DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on June 26, 2008, 11:29:20 AM
-
June 26, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense
and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.
http://news.yahoo.com/i/701;_ylt=AvDzye9RR38PWmaCBBcwKHyyFz4D (http://news.yahoo.com/i/701;_ylt=AvDzye9RR38PWmaCBBcwKHyyFz4D)
Yeeee Haw ;)
(http://www.talknra.com/i/eagle.jpg)
-
Let's watch, and count how often opponents to this will imply some "bitterly split decision"..."RW Activism"..."a partisan divided court"...garbage like that. The one thing you won't see anywhere is the reference to a "stinging rebuke aimed at the Anti-gun lobby"
But I'd have to also say.......IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME they ruled on this issue
-
shhhhhhhhhh
;)
-
<<Let's watch, and count how often opponents to this will imply some "bitterly split decision"..."RW Activism"..."a partisan divided court"...garbage like that. >>
It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it? That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement. Given the presence of a clown like Clarence Thomas on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. And I'm not an anti-gun fanatic, my dad owned a handgun and a double-barreled shotgun and carefully showed me how to handle, care for and shoot both of them. Like most Canadians, I chose not to have firearms in the home, primarily for safety-related reasons.
-
If you have a gun in your home, statistically the most likely person to be shot with it is....YOU!
-
If you have a gun in your home, statistically the most likely person to be shot with it is....YOU!
Only if you manipulate the statistics.
-
stare decisis
baby!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf
-
Only if you manipulate the statistics.
===============
Naturally, you have a fresh set of non-manipulated statistics handy that you will show us.
This isn't a victory for freedom unless we use our nice new guns to overthrow the government, is it?
Shouldn't we at least have a go at it, just to make sure it is possible to bring down the government.
Maybe if the NRA could call for an attack and just wound Cheney a little, it could lift our spirits.
No one likes the creep.
-
Naturally, you have a fresh set of non-manipulated statistics handy that you will show us.
Nah, I'll just point out the problems with yours. 'Course, you haven't provided any yet.
-
We will all be freer and able to overthrow the government now that we can all be armed and dangerous.
-
with appropriate modification
<<Let's watch, and count how often opponents to this will imply some "bitterly split decision"..."RW Activism"..."a partisan divided court"...garbage like that. >>
It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it? That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement <on civilian courts for terrorist suspects>. Given the presence of a clown like <Ruth Bader Ginsberg> on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. And I'm not an anti-torture fanatic
-
This isn't a victory for freedom unless we use our nice new guns to overthrow the government, is it?
I don't know why you would think so.
-
MT: <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it? That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement. Given the presence of a clown like Clarence Thomas on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. And I'm not an anti-gun fanatic,>>
sirs: <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it? That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement <on civilian courts for terrorist suspects>. Given the presence of a clown like <Ruth Bader Ginsberg> on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. >>
========================================================================
RUTH BADER GINSBURG (please note spelling of last name)
from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
- 13 yrs. as Fed judge
- ACLU General Counsel
- Professor of Law, Rutgers U. Law School
- Prof. of Law, Columbia U. Law School
- tied for 1st in her class at Columbia Law School
- Columbia Law Review
- Harvard Law Review
- chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, she argued several cases in SCOTUS
- confirmed 96 to 3 in US Senate
Your turn, Mr. Big Mouth: CLARENCE THOMAS . . .
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. While you're at it, look this up: No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT. Innarrestin.
-
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. While you're at it, look this up: No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT. Innarrestin.
Justice Thomas: 131
Justice Ginsburg: 124
-
Frankly, I'm surprised, but I am sure if you look at almost all of Thomas' opinions, they are nothing more than dressed up ways of saying "I concur with______" whereas Ginsburg's would tend, as a former member of TWO Ivy League law school reviews, to be original works of legal scholarship. She'd have no need to dress up a simple concurrence. In any event, a detailed comparison of the two point-by-point as I suggested would easily reveal which one is the judicial scholar and which one is the clown.
-
Frankly, I'm surprised, but I am sure if you look at almost all of Thomas' opinions, they are nothing more than dressed up ways of saying "I concur with______" whereas Ginsburg's would tend, as a former member of TWO Ivy League law school reviews, to be original works of legal scholarship. She'd have no need to dress up a simple concurrence. In any event, a detailed comparison of the two point-by-point as I suggested would easily reveal which one is the judicial scholar and which one is the clown.
