color of Deception http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2004-10/19wise.cfm Might want to read it, Mr. Giles, since this is a subject about which you profess to know something. If you are not afraid to read a Tim Wise essay, that is. Lots of references, in case you have doubts about his veracity.

C.W.

Oct 28 2004

"Does Rankin County Really Want To Be Just Like Jackson?" http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041029/NEWS01/410290359/1002 The messenger (like the Republican Party) is a fraud but the not so cryptic message is yearned for by White people. And it's not liquor that destroys schools and neighborhoods and poses a threat to the White community. But our preachers don't have the hickory to state 'who' is the real threat because they're too busy screwing your wife and taking your money. "Praise God; I love Jesus! Pass the plate. Hallelujah!" Dummies.

Jim Giles

Oct 29 2004

Well, you're bald-faced about it, I have to give you that. Which is sometimes preferable to hypocritical (but sometimes not, as a friend once pointed out). Please be kind enough to speak for yourself (and/or some group you are a part of which believes the same hogwaller you believe), but don't presume to speak for *white* people in general. I think you'd be surprised to know how many of us you DO NOT speak for. You are just another one of the dividers who works for 'the man', 'Mr. Charlie', or whatever you prefer to call the powerbrokers in this state. You may not *think* you work for the man, but when you promote fear of blacks in other whites, that's who benefits. You're being another one of Mr. Charlie's *boys.* I hope you're not doing it for free. I think I'll leave the religious remarks alone, except for saying that you're using a shotgun on a rabbit (you might be hitting something ya ain't aiming at while you tear the rabbit up).

C.W.

Oct 29 2004

You labor to make the obvious and simple, obscure and complex. I'm for working class and middle class white people.

Jim Giles

Oct 29 2004

I repeat, "when you promote fear of blacks in other whites, that's who benefits" (the powerbrokers). And if I labored, it was a labor of love and didn't feel at all like work; I certainly didn't intend to make it complex or obscure. I don't doubt your sincerity in what you're saying, and I'm sorry to be rude, but your views are so ugly and repellant that it's difficult to remain as civil as I might prefer. Think I'll take a little break from this thread until I'm a bit cooler.

C.W.

Oct 29 2004

Fear? That's the problem now.

Jim Giles

Oct 29 2004

I'm for working class and middle class white people. Ah, if it were so simple. It's easy to say that you are "for" them. But the impact of your kind of bigotry is that it divides people who should have common interests -- thus giving the power to the big-money corporate interests that you rail against quite eloquently, and correctly, I believe. Again, your characterization of tort reform is right on. And, ironically, the big interests use bigotry as a way to push to limit the right to sue and collect damages. When Ronald Reagan, came to the Neshoba County Fair in 1980 to play the southern strategy on "dumb" white southerners, he was there representing corporate America, just as Haley Barbour and Chip Pickering do now. And folks like you who allow yourself to be a "pawn in their game," so to speak, are playing right into their hands by eroding a potential populist voting base with blind ignorance. It's such a waste. Bad people come in all colors, Jim. We should be united against the ones who would hurt lower- and middle-class people of all races, not playing narrow-minded games that have no meaning any more. By the way, I'm a middle-class white Mississippian, and you do not represent me or my interests, even if you think you do. That's a Jim Crow-era dilusion, and the people who still believe it are the reason *they* can keep the state on the bottom, benefitting those at the very top. Fear? That's the problem now. It seems like every comment you make about other races is fear-based. That's so wasting time rather than focusing on the actual problems. I'm not trying to convince you (although I wish I could). But I have known many whites who have moved beyond their bigotry and gotten a look at the big picture, and have made a huge impact on their own lives and others' as a result. And, frankly, they are happier because they don't walk around all the time fearing whole groups of people without cause. They give me great hope in my home state's potential.

DonnaLadd

Oct 29 2004

Jim:I work for middle class white people. Philip: How about middle class white people (henceforth called MCWP)who.... (1)Have non-caucasian (especially Black) spouses? Would you work for them as well? Or for MCWPs who have close family members/cousins who married outside their race? I have no Black in-laws of any sort, but I do have two Asian and one Mestizo Hispanic cousins-in-laws. One of of those cousins brought his Japanese wife and mixed-race kids to my grandmother's house during the Summer. Another male cousin of mine, 1/4 Lebanese BTW, married a 1/2 Asian-1/2 Iranian a few years ago as well (btw, HIS father is married to the Hispanic lady). Would you represent similar MCWPs who live in your district? (2) How about MCWPs who enthusiastically support issues that are highly unpopular among archtypical MCWPs in your district? Limited Pot Legalization for recreational purposes, same-sex marriages, or even getting the Pledge of Allegiance out of our schools (not that I support the latter)? If anything, your district's archtypical MCWPs are even more horrified by THIS brand of MCWP than your run-of-the-mill Black person who votes for Barak Obama and does his or her 9-to-5 earning $14/hr as an assistant manager. Would you represent the non-conformist MCWPs? (3) or those MCWPs who, in addition to the above, sport multiple body piercings, tattoos galore, spiked multi-colored hair or dredlocks, practice Paganism, and who wear T-Shirts with a portrait of a pot leaf when they canoe? Again the MCWPs, as apparently defined by you, almost certainly have less respect for this brand of MCWP than they would for the aforementioned Black person. Would you represent these counter-cultural MCWPs? SO IT IS that the White Middle Class covers a plethora of personality types and personal preferences -- even in Mississippi's 3rd Congressional District! (granted, it's not Austin, New Orleans, or even Memphis. But still...). I would appreciate it if you NOT compartmentalize all "White Middle Class People" into the same box!

Philip

Oct 30 2004

a knight, Don Quixote; a knight of the Round Table: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/recs/radio/krex/-/track/B000002ROQ001001/ref=pd_krex_dp_t/103-4548828-8152623#

Jim Giles

Oct 31 2004

And sad because them 'racists' 'is' throwing their votes away on a man that no more represents them than Jesse Jackson two degrees and some people still find a way to bastardize their own language.

*SuperStar*

May 16 2006

It's for affect. Is it my ideas or my speech patterns that really concern you? two degrees And your math ain't the greatest in the world either.

Jim Giles

May 16 2006

Alright, no fights on the site.

DonnaLadd

May 16 2006