The designation of Juneteenth National Independence Day as a federal holiday is a historic milestone in the struggle for freedom and equality for African Americans. However, it comes at a time when the Republicans have become a brazenly white supremacist, anti-democratic, far-right party engaged in massive voter suppression, the criminalization of peaceful protest, defense of police brutality and even insurrection.

Why, then, did most Republicans in Congress vote to make Juneteenth a national holiday? So they could claim that they’re not racists. As Mike DeBonis recently wrote in The Washington Post, “The push to establish June 19 as a national holiday ... only gained serious traction last year, as the nation erupted in turmoil over the killing of George Floyd.”

Post columnist Eugene Robinson noted that Republicans’ support for the new holiday “allows them to portray themselves as opponents of racial oppression, which they prefer to leave in the past — rather than as contemporary racism’s enthusiastic enablers.”

For example, Sen. John Cornyn and U.S. Rep. Randy Weber backed the Juneteenth bill in Congress but oppose a bipartisan commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by white supremacists, reject new federal laws to end voter suppression and refuse to support police reforms.

Most Republican politicians admit that slavery was horrific but unconscionably deny that systemic racism continues to exist. Republican-led legislatures in Texas and a few other states have passed ill-fated laws to limit discussion of white supremacy in schools and colleges.

This newspaper deserves credit for supporting the new holiday but grievously erred when it joined the mounting Republican attacks on critical race theory (“Don’t let controversial race theory thwart the real mission,” The Daily News, April 20). With an eye to last year’s controversy in the Clear Creek Independent School District, the editorial rightly denounced the use of critical race theory “as a handy bugaboo to demonize anti-racist efforts and teaching in general.” But the editorial’s denunciation of critical race theory grossly misrepresented it and failed to quote any of the prominent scholars, educators or organizations who support it.

Instead, the editorial quoted two men affiliated with the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Last July, the foundation’s chief economist was widely criticized for a racist tweet urging schools to reopen since most of the state’s COVID-19 fatalities were elderly or Hispanic.

Critical race theory doesn’t teach that all white people are bigots or “tainted with a kind of original sin from which there is no redemption.” Instead, as Janel George of the American Bar Association has explained, “CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past ... it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.”

As the Organization of American Historians has noted, critical race theory “provides a lens through which we can examine and understand systemic racism and its many consequences.”

This kind of anti-racist education is an essential prerequisite for the collective political action required to uproot white supremacy and ensure freedom and equality for all people.

David Michael Smith, Ph.D., is a former professor of government at College of the Mainland, and lives in La Marque.

Locations

Recommended for you

(105) comments

Mary Godfrey

An American military General who just happens to be the Joint Chiefs Chairman puts CRT in its proper context:

https://youtu.be/oz7yDU1FmJQ

Kenneth Diestler

"it comes at a time when the Republicans have become a brazenly white supremacist, anti-democratic, far-right party engaged in massive voter suppression, the criminalization of peaceful protest, defense of police brutality and even insurrection."

No matter how many times you repeat this it doesn't make it so.

Carlos Ponce

What else do you expect from a Marxist, defrocked professor who supports terrorist groups, hates American allies like Israel and deplores military tactics in WWII? David Michael is what he is but is entitled to his opinion. But I'm glad he's out of the classroom.

Don Schlessinger

[thumbup]

Ed Buckner

Let's see, in the past Carlos Ponce you have dismissed nuances about meaning of words by just saying to look up a word in a dictionary. So I looked up "defrocked"--"deprive (a person in holy orders) of ecclesiastical status." So Smith was a priest or a bishop or a monk? Or maybe, once again, Mr. Ponce is confused, illogical, and inconsistent.

Carlos Ponce

Leave it to Ed Buckner to ignore the other definitions:

defrocked:

to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of office

to remove from a position of honor or privilege

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defrock

And from American Heritage:

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=defrock

1. To strip of priestly privileges and functions.

2. To deprive of the right to practice a profession.

3. To deprive of an honorary position.

Ed Buckner

BTW, Mr. Ponce correctly gave me guff for only looking at one definition of "defrocked." He was right about that and I deserved his barbs--but of course when we discussed "socialism" he insisted there is only one definition--wrong, of course.

Carlos Ponce

I never insisted there was one definition of "socialism" other than state there is an widely accepted definition.

Curtiss Brown

Ed, Socialism is one thing. There is a clear and concise definition of Socialism in the dictionary. The printed one. One we can all agree on. The various other economic shenanigans that exist around the world can be directly compared to this definition and described as either Socialist or not Socialist. It does not make any sense to engage in policy discussions and have the words we use mean different things to different people at different times. Socialism is Socialism.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce and Curtiss Brown, you have it wrong. Completely. There are many definitions of most words, including "socialism" and "defrocked." If anyone--you or me or anyone else--uses a particular definition of a word and his listener or reader uses the same definition, communication can occur, even if not agreement. But when Brown writes, "There is a clear and concise definition of Socialism in the dictionary. The printed one." That's easily proven false, because there are hundreds of different printed dictionaries, most of which have multiple definitions of the word. I addressed this in a short essay-- https://kurtz.institute/the-human-prospect/one-word-socialism --you can dismiss this out of hand, as Carlos Ponce has, Mr. Brown, or you can read it and then comment intelligently. Your choice.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce declares, apropos of nothing at all, that I am "easy to ignore." I certainly don't want to be ignored and Mr. Ponce et al do not disappoint in that regard. But Carlos Ponce in particular ignores my points or questions as if that means he somehow wins. In fact, ignoring questions and comments makes it pretty clear he has no good answers or counters--just repeated irrational assertions..

Curtiss Brown

Ed, not that I want to interrupt your marvelous work on Carlos, but I read your article. It was very well written but doesn't satisfy. Some woman at the Democratic Socialists of America: “Karl Marx (1818-1883) didn’t invent socialism (arguably Henri de Sainte-Simon (1760-1825) did) and I don’t consider Marx the final authority on it."