Concurrences have been removed from that list. When you add concurrences, you arrive at:
Justice Thomas: 231
Justice Ginsburg: 191
-
Where are you getting this stuff from?
-
Cornell Univ tracks decisions written differently from concurrences.
-
I hope you realize the difference between a concurrence and an opinion is very subjective unless the author is honest enough to keep a concurrence short and sweet. "I concur with Joe" is unambiguous. A clown like Thomas could easily pad out a concurrence so that it looks like an opinion (or more likely ask his clerk to do it for him in a more or less diplomatic way) and you will have an opinion that is really a concurrence.
Just how deeply does Cornell go into stuff like that anyway? And where is the link to the Cornell study?
-
Cornell Univ tracks decisions written differently from concurrences.
Oh yeah, well, Cornell. Like THEY'RE a reputable, credible university or something . . . :D
I was worried, given the close split in the court, that the libs might win this one like they did the Property Rights Revocation and Child Rapists Right To Life decisions.
Thank God (while we still can legally) that the court made this decision while people who believe the constitution actually means something are still around. At least the precedent is in there now. ('Course that doesn't mean a liberal majority will respect it.)
-
Just how deeply does Cornell go into stuff like that anyway? And where is the link to the Cornell study?
It's the Law School that does it. It's not a study, it's a list of decisions, who wrote them, whether or not they were concurrences, etc. I'm sure it's maintained by law students as part of their studies.
-
Yeah, but what is the STANDARD by which they call something a concurrence or not? And where is the link to the source?
-
Yeah, but what is the STANDARD by which they call something a concurrence or not? And where is the link to the source?
You'll have to talk with the Constitutional Law professors that oversee it.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?ginsburg
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/author.php?thomas
-
Well, thanks for the link. It was kinda surprising to see Thomas wrote so many opinions. Considering he was appointed to the bench earlier than Ginsburg, he actually puts out fewer opinions per year than she does,
RBG 10-Aug-93 27-Jun-08 14.8904 124 8.33
CT 23-Oct-91 27-Jun-08 16.6904 131 7.85
above being a little spreadsheet calculation I made, based on (left to right) judge, appointment, present date, years on the bench, no. of decisions and finally the average yearly output.
Ginsburg 8.33 per year, Thomas 7.85; Thomas can only put out 95% of Ginsburg's output. I'm sure if there were a means to measure quality instead of quantity, you'd see the real gap in brainpower start to manifest itself. The opinions, of course, can be written by highly qualified clerks, no one knowing the difference.
I did show many other areas in which Ginsburg could be compared to Thomas for the purpose of determining whether sirs is correct in calling Ginsburg the clown on the bench or whether I (and many others) are correct in pinning the clown suit on Thomas. Neither sirs nor anyone else from the lunatic rightwing fringe has seen fit to respond.
I returned to this post to modify it by bringing the cells in the spreadsheet more into line vertically, but when I came back here they WERE all in line. Something jigs them out of line when the message is posted. Sorry.
-
"Maybe if the NRA could call for an attack and just wound Cheney a little, it could lift our spirits"
Wow more words of wisdom from the resident hatemonger kook.
Now he calls for/implies shooting the Vice President of the United States.
This week alone those that arrive at a different conclusion are "assholes", "jerks" & now should be shot.
Oh but wait a minute Rich is the bad guy kook. ::)
-
Ginsburg 8.33 per year, Thomas 7.85; Thomas can only put out 95% of Ginsburg's output.
You must fully concur with the majority to write the decision; Justice Ginsburg is in that position more often than Justice Thomas, so therefore she has more opportunity to write the decision. To get a real stat, you'd need to adjust for the times when Justice Thomas was only partially concurring with the majority (ie, he agreed with the decision but disagreed with some of the legal principles - he wrote more of those than Ginsburg did as well, IIRC).
-
Actually, I just extrapolated from something I read, that Thomas almost never asks questions during argument, most likely from a well-founded fear of embarrassing himself. I just figured it would translate into not writing many original opinions, forgetting that the Chief Justice assigns the writing of the opinion after everyone's kicked the case around and they all know what the result is going to be, both for unanimous and for split decisions - - and that Thomas would have to come in for his fair share of assignments and anyway that they can be written by a clerk. So THAT dog won't hunt.
-
We will all be freer and able to overthrow the government now that we can all be armed and dangerous.
That's exactly why I cheer this decision. I want to be able to buy the same weapons Blackwater/military has.