Really? And Darwin didn't invent evolution (arguably Alfred Russell Wallace did at the same time.) Unlike this unnamed Socialist, I do accept Darwin as well as Marx as the inventors of their respective philosophies. This is the heart of your commentary on the word Socialism. A Socialist putting lipstick on a pig. Trying to obscure and obfuscate the reality of this Utopian mechanism for society. It is unfortunate that Humanists lack a descriptive, cohesive, mechanism and are forced to bend and stretch Socialism to fit, but it's really not necessary. Just say what must be said. Deny to Carlos and his ilk the inappropriate use of the word. Insist that they admit that whatever they call Socialist is not Socialist at all. Because we know the definition of Socialism. Refuse to allow Socialist to paint their philosophy as the protector of persons and refuse to allow the right to call everything that takes a dime out of their pocket as Socialism. Stick to the definition.

Ed Buckner

The words of Curtiss Brown apparently deserve more care than those of Carlos Ponce (Ponce is little more than amusing--a bible-believing Christian who either does not know the Bible or who perhaps knows it well enough to avoid trying to defend anything in it), but Brown is nevertheless mistaken: "Ed, not that I want to interrupt your marvelous work on Carlos, but I read your article. It was very well written but doesn't satisfy. Some woman at the Democratic Socialists of America: “Karl Marx (1818-1883) didn’t invent socialism (arguably Henri de Sainte-Simon (1760-1825) did) and I don’t consider Marx the final authority on it."

Really? And Darwin didn't invent evolution (arguably Alfred Russell Wallace did at the same time.) Unlike this unnamed Socialist, I do accept Darwin as well as Marx as the inventors of their respective philosophies. This is the heart of your commentary on the word Socialism. A Socialist putting lipstick on a pig. Trying to obscure and obfuscate the reality of this Utopian mechanism for society. It is unfortunate that Humanists lack a descriptive, cohesive, mechanism and are forced to bend and stretch Socialism to fit, but it's really not necessary. Just say what must be said. Deny to Carlos and his ilk the inappropriate use of the word. Insist that they admit that whatever they call Socialist is not Socialist at all. Because we know the definition of Socialism. Refuse to allow Socialist to paint their philosophy as the protector of persons and refuse to allow the right to call everything that takes a dime out of their pocket as Socialism. Stick to the definition." Darwin was ahead of Alfred Wallace in describing what has correctly become known as "Darwinian evolution" or some variation thereof--but in fact neither man invented evolution--there were numerous proponents of evolution before Charles Darwin--including Erasmus Darwin--but the brilliant conceptualization and testing of the specific Darwinian theory won the day. So much so that successors in theory who have modified C Darwin's idea are still called "modern synthesis Darwinians." No idea whether you're trying for a sly insult by calling me a "woman" but it's silly not biting, whatever your intent. There are serious variations among anti-socialists as to what they are opposed to, there are serious variations among people calling themselves "socialists" and there is not, in fact a *correct* definition, just different ones. He who is interested in communication rather than denunciation should specify which he means. Ideas of socialism preceded Karl Marx, not just the use of the word. The word--like the world and like all important ideas--requires complexity and nuance to function well, not simple-mindedness. Neither an opponent of socialistic ideas nor a proponent is wise to say his is *the* definition, especially not without specifying.

Curtiss Brown

Oh, so the DSA was you. Sorry about that. Didn't pick that up. Assuming "Ed" is a male name. Anyway, the argument isn't about Marx and Darwin it is about definitions and what they mean, and Socialists. You simply cannot discuss policy in any rational manner choosing the meaning of words for yourself alone. A Democratic Socialist is, quite simply, a Socialist. If you didn't know you were a Socialist you should know now that you are. Yes, there are plenty of Socialists in European parliaments and there are plenty of people that call themselves Socialist this or Socialist that and are really something else entirely. So what? The fact is Socialists, real Socialists, are just delighted so many people are carrying around the lipstick. If any European country should become confused enough to elect a large majority of Socialists -- Katy bar the door. The full awful flower of the real Socialist would be manifest. Personally, I will stick to calling a spade a spade.

Ed Buckner

My mistake--foolish of me to think that Curtiss Brown might be a worthy interlocutor. Instead he turns out to be, like others on this forum, one who thinks he can "win" by stamping his feet and insisting that the only suitable digging tool is a shovel--oops, a spade. Brown appeals to a fixed authority--the dictionary--but acknowledges that many people (many dictionaries, too, if he looked) use a term to mean what he thinks is mistaken. And he knows it is because... well, because he says so. End of debate. Or at least end of pretense that foot-stomping assertion can be a replacement for discourse.

Ed Buckner

I owe a bit of an apology to Mr. Brown--he was right that it was a fictional woman who ascribed the coining of the term "socialism" to a Marxist predecessor. That obviously is a position I identify with but in that essay I did put the words into the mouth of "DSA." There was no reason for me to conclude that Brown was engaging in some sort of sly insult, and I apologize. (I was remembering not that essay but my recent piece in the Galveston Daily News: https://www.galvnews.com/opinion/guest_columns/article_4b323757-40fd-59b9-a277-6662e71d011f.html ).

Curtiss Brown

Who is foot-stomping now?

Ed Buckner

You are, Mr. Brown. Foot-stomping (n.) 1. In a debate or discourse, when one party simply declares he is correct without logic or evidence to support his assertion. As, e.g. Curtiss Brown declaring that there is one and only one correct definition of socialism even as he himself provides multiple examples to the contrary.

Carlos Ponce

I spoke with a man who has a relative at West Point. The cadet is dismayed by the "woke" training she is now receiving. It isn't helping the United States in military preparedness.

Cary Semar

When I was young I spoke to a man who read a book that was written by a man who spoke to God.....are you still listening?

Gary Scoggin

There is a difference between anecdote and data.

Carlos Ponce

How many anecdotes do you want? Hers is the consensus of those in her class.

Dan Freeman

[thumbup][thumbup]Thanks for sharing General Milley's thoughtful response to Congressman Matt Gaetz.

David Hardee

Mary, exercise some more evaluation of the propriety of region of authority and control associated with this Military leader. Is a military's a social club, a democracy, considerate of feelings? When your duty is to follow orders and the destruction and death by total aggression on the enemy do you want a soldier to reflect on something that will cause hesitation and possible his death. Victory is the only objective. Paton, Sherman and even Truman knew that aggressive brutality was necessary and was in the best interest of all - including the enemy. Give the Military the best opportunity with a conviction that they will be victorious. No social engineering distractions.