This is why we have this right in the first place, isn't it? So we may overthrow a despot?
-
Actually, I just extrapolated from something I read, that Thomas almost never asks questions during argument, most likely from a well-founded fear of embarrassing himself.
I don't find it well-founded. When he's asked questions in the past many analysts have said that they were very clear, cogent, and relevant questions. Justice Thomas has said that written arguments should suffice. Most other appeals courts rely almost entirely on written arguments as well.
-
<<I don't find it well-founded. When he's asked questions in the past many analysts have said that they were very clear, cogent, and relevant questions. >>
I've never seen any critique of the few questions he did ask. Most of the commentary on his performance mentions that he hardly asks any questions at all. The other judges pepper counsel with questions as they are making their argument. That's true of any appellate court, not just the SCOTUS. It's a natural thing to do and it's helpful both to judges (in clarifying the points being argued and counsel's position on them) and to counsel (in giving them a window into the judge's thinking.)
<<Justice Thomas has said that written arguments should suffice.>>
I see. So he's found the right way and all the other judges have found the wrong way.
<< Most other appeals courts rely almost entirely on written arguments as well.>>
I don't know of any that have ruled out oral argument, though some have placed time limits on it. Whenever oral argument does occur, most judges will leap in. Thomas won't.
-
MT: <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it? That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement. Given the presence of a clown like Clarence Thomas on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. And I'm not an anti-gun fanatic,>>
sirs: <<It WAS a 5-4 split, wasn't it? That's hardly a ringing judicial endorsement <on civilian courts for terrorist suspects>. Given the presence of a clown like <Ruth Bader Ginsberg> on that bench, who basically isn't qualified to express an opinion in that company, I'd say the whole thing is a travesty. >>
========================================================================
RUTH BADER GINSBURG (please note spelling of last name)
from Wikipedia....Your turn, Mr. Big Mouth: CLARENCE THOMAS . . .
Let's take note...and count. Tee, who routinely demonizes Senator McCain's name in type, has an apparent small hissy fit for sirs daring to mistype 1 letter in Justice GinsbUrgs name.
Then posts largely a legal resume' of Ginsberg, as if Justice Thomas was the hall janitor when he was nominated for a Supreme Court Justice position. Apparently missing the fact he had gone to Yale Law School, received his Juris Doctorate, (ironically wasn't considered as valid as other degrees, because he supposedly was only admitted via Affirmative Action.)
He did manage to post positions as an Assistant AG of Missouri, as Assistant Secretary of Education for the office of Civil Rights, Chairman of the EEOC, & presided as a Justice for the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. HARDLY disqualifying
All of which of course is moot to Tee, as he's already racially castigated the man as an Uncle Tom moron, not fit to sit the bench....in other words, damn any facts to his already made up mind of what is, is
Then for good masure, throws a personal insult at sirs
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. While you're at it, look this up: No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT. Innarrestin.
I saw......thanks to Ami. Didn't realize Thomas had actually authored more opinions than Ginsbarg. And she's been on the bench.........how many more years?
-----------------------------------------------------
As corrected by Fat, Thomas has appropriately authored more opinions that Ginsborg, having been on SCOTUS longer
-
I saw......thanks to Ami. Didn't realize Thomas had actually authored more opinions than Ginsbarg. and she's been on the bench.........how many more years?
I think Thomas has been on the bench longer, at least as far as the SCOTUS is concerned. Thomas was a Bush HW appointee, Ginsburg was added by Clinton.
-
I sit corrected. Thanks Fat.
"Probably" will buy dinner if we come to Seattle? ;-)
-
"Probably" will buy dinner if we come to Seattle? ;-)
Depends on where you want to go, if you want to go to the Met, you're on your own ;)
The elegant 50-foot black marble bar is a favorite gathering place. Local stockbrokers, bankers and sports celebrities mingle under televisions that keep guests up to date on the stock market's ups and downs and the fate of Seattle's sports teams. Martinis are the specialty and the Smoky Met Martini, the reigning champion of Seattle's Martini Classic, is a favorite.