Mary, here is the regimen for women in the military -

"Congress recently authorized an expansion for the role played by female troops in combat zones. There’s been a lot of attention paid to this, but it’s actually a relatively small change that only codified in law the reality on the ground for the last ten years. In reality, very little has changed.

Women are still barred from most combat arms professions "

Why?

You know why.

Men - trannymen - in women's sports is progressive liberal perversion as is this General Miley's perverting of the Military emanating from progressive liberal convolution/infection.

Mary Godfrey

David Hardee, I respectfully evaluate everything I see, hear, and write. I have thus evaluated what you wrote as meaningless babble to prove a political position. The only position I try to take is on the side of truth and common sense. I will much rather listen to the man who is not only highly educated but also highly decorated. A man whose uniform tells the story of his decades of service to this country. Because he has walked the walk in service to this country, he deserves to be heard on this very important subject. It is exhausting listening to chicken hawks (not putting you in this category because I do not know you) who did not serve question those who did-and do. I have four generations of men in my family who wore the uniform of the United States of America. They would be pleased that THEIR experiences (and history as American citizens) and sacrifices are respected and known just as much as anybody else’s. We will NEVER be the country we pretend to be/want to be as long as we hide behind fear, myths, faux news, and ignorance. If our military men and women are not mature enough to hear a true accounting of the history of our country, we are in more trouble than we think we are. Our past will end up being our prologue. Knowledge is always more powerful than ignorance. We have accomplished some great things in this country, and many of them came about as a result of great pain and sacrifices. ALL those stories should be told at the appropriate time in an appropriate manner to appropriate groups.

David Hardee

Mary says, "I respectfully evaluate everything I see, hear, and write. I have thus evaluated what you wrote as meaningless babble to prove a political position."

Well Mary you must have dreamed up my "prove a Political position" because I neither stated or referred to politics.

Your rant is filled with your hypothetical recitations i.e. "country we pretend to be" - " a true accounting of the history of our country," etc.. These statements are figments of perception/imagination. But ""Knowledge is always more powerful than ignorance." is a statement for and from a "no-brainer" category, Mary.

There is a seat for your ilk as a passenger on that crowded progressive liberal fear, myths, faux news, and ignorance, bus.

David Hardee

The reference to "progressive liberals" has no boundary - the term is affiliated with a specific ideology that has advocates through all segments of societies.

David Smith

Racism isnt a one way street...

Carlos Ponce

In practice CRT promotes racism.

Ed Buckner

Ms. Mary Godfrey and Dr. David Michael Smith both have shown real, nuanced, understanding of CRT. Some commenters have expressed wildly unreasonable alarm about CRT, seemingly stirred up by Fox News, etc. It is a pleasure to have a real expert like Dr. Smith weigh in and to see a YouTube clip of General Milli addressing this.

Jim Forsythe

Trump allies including Steve Bannon are plotting a campaign against critical race theory, they think could return the GOP to power.

Ed Buckner

Yes, Mr. Forsythe--highly regarded historian Heather Cox Richardson addressed that in her blog tody ("Letters from an American")--well worth a read.

Carlos Ponce

"Trump allies including Steve Bannon .... " Just a few months ago Liberals in these forums were posting Steve Bannon throwing Trump under the bus.

Jim Forsythe

Bannon and three cohorts were arrested for defrauding donors in a crowdfunding campaign to build the wall (that Trump promised Mexico would pay for).

Trump throws Steve under the bus.

Trump, of course, immediately distanced himself from Bannon. “I don’t like that project” and “I thought it was being done for showboating reasons.” Bannon is the eighth Trump associate to be arrested or convicted of crimes.

Curtiss Brown

Don't help us, Michael.

Bailey Jones

[lol]

Bailey Jones

Well, this has certainly been diverting. Let me take a shot at explaining this critical race theory stuff.

The way I see it, it's like this: Donald Trump lost the election. Then a bunch of his fans invaded the capitol and beat up a bunch of cops. Big tech took away his social media platforms, and his "blog" failed miserably and he hardly ever makes the news anymore. Meanwhile, the pandemic is ending, people are throwing away their masks, the Dow Jones is up 25% since the election, Biden's approval rating every day as president has been higher than any day of Trump's presidency, and the rest of the world's leaders love him.

So what's a Trumpublican Party to do? I know - let's tell the base (aka white people) that those good-for-nothing liberal teachers are teaching their kids that America was never great - because of racism - and it's all their fault. Let's tell them that black and brown and liberal people are indoctrinating their kids with the notion that it's time to take white people down a notch and "equalize" America - at their expense. Let's pretend like any of this is true and pass some anti-CRT laws. Then maybe we can talk about requiring teachers to wear body cameras...

In other words, there's an election coming and they've got nothing to motivate the base but last year's Trump. And he's a bit of a Frump.

Carlos Ponce

Nonsense from Bailey. [rolleyes]

Ed Buckner

Another incisive, well reasoned analysis from Bailey Jones, followed, as the day the night, by the usual illogical and foolish ranting by the ignorant. Ah, well--thanks, Mr. Jones. I wish the Galveston area US Congressman, mentioned in this guest column, would read and heed what you wrote--but he won't.

Carlos Ponce

"I wish the Galveston area US Congressman, mentioned in this guest column, would read and heed what you wrote" - No,Randy Weber doesn't read Leftist propaganda.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce, I was already pretty sure that Congressman Weber never read anything that he might disagree with. thanks for confirming that you are of the same low opinion of the Congressman.

Carlos Ponce

Sad thing is you consume Liberal propaganda without a second thought.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce managed to give the lie to his own comment--"Sad thing is you consume Liberal propaganda without a second thought"--by earlier posting garbage on CRT which I read and replied to with some care (not that Ponce read what I wrote--he rants but does not engage). I can easily prove that to be true, again, if he wants me to--and on his home turf: bible-based morality. It's ground we've already been over but he will not--cannot?--engage, preferring to make assertions rather than debate or argue. Mr. Ponce?

Carlos Ponce

Your posts, Ed Buckner, betray you.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce advises, as if it settled anything at all, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't see a halo above you." I don't believe in "sin" in the same way you do, as defined by biblical Christianity. I do think human beings, including me, make mistakes (sometimes grievous ones) and harm fellow human beings, sometimes horribly. I seek to avoid such horrible mistakes. My point about Mr. Ponce--possibly the one he was referring to--though it's not clear--is that he never actually engages, never takes into account facts or arguments contrary to what he wants to believe--just repeats thing as if that enhances the probability they'll be seen as true based on repetition. Whereas I do read and reply. For instance, Ponce cited several items/links he considered important to understanding CRT--I looked at what he cited and commented specifically on them. He ignored this and repeated his claims, wily-nily. He claims to believe in the Bible as a good source for truth and moral understanding, but won't reveal whether he agrees with what the Bible sez about slavery or not. Leviticus 25:44ff is clear--does Carlos Ponce accept the Bible?

Carlos Ponce

Ed Buckner, you are easy to ignore.

David Hardee

Well done Bailey. You have taken an incident(s) and opined/described all the elements that stimulate the always natural reaction of a minority to the fact they are depressed about not being the majority and consequently are antagonist declaring they are victims. The sophisticated program being constructed by the progressive liberals has 2 approaches - 1. mount a campaign to embarrass the majority with guilt for being the majority/dominance portion of the population. 2. continuously irritate the minority by exemplifying every inequity as being an intentional act by the majority to brutalize the minority, Typical, from the Saul Alinsky handbook instructions.

You obsession with Trump because he epitomized the traditional paternal male in a traditional nuclear family/society is not remarkable for your ilk. The illusion that a group of humans can be melded into a totally equalize - utopian - is beyond the natural order. And the natural order is what keeps us (the intellectual species/humans) on the quest for bettering our existence. Competitiveness is the natural condition that will cause us to leave this planet before it (earth) is collided into cosmic dust, eventually. No mode of transportation, no philosophy, or vaccine/etc. would exist without competitiveness, And no society will ever be without INEQUITY and competition between the majority and minority and that minority's minority on down through the pyramid of hierarchies.

Saul Alinsky is an effective but amoral mentor whose advocates corrode peace wherever they perform.

Bailey Jones

Excellent morning word salad, David. So, I take it that you consider the present social order to be "natural"?

David Hardee

I expected you would have made some illusion out of my salad. The "natural order" is thoroughly described as NATURAL = without UNnatural influences.

Evidently you missed the part about Saul Alinsky influences, that the progressive liberals advocate are performing, as being a corrosion of and influence on the natural order, anytime including today.

Bailey, your question, "David. So, I take it that you consider the present social order to be "natural"?" is answered in the statement "Saul Alinsky is an effective but amoral mentor whose advocates corrode peace wherever they perform. I failed to put TODAY in my statement - it was implied, I expected - Today’s society is out of “natural order” because, the progressive liberal advocates are performing the Alinsky prescription for “Rules for radicals.”

DANIEL PICKETT

David, I got a laugh out of your statement to Bailey that "......Trump because he epitomized the traditional paternal male in a traditional nuclear family/society...." Donald J. Trump may serve as your ideal example of a male in the family, but he absolutely is not an ideal example in my view. I am very thankful that my four sons are not like Trump.

Carlos Ponce

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I don't see a halo above you.

David Hardee

the word "exemplify" (give an example of; illustrate by giving an example.) does not i mean good or bad. Nor does the word progressive mean good or bad. It is neglection of the "words have meanings" that causes much of the communication problems, today. Bastardizing of the words and the assumption of, or inferring a meaning, can have drastic consequence.

Daniel you apparently are a role model - patriarch - that has produced four good assets to humanity. Trump seems to be quiet satisfied with his progeny and aside from the political turmoil his children exhibit they are assets to humanity. Where as the Biden son Hunter, is a study in what is a failed mentoring to create an asset, regrettably. Your denigrating of Trump specifically deserved this rejoinder.

Patriarchy in the nuclear family is the most successful form of mentoring children.

It patriarchy in the families today is missing. And the facts that 73% of the children are born out of wedlock and eventually " In 2020 nearly 19 million children, amounting to 25 percent of all children in the U.S., were living in single-parent families. That percentage is nearly three times the level in 1960 of 9 percent. America's proportion of children living with a single parent is more than three times the worldwide level of 7 percent.", supports the conclusion we must restore the TRADITIONAL family for the sake of being the BEST HOPE of HUMANITY, again.

Mary Godfrey

Bailey Jones, you summarized why we are where we are in 2021 perfectly. And it is somewhat frightening. We seem to be in an intellectually downward free fall.

David Hardee

Theorists are rampant in the convoluted realm of social sciences and history experts. The study of Social Sciences and History are purely subjective/oriented knowledge, compared to STEM pursuits. Graduates and teachers of Social Sciences and History possess - Subjective knowledge - that is peppered with conclusions and embellished with coincidental evidence. Subjective Knowledge makes for a perfect playground for developing non-substantiated perception, theory, and pure blabber experts.

These Experts, certified by earned documents (degrees etc.), project themselves as intellectual superior. Too often these degreed aficionado's are afflicted with copious ego and audacity while actually projecting recitations of nonsense on their audiences. Often a captive audience of students.

A document of achievement is to be honored for the dedication, hard work, and as a passport for special treatment, but no indicator of competence, When such individual has been revealed as incompetent and rejected their extreme reaction of delusion can be expected.

We often see a social sciences and history classified expert flourish as a bright star only to fizzle out from the Peter principle. These fizzlers then turn their lacking, braced up with their expert documents, toward the political arena. Ergo this article's author.

His articles subject matter - embraces all the paraphernalia surrounding the quote he uses from Janel George of the American Bar Association. How much more integrity can there be than that coming from the austere and honored lawyer’s organization, ABA. Lawyer’s are the dominant providers of obfuscation, prevarication and financial devastation, as they cross represent (lawyer vs lawyer) every side of any issue till exhaustion, and arrival at the Supreme level produces an, OPINION. That entire adjudication process is another Social Science and History wandering of inconclusiveness.