The Metropolitan Grill (http://www.themetropolitangrill.com/)
-
Another motivator to come visit the great northwest. Place looks awesome
I ALMOST went to work in Yakima, about 10years ago. I ALMOST went on a Golf Vacation in Northwest Seattle.......Port...something. I still plan on getting up there someday. I'll endeavor to give you a ring 8)
-
Clairance Thomas without question benefited from some affirmative action programs, surpriseing tho who you see useing this fact as dismissive of his abilitys.
http://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas/
http://justicethomas.tripod.com/id4.html
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29332.html<excelent emotinal article excerpt below>
The effect of stereotypes on blacks is a sense of being unseen, as in Ralph Ellison?s Invisible Man. The effect on whites is the corollary: They do not perceive blacks as real or make the same fine discriminations among blacks that they habitually make among whites. In the last analysis, they do not perceive black individuals; they perceive black skins. And this remains true at every step of the continuum.
One of the major reasons for the persistent problem is that millions of white adult Americans define "racism" as its most pathological manifestations: wearing white gowns and hoods, burning crosses, tarring and feathering blacks, hunting them down with dogs. Because those same millions of white Americans would not dream of committing such atrocities; because they vote for political representatives who pass civil-rights bills; because they applauded Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall; because they respect the changing nomenclature by which certain blacks wish to be addressed, they imagine themselves to be free of racism.
What they have never learned is that racism is an idea, a very old and intransigent idea. That idea exists on an unbroken continuum -- all the way from a form that is fully conscious to a form that is unconscious. Its manifestations can range from the most grossly offensive and scornful invective to a compulsive noblesse oblige that cannot permit itself to make any criticisms at all. But whatever the degree or kind of racism, it invariably contains a double standard: The racist simply does not treat black individuals the same way he treats whites.
.........................................................................................
The tale that Thomas himself told was accurate, and he told it with justified pride. It was the compulsive and wide-eyed gushing over it by the senators that was counterfeit and tacitly offensive to blacks. Thomas was scarcely the first small-town boy from the South to have achieved an important measure of success in the United States, and it was both patronizing and hypocritical to celebrate him as though he were. But that was just a symptom of a deeper hypocrisy: Few, if anyone at all, on the Senate committee, plus its legions of staff "researchers," actually cared a fig about Thomas? background or "roots."
The roots of an American black are not to be found in the town in which he was born or reared. They are plunged deep in the dark loam of slavery and its ongoing and unfinished business of institutionalized racism. No senator, and apparently no staffer, even considered for a moment investigating Thomas? real roots or his real struggle with American racism.
They should have done so, for the same reasons they should not have evaded one of their major political problems and buried it in legalized abortion. Because they all knew that white racism, both of the deeply entrenched kind and of a reactive, defensive kind, was exploding all about them in workplaces, in schools, and in police departments in response to double-standard affirmative action; because it was an issue that in one form or another might come before the Court; because it was an issue about which the nominee had thought deeply for most of his life -- and because it was an issue that was affecting, must be affecting, the real black man sitting before them.
Except...the subject for the Democrats was taboo. And Clarence Thomas wasn?t real to the Senate Judiciary Committee: He was a black pawn in their evasive political chess game; he was a collection of stereotypes. So no one, apparently, thought of doing some research on what really lay behind all the mutually congratulatory, intensely "caring" backslapping about Clarence Thomas? roots.
.......................................................
But these are questions, or speculations, one raises about a man -- and Thomas was not a man to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both the men on the committee who were hurled into panic by new ideas and the men on the committee who were hurled into panic by all ideas asked no such questions and gained no such insights. They had lost all contact with the human being they were "judging."
They didn?t even know that he was judging them. They didn?t notice that his eyes, once twinkling, had become dark and impenetrable, that his once spontaneous laugh had vanished, and that he now smiled through tightly clenched teeth, with the muscles in his jaws working tensely beneath the surface of his skin. They didn?t even realize that Clarence Thomas was terribly, terribly angry.
-
<<surpriseing tho who you see useing this fact [he got into Yale through affirmative action] as dismissive of his abilitys.>>
Oh, who would that be? Who in this forum used Thomas' free ride on affirmative actions as dismissive of his abilities? For that matter, who was the first person in this thread to even raise the issue of affirmative action?
Thomas' intrinsic lack of ability stands on its own. It's all the evidence anyone needs to portray him as the court buffoon that he is. The one guy who doesn't belong there. Sirs' pathetic attempts to buff up his credentials with a list of his meagre "accomplishments" was an embarrassment - - the phrase "damning with faint praise" comes to mind - - and all the more so when compared with the list of Ginsburg's credentials. A guy who barely scrapes through law school is compared with a student who tied for first in her class, made the Law Reviews at TWO Ivy League law schools and then served as Professor of Law at two Ivy League Law Schools.