What about CRT? I admit there is a Critical Race Theory. It exists in every place where there are humans that group together. Why do humans group together? Humans find grouping advantageous for some homogeneous reason - sex, safety, comfort, beliefs, etc. - yet humans are each unique so the homogeneous reason is the only commonality. Humans are also competitive, consequently a pecking order and dominance always exists. And there in, the pecking order and dominance exits a Critical Actuality of the Majority. Majority, aka power, is always the rule and those not included in whatever the majority feature is, are the dominated and will be victimized, naturally. Ergo if the Critical feature is identified as gender, strength, size, color etc. those with the majority feature are Superior and those not with the majority feature are minority/victims. How, where, and why this Critical Superiority becomes the situation is coincidental but is always inevitable and NOT theoretical.

So wander in the playpen of Critical Racism Theory with mantras and recitations to support an agenda but the reality is that your exercise reeks with the animosity of being a minority and perceiving that some devious act caused the victimization, you perceive, while it really is simply wanting to be, though unqualified, dominant.

The facts of natural order aren’t that difficult unless you are an Expert afflicted with copious ego and audacity.

Mary Godfrey

David Hardee, I read your discourse that was posted on June 24, 2021 at 10:21 p.m. I actually read it twice. Of course, many of those who lean toward the so-called “hard sciences” have always downplayed the significance of those who are social scientists. FYI, though, social scientists go thru the same rigorous scientific method as any other scientist. They start out with a hypothesis. Then they do research to try to disprove the hypothesis. When they have gathered enough evidence one way or the other, a theory is developed. When I read your comment the second time around, I could only think of the social commentary below by one who was known worldwide for his wit and artistry:

https://youtu.be/dZkjo3mNmsA

David Hardee

I like James brown - but sending me to that site is reflective of your inability to construct a serious/intelligent debate.

Try a intellectual pursuit into the real world evaluators for some common sense and proof by academic means: Here are two that might help you can away from psting nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(political_scientist)

or

Woodson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Woodson#:~:text=(born%20April%208%2C%201937),to%20revitalize%20low%2Dincome%20communities.

Thanks for your response - your theoretical evaluation/comment is without any creditable/support/references - except James Brown is comical.

David Hardee

Mary, your comments are reported by Email under the moniker "sojourner71." the 71 is likely the year of your birth - not likely your 71 years of age - if 71 was age of birth then age now you would be 40 - a 40 year old American citizen has never experienced a tranquil society American - ergo one form of radicalism after another have created a dissatisfying environment and jaded person. So MAGA has no essence, if it was never GREAT to a 40 year old. I have presented a circumstantial case for why many citizens are activist that feel the USA was ALWAYS awful. This is the process similar to a social scientist developing a conclusion. There are many deviations that can enter into the circumstantial presentation but the one I presented is a straight line to a reasonable conclusion.

As to the moniker Sojourner here is the definition most accepted -

A sojourner is a person who resides temporarily in a place. Sojourner may also refer to: Sojourner Truth (1797–1883), abolitionist and women's rights activist. - reflecting on the ABOLITIONIST definition - (An abolitionist, as the name implies, is a person who sought to abolish slavery during the 19th century. ... Most early abolitionists were white, religious Americans, but some of the most prominent leaders of the movement were also Black men and women who had escaped from bondage.) - Slavery no longer exists in the USA - and - We just celebrated Juneteenth as a National Holiday - There is no purpose for any to claim to be an abolitionist, today.

Mary Godfrey

David Hardee, you have made several assumptions about me that are laughable. You know what “they” say: Those who know don’t tell and those that tell don’t know. I will say, though, that much of what I comment on and reflect on I have lived thru. I have a couple of degrees also, but I don’t have to pick up a book to see what somebody wrote about certain historical events in America. I remember the gruesome picture of Emmit Till on the cover of JET Magazine. I remember segregated accommodations. I remember when Medgar Evers was gunned down in his driveway for doing NAACP work. I remember when Fannie Lou Hamer was beaten and jailed simply because she wanted to vote. I remember when Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner were jailed and then murdered because they believed in every American’s right to vote. I remember when 4 little girls (who were my peers at the time) were killed in a church bombing while doing what I did every Sunday morning-attending Sunday School. I remember when the most peaceful American of the time-MLK, Jr- was assassinated. While we as a country have made some progress, we have also regressed. I don’t need to look in a book to recite some new names: Atatiana Jefferson. Botham Jean. Philando Castile. Jordan Edwards. Jordan Davis. Elijah McClain. 9 Saints who were killed after a prayer meeting in the basement of a historic church. And on and on. I take the position of my Jewish brothers and sisters. NEVER FORGET. And of course those who do not know their history (ALL of it) are destined to repeat it. My position on this is clear. It is not Black or white or liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican. If it is about anything, it is about the HUMAN Race. That is a label I will gladly embrace.

David Hardee

Mary - Dismissing my evaluation of your chosen moniker as laughable does not establish any but the fact that my evaluation was an exposure that was embarrassing. Why resort to use a pseudo unless it is meaningful? I predicted you were born in 71, is that wrong?

Mary, do you recall that I called your critique of my comments were "your theoretical evaluation/comment is without any credible/support/references - except James Brown is comical.”

How redundant that you utilize as a retort “laughable'' instead of my comical without producing any statement or actually disputing my evaluation of your moniker "sojourner71." Laughable is not an argument to a detailed claim or evaluation.

“A couple of degrees” certifies precisely what my statement “These Experts, certified by earned documents (degrees etc.), project themselves as intellectual superior.” So, the face value of your recitation is at least questionable. But the reciting of names of the unfortunate persons that died from an unconscionable act only demonstrates the inhumanity of humans/society. No Expert or common folk will ever accept these acts.

What is the reason for using an extensive list of these unconscionable act repetitively claiming they are indelible in memory and joining them to the “my Jewish brothers and sisters” Jewish Holocaust attempted genocide. Your making an association to genocide is sad and wrong.

Mary claims “I comment on and reflect on I have lived thru.” (the informal word thru is sometimes confused with threw) That claim would make Mary at least 73 years old since Medgar Evers died in 1955. “Cognitive development means the growth of a child's ability to think and reason. This growth happens differently from ages 6 to 12, and from ages 12 to 18. Children ages 6 to 12 years old develop the ability to think in concrete ways.”

I did live through and was cognitive during those events.

David

Dan Freeman

George Satayana wrote “History is a pack lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.” But he also recognized that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” CRT is a method for organizing thought about racist events of all history. To be anti-racist is as necessary as being anti-fascist.

Ed Buckner

Thumbs up, Mr. Freeman

Carlos Ponce

Dan, please re-read Dr. Martin Luther King's "I HAVE A DREAM" speech. It runs contrary to CRT.

And read: "The Civil Rights Legend Who Opposed Critical Race Theory"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/10/12/the_civil_rights_legend_who_opposed_critical_race_theory_144423.html#!

Bailey Jones

Yes, Dan - I heard this expressed in an interview on NPR yesterday - You can look at a subject like raising the "tip wage", and you can talk about it in terms of what the effect would be on restaurants and the wait staff and so on, but you can also look at it by how it got here - as a compromise with FDR to get southern states to agree to the minimum wage by exempting the jobs that were mostly held by POC. That's CRT.

Today on Facebook - "Refusing to teach the history or racism while defending Confederate statues is hypoCritical Race Theory."

Carlos Ponce

That's the problem, Bailey. Rejecting CRT is not the same as refusing to teach the history of racism.

Bailey Jones

No Carlos - the real problem is that NO ONE is teaching CRT to school kids. It's a solution without a problem - like Abbott's "election security" legislation. So much time and energy being spent making laws to prevent imaginary problems while our electric grid collapses and our kids are among the worst educated in the nation, 1 in 7 Texans doesn't have enough to eat, and we have the lowest rate of health insurance coverage in the nation. But apparently lying to morons is what it takes to stay elected in Texas.

Carlos Ponce

" NO ONE is teaching CRT" FALSE!

Bailey Jones

history OF racism, oops

Ted Gillis

Who’s teaching it Carlos? Name the school district.

Carlos Ponce

Loudoun County Schools, Virginia. Rosemount High School in Rosemount Minnesota, Fairfax County Schools, etc then include schools where individual Liberal teachers have introduced CRT into their curricula.

And also colleges:

https://criticalrace.org/

Ed Buckner

Mr. Gillis, you should know--probably already do--that Mr. Ponce wants to toss bits at you but is unwilling to engage in any meaningful analysis. For example, he declared to me that the schools in Virginia taught CRT, but when pressed on it he provided a link to some emotional but irrelevant testimony about how CRT is like the crap in communist China. (The woman asserted that she understood the horrors in China because she had lived through it--likely true--but gave not one iota of evidence that CRT was being taught in the schools in Virginia, much less that it was like she claimed it was.)

Carlos Ponce

Distortion.

Ted Gillis

Oh wow, 3 or so schools districts. No wonder there is so much false outrage.

Carlos Ponce

Of course you did not follow the links. Otherwise you would see there are more than 3.

Ed Buckner

Mr. Gillis, I have no idea how many links you followed, but when Mr. Ponce gave me links on CRT and I responded with some analysis of three of them, he did not engage--instead accusing me, bizarrely, of ignoring the evidence he'd provided. If you gave Mr. Ponce fifty troubling Bible verses and he replied to the first three, showing your objection was misguided, would you then attack him for not rebutting all 50? (BTW, there are more than 50 verses that are contradictory, immoral, nonsensical, or bizarre--but Carlos Ponce thinks defending the Bible requires blind obedience, not discourse.)

Ted Gillis

I never pay attention to Carlos’s links. I don’t think I’ve ever opened one.

Carlos Ponce

"I never pay attention to Carlos’s links." That explains a lot about your posts. You might have well posted, " I won't look at anything that proves I'm wrong."

Ed Buckner

Sorry, but you got it wrong, Carlos Ponce. The line you suggested for Ted Gillis is, famously, *your* line.

Carlos Ponce

And Ed Buckner gets another one WRONG.

C. Patterson

CRT doesn't prevent racism it teaches it to a whole new generation, white racism. This stuff about oppressor/oppressed is baseless garbage. Opportunities are abundant in this country and yes there will always be crybabies complaining about not getting their fare share but that doesn't prove the white man held them down. MLK had it right! Move away from this stuff its toxic.

Or even Lincoln “ Created Equal’

Connie Patterson

Ed Buckner

Jeff Patterson, like other people blindly afraid of CRT--of what it is not, in fact--foolishly thinks that MLK was/would be on his side in this. MLK was, proudly, a trouble maker, a vigorous opponent of the systemic racism he found throughout America. Read, just for one example of many, this editorial comment showing how clear it is that MLK would support using CRT as an analytical tool: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/22/how-confront-systemic-racism-heed-call-martin-luther-king/

Carlos Ponce

CRT is an extension of Liberal Identity Politics.

Ed Buckner

Sex trafficking is an extension of Biblical morality. (Gee, one *can* spew out complete sentences devoid of any meaning or logical import--fun, huh, Carlos Ponce?)

Carlos Ponce

No, it is not, Ed Buckner.

Ted Gillis

This is a comments forum Carlos, not a footnote posting board. I can look up my own news stories without your biased help.

I post my comments, not links to someone else’s.

Carlos Ponce

" I can look up my own news stories..." Problem is... YOU DON'T.

Jarvis Buckley

I believe DMS has accomplished what he set out to do.

David Hardee

Just curious, Jarvis. Are you approving the article? - Or that DMS generated a reaction?

Exploring both possibilities the conclusion compatible to either is DMS has an affinity to preach disguised as a credentialed teacher, and his preferred subject is destruction of traditionalism and ascension of any ideology that moves the USA to become a socialist entity with a proletariat governance.

If you chronicle DMS over the years you find an ACTIVIST that will cleave to any ilk and join their agenda/issue that irritates a social calamity on the USA. DMS is loyal and persistent to his project/desire to not have society be moved toward MAGA.