Yet sirs calls Ginsburg the court clown, not Thomas.
Keep on diggin' sirs. You're doing just great!
BTW, I did not intentionally insult you in my post, as you seem to be complaining of. I really don't know what you are talking about.
-
BTW, I did not intentionally insult you in my post, as you seem to be complaining of. I really don't know what you are talking about.
You don't consider calling him "Mr. Big Mouth" to be an insult?
Or did another personality shoot that through just as you were getting ready to post, unbeknown to you?
-
A guy who barely scrapes through law school is compared with a student who tied for first in her class, made the Law Reviews at TWO Ivy League law schools and then served as Professor of Law at two Ivy League Law Schools.
Please provide support for your claim that Thomas "barely scraped through law school" - he did, after all, go to an Ivy League Law School.
-
Thomas' intrinsic lack of ability stands on its own. It's all the evidence anyone needs to portray him as the court buffoon that he is. A guy who barely scrapes through law school
Which again is.....................what again?? Again, damn any of the qualifying facts to the contrary
The one guy who doesn't belong there.
Based on.........? What are these mandated requirements to be Supreme Court Justice that Thomas has not attained? Please, share for the class FACTS, and not just your racist Uncle Tom say so
Yet sirs calls Ginsburg the court clown, not Thomas.
Naaaaa. If you had been paying attention, I was only demonstrating the piss poor lack of credibility your accusation aimed at Thomas had, and twisted double standard regarding 5-4 decisions
BTW, I did not intentionally insult you in my post, as you seem to be complaining of. I really don't know what you are talking about.
Oh of course not. Big mouth is such an enduring term around here ::)
-
"Mr. Big Mouth" was intended as a challenge to a guy who makes accusations he can't back up. I called Thomas the moron or buffoon of the court, something I was prepared to back up and did. Sirs turned the tables, or thought he did, by making the exact same charges against Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To level a charge like that against Clarence Thomas is akin to saying that Jimmy Jones, who is failing ninth grade math for the third time, is not going to win the Nobel Prize in Physics. To level the same charge against Ruth Bader Ginsburg, as sirs attempted to do, takes some God-damn fucking nerve. So I challenged him on that: "All right, Mr. Big Mouth" was intended to signify that sirs has a big mouth, i.e. makes baseless and ridiculous charges that he doesn't have a hope in hell of substantiating. Sirs chose to take that as a personal insult, although it certainly wasn't intended to be one. But since he took offence at it, I apologize to him.
As I said previously, a list of the pathetically meagre accomplishments of Clarence Thomas (compared to the stellar legal career of Ruth Bader Ginsburg) make it obvious to any impartial observer which one of them is worthy to serve on SCOTUS and which one isn't. "Barely scraped through" just refers to the totally undistinguished circumstances in which Thomas was awarded his degree, in comparison to Ginsburg, who tied for first in her class. As further evidence of legal scholarship, Ginsburg served as Professor of Law at two distinguished Ivy League Universities, where all that Thomas can point to is that he found a job as prosecutor and never fucked up badly enough to get fired. Got appointed to a few Federal jobs, one on the bench, undoubtedly as a result of his Tommin', given that he was appointed by a Republican administration which has no use for outspoken black men and squeaked through his confirmation hearing (as opposed to Ginsburg, who garnered 97 votes out of 100) with what is probaby the lowest margin ever accorded to a SCOTUS judge.
And I'm still waiting for plane to figure out who it was in this thread who raised the affirmative action issue first in here, and who if anyone had held it against Thomas. That'll be interesting.
-
"Mr. Big Mouth" was intended as a challenge to a guy who makes accusations he can't back up. I called Thomas the moron or buffoon of the court, something I was prepared to back up and did.
With WHAT?? That's the point, you've backed up your accusation with ZIP. PLEASE, SHARE. More authored opinions than Ginsborg, more even in this last Supreme Court session, has not sided with Scalia on every opinion, contrary to the asanine allegations he's Scalia's pet. Show us how he's so much the baffoon as you claim. FACTS please, and not your continued opinionated drivel
-
"Barely scraped through" just refers to the totally undistinguished circumstances in which Thomas was awarded his degree, in comparison to Ginsburg, who tied for first in her class.
Perhaps you can let us know what position Thomas graduated from Yale.
-
<< . . .you've backed up your accusation with ZIP. PLEASE, SHARE. >>
Sure. Just read the posts I already wrote. Does "Professor of Law" mean anything to you? Does "tied for first in class?" Thomas has NOTHING to compare to those accomplishments that would qualify him for the SCOTUS bench. None of his Federal Appeal Court decisions were noteworthy.