Ed Buckner

For anyone struggling with whether to accept the worldview of Mary Godfrey--that the HUMAN RACE is what matters, and that knowledge and history matter--vs that of Carlos Ponce--that we should embrace ignorance, deny science, and insist that the past doesn't matter==there's an excellent column in today's New York Times by Paul Krugman that's well worth reading. (Of course for those who denounce a given newspaper as inevitably not worth reading, that is even more evidence that what Krugman writes about Gen. Milli and Carlos Ponce is true.) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/28/opinion/tucker-carlson-general-milley-republicans.html

Carlos Ponce

Ed Buckner is mis-characterizing me again. He is so pathetic! I must be getting to him!

Ed Buckner

Fascinating--Carlos Ponce won't read and reply to a thoughtful analysis decrying the dangerous foolishness he exemplifies, but he can bring out silly schoolyard taunts like a pro. Who is getting to whom? (I know, I know, I'm *not* getting to him, nor is Paul Krugman. As Krugman's column makes clear, people like Mr. Ponce are wholly impervious to facts, knowledge, history, science, etc.)

Carlos Ponce

After teaching several decades I can identify the class bully easily. Ed Buckner has not outgrown his bullying stage. He passes off his bullying as debate. What a LAUGH! The bully is not intellectual. Ed Buckner offers nothing of consequence to the on-line comment section. BULLY! BULLY!

Ed Buckner

Somebody at the formatting desk needs to help Mr. Ponce out. Merely putting "BULLY" in all caps is not working for him. He can't or won't actually read and consider anything he disagrees with dispassionately and actually argue, and "shouting" in all caps doesn't work, either. Maybe give him some bigger font sizes or more dramatic bold-or-italics, etc.

Carlos Ponce

[yawn][yawn][yawn][sleeping][sleeping][sleeping]

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce, neither of us is doing each other or anyone else any good exchanging insults and declaring that the other is not debating. I'll lay off if you will. And if--IF--you do want to debate about any of the many things we disagree on--existence of God; biblical morality; Trump-Biden election; CRT; religious liberty; etc., let me know and we can exchange views and ideas respectfully. Regards, Ed B.

Ed Buckner

It may well be too long ago for comments on this Guest Column, but for anyone still tuned in, if you want a better grasp of what CRT is really all about, here's an excellent blog post about it (be advised, though, that "the Rude Pundit" uses colorful vulgarity)-- https://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2021/07/hey-fellow-white-people-we-should-be.html

David Hardee

Ed, The "Rude Pundit" is another of the scraps of humanity that select a moniker after contemplating their navel with narcistic intent to produce a pseudo-name that will tantalize a simple minds curiosity, Where did you find this "useful idiot's" regurgitation.

A google reference him on "twitter" which I have never used nor "face book." These social media site are the equivalent of land fill dump where the volumes useless buries any useful. Seems out of that pit of refuse you dug and found Rude's recitation, over came the smell and present it as a jewel of considerable value. As respect for you I read - and gagged.

El Rude fondled his mind and erected these statements in conclusion.

"A truly great country doesn't have to keep saying it's great. " He is ignorant intentionally of the fact across the globe hordes are suffering and scrambling over each other to just set there feet inside the borders, by any means, because the USA is "the Greatest Country and Hope of humanity. Right?

And another of his erections is "I am pissed off as hell at all the stupid, racist, sexist white men in the past who fucked it all up." Well, El Rude, "the stupid, racist, sexist white men in the past who fucked it all up." were the only ones in charge ergo your FU conclusion is in need of evaluation for veracity - 1 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy. 2 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness. Where white men racist by importing slaves or by fighting the indigenous population. Or were these events the result of a response/reaction to a practical need. A student of times and realities will know that what occurred at those times what did happen was what needed to happen, And across the globe those events occurred in every society repetitively as natural reactions - not only by white men in America but in and among all the societies where a conflict for dominance or a need for manual labor were present. Ergo the FU you charge was considered a natural event, even noble.

The uniqueness in American society is that those white men codified a resolution that made a pattern for the seeking a path to bring all these FU's of inequities to eventually evolve to equity, not equality which can never be achieved in a human diverse society.

Sexism/suffrage and power were the natural condition of a paternal society. Nothing is more replete among all the species than paternalism. And El Rude if that is a FU you should refer to the Prime Mover for explanation. And also suggest - no demand - that you resolve for us, why the evolution of our society where the absence of fathers in the lives of children is so prominent today resulting in the undeniable fact a child without a nuclear family - cooperation of biological parents - is destine to a more difficult life.

Ed, El Rude is a figment of many philosophical nincompoops' that TWITTER nonsense to the mass of naïve and simple minds among us.

And his endeavor is to destroy our legacy (something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past) by publishing his mindless erections

Ed Buckner

David Hardee, The Rude Pundit is certainly not for everyone. He gets, often, much more crude and rude than he did in this posting, and is hilarious to me when he does, but I would certainly not insist that he's funny to people who don't like his style.

But he's right that genocide and systematic, vicious, racism and defense of immoral slavery for generations has been poisonous and deserves to be understood in all its complexity. America certainly did not invent slavery or racism, but we made both worse and defended and perpetuated both long after Europe and the UK had--after a major struggle--rejected at least the formal slavery part.

Like me, Rude is not a believer in your--or anyone else's--Prime Mover.

We agree that 2 parents can give a child a better, more secure start in life--but not that we must therefore accept paternalism or sexism.

Your simple-minded and even mindless claims that those with whom you disagree are simple-minded and mindless are not persuasive.

David Hardee

Be cautious Ed, revealing that indulging in The Rude is gratifying can raise unflattering assumptions.

Ed, only a total egoist would claim no Prime Mover or Supreme Being and proudly proclaiming "Like me, Rude is not a believer in your--or anyone else's--Prime Mover." What do you esteem or believe? No human can be the Prime Mover. Humans cannot even be totally rational or consistent. In the realm of a humans psyche developing (constant events are stored processed by cognition and arranged by synopsis to create relationships for use as ones knowledge base) it is to dynamic for making a pure conclusion. So to meet your request and making my "UNPERSUASIVE claims" more persuasive, let me offer this to nonbelievers of a Prime Mover.

Aquinas and Darwin conflict and neither faith's God or science's logic are more than theory/propositions lacking evidentially conclusion.

To all that hold themselves as the center of the universe (Supreme Being) - reflect on this. Those that deny there is the Entity/Unity responsible for the workings of the UNIVERSE within the laws of physics and also deny there is an Architect of the mysterious nature of man's abilities to create from pairing of DNA's, build a psyche, they are heretics and simply animated human shells. To be a valuable human one must be in awe, humbled, and curious of all that is and respecting there is a purpose beyond self gratification to life. To deny there is a purpose and a meaning to the existence of humans is nihilism and releases humans from self evaluation and discrimination into a progression of liberalism where nothing is judged. The credo of nihilist is, "There is no god, no heaven or hell, so screw it: there can be no right or wrong." Ergo, a progressive liberal is a nihilist in process on the way to Utopia, destroying all that is evaluated as good and not good for humanity, so eventually a society of homogeneous robotic human bodies can languish without anything mattering except desires and personal bodily functions. Sounds ridiculous because it is. But that is the imagined perfect progressive liberal Utopia.

Competition in all it civil form is the nature of a natural human.

Emilio Nicolas

"Ergo, a progressive liberal is a nihilist..." That's a stretch, even for someone who pretends to take the place of God in judgement of others. Seems more like a Judge Mental.

Ed Buckner

I think I know that particular judge.

Ed Buckner

Believing in a Prime Mover only demonstrates that one has a name for something to stop the infinite regression of causation--not an explanation. After all, who or what moves the prime mover? Who or what creates the creator? If you think it is possible to have an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover, an uncreated creator, then it makes exactly as much sense to call it the universe as to call it a god. Wanting it to be intelligent or purposeful is not evidence that it is. The nature of humans, like other organisms, is competitive AND cooperative. Humans have thrived and progressed by being quite good at both.

David Hardee

Thanks Ed. On point and clear reply. We can't, so far, prove so we continue to search the answer to, why am I here and what is my purpose in the of the individual to humanity and beyond. So those among us truly concerned work out a scheme of judgement and rules of conduct. Using for a base the natural instincts which are irrational we make discrimination of degrees of value to their society. Majority rule is for the present the best structure, democracy. Ours is under attack and that is what is the irritation that is a the root of the battle against natural majority's established mores, morals and ethics by the progressive liberal ( Cabal definition is - the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot (as to overturn a government); also : a group engaged in such schemes.

), cabal. There is noting un-natural about animosity of a minority toward the majority. What is unusual is that the majority succumbing to the plethora of denigration. Particularly disturbing is expansion of "acceptable" morals to include perversions that are destructive to preservation of the species. The nuclear family has been destroyed, society protection of the sanctity of life for the fetus has been given to the whim of the individual, and the act of progenerating is now a recreational activity. All these (departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome) aberrations flow from the schemes of progressive liberal minorities cabal an given standing by the Judicial. our democracy is now abnormal and segmented into many tribes struggling for dominance, The path we are on is destroying much which was the best hope of humanity, Shame on us.

Ed Buckner

David Hardee, thanks for being generally respectful in replying--I hope to do likewise. There are problems with what you wrote: 1. "the act of progenerating is now a recreational activity"--I assure you, with tremendous confidence, that this is in no way a new development. For all of human history and, via anthropology study, long before history was even recorded, sexual acts have quite frequently much more, good and bad, than propagating the species. 2. Determining what counts as "perversion" is fraught with difficulty. You mention, correctly, that majority rule "is, for the present the best structure." But what is the alternative? The majority, at least in this nation appears to think interracial and same-sex marriage, to say nought of the union of a man and woman with no interest in creating children, are morally fine, quite acceptable in fact. It has not always been so, but previous majorities have accepted, for example, slavery or preventing women from having any political say--so merely going back to an earlier era seems unlikely to be satisfactory. And might we turn to a religion or set of "Holy" books to settle matters? How shall we decide which one? Who gets to interpret what the sacred text really means? 3. You mention the "sanctity of life for the fetus"--how do you know it is sanctified or by whom (Whom)? I've written an essay on this, with much more detail, that is going to be published in "Free Inquiry" soon--I'll try to remember to give you the details when it is out (I doubt if you'll agree, but you may find it interesting or even worth writing a critical letter to the editor about).

David Hardee

Ed, I reviewed the “fee Inquiry” website.

It is a place square pegs are able to fit in round holes - meaning all associated with "free inquiry" is contrary to any nature, reason, science, religion or even an irrational philosophy. Mere perception of a secular humanity is beyond the realm of a diverse and free society/group of humans. Your ilk is projecting a society of programmed psyches. This is a cult philosophy attempted often with the usual suicidal results of a "Heavens Gate", Jim Jones and the drug induced Manson Family.

Effort to invoke veracity by inculpating Einstein, Leonardo Da Vinci and other is hyperbole illusion. Only a demented form of FAITH sustains the Secular Humanity illusion. The word Faith is dominant in every human beings psyche and is itself the perfect definition of irrational devotion for a human's endeavors(s).

Even Einstein submitted to - Metaphysics. Spinoza's metaphysics consists of one thing, substance, and its modifications (modes). Early in The Ethics Spinoza argues that there is only one substance, which is absolutely infinite, self-caused, and eternal. He calls this substance "God", or "Nature".

Opening statement at Free Inquiry is - “Who are the secular humanists? Perhaps everyone who believes in the principles of free inquiry, ethics based upon reason, and a commitment to science, democracy, and freedom. Perhaps even you.”

— Paul Kurtz (1925 – 2012),

founder of the Council for Secular Humanism and Free Inquiry Magazine.

Secular humanism is a comprehensive, non-religious lifestance incorporating:

A naturalistic philosophy

A cosmic outlook rooted in science

A consequentialist ethical system.

Ed - Considering your dedication to the themes of this site and The Rude it is my opinion we have such divergence it is nonsense to pursue a dialogue for any reason. My position for - "each his own remains respectful to you personally". But any that want to publish, promote, and infect our society with the tenets exposed by these sites, you support, is beyond redemption through debate.

Adieu!

Ed Buckner

David Hardee, you grossly mischaracterized Free Inquiry, secular humanist philosophy, and me. And you failed completely to address the reasonable points I had made. But you're right about one thing: there is no point in either of us haranguing the other. Au revoir,

Welcome to the discussion.

Real Names required. No pseudonyms or partial names allowed. Stand behind what you post.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.