<<More authored opinions than Ginsborg, more even in this last Supreme Court session . . .>>
That's total bullshit, I already demonstrated in a previous post that Thomas was on the bench longer, which is the only reason he wrote more opinions, also I showed that when the total number of opinions were averaged over time on the bench, it was Ginsburg who had the higher average output, not Thomas.
<< . . .has not sided with Scalia on every opinion, contrary to the asanine allegations he's Scalia's pet. >>
That's a meaningless allegation, it's just ridiculous. Nobody claimed he sided 100% with Scalia. If you want to use independence from Scalia as a measure of his ability to think for himself, show us on what percentage of Scalia's opinions, Thomas concurred.
<<Show us how he's so much the baffoon as you claim. >>
You mean, as in "What's this pubic hair doing in my Coke can?" He's a buffoon in comparison to the other judges, all of whom have credentials in legal scholarship that put his two-bit record to shame. He just doesn't belong on that bench.
<<FACTS please, and not your continued opinionated drivel>>
He has no outstanding accomplishments to justify his presence on that bench. Ginsburg, by contrast, has stellar accomplishments. I demonstrated hers, you demonstrated the lack of his. If you can't see the difference between his accomplishments and hers, I can't help you. Sorry. But every other judge on that bench will have accomplishments that outshine Thomas' in the same way that Ginsburg's do. You chose Ginsburg for comparative purposes, I didn't. I won, you lost on that one. I don't propose to write a resume for every remaining judge on the bench for you. If you can find ONE judge on the SCOTUS whose accomplishments are as unimpressive as Thomas', let me know. Otherwise, I took up the challenge you provided to me, I showed you the huge difference between Ginsburg's credentials and your man's and as far as I can see, that is a challenge that you have just lost. Big-time. I'm satisfied.
-
That's total bullshit, I already demonstrated in a previous post that Thomas was on the bench longer, which is the only reason he wrote more opinions, also I showed that when the total number of opinions were averaged over time on the bench, it was Ginsburg who had the higher average output, not Thomas.
But you have not factored in how many times Justice Ginsburg and Justice Thomas have been in the majority, therefore allowing them the chance to write more opinions.
After all, the majority side does not ask a dissenting or partially dissenting justice to write their decision for them.
-
JSTOR: Clarence Thomas: The Law School Years
There was no class ranking at Yale, an arrangement that, in Professor .... Yale Law School first instituted an affirmative action pro- SPRING 2002 108 ...
links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1077-3711(200221)35%3C106%3ACTTLSY%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T - Similar pages
=================================================================================
Although the above appears in response to a Google search on "Yale Law School Class of 1974 class rankings" and indicates that there was no class ranking when Thomas graduated, clicking on the link provides only the first page of an article that you must pay for to read. Nowhere on the first page does the quote about class ranking appear. I'm prepared to accept that Thomas wasn't ranked. Still, he won no scholastic awards or distinctions. Bader made law review at both Columbia and Harvard.
Further evidence of what must have been low class standing or lack of scholastic accomplishment is found in his "15 cent" remark, easily found on dozens of sites through Google. Thomas claims that affirmative action made his Yale Law degree "worth 15 cents" because white employers turned him down, figuring he wouldn't have had the degree but for affirmative action. All of the articles referring to Thomas' allegations quote numerous black Yale grads of the period as saying this is bullshit, as they all found jobs. If white employers were rejecting Thomas, the reasons obviously had little to do with affirmative action. Probably they would have related to a lack of distinction in his academic career.
-
<<After all, the majority side does not ask a dissenting or partially dissenting justice to write their decision for them.>>
As I understand the process, any judge can write an opinion of his own, if he or she dissents, and a concurring judge is also free to write his or her own concurring judgment. At least that is the British system. I think it's pretty much the same in the U.S.A. Oliver Wendell Holmes became known as "the great dissenter." I think that seniority also might have something to do with it, because it seems to me that I read somewhere that in assigning the task of writing judgments, the Chief Justice does take seniority into account.
-
As I understand the process, any judge can write an opinion of his own, if he or she dissents, and a concurring judge is also free to write his or her own concurring judgment. At least that is the British system. I think it's pretty much the same in the U.S.A. Oliver Wendell Holmes became known as "the great dissenter." I think that seniority also might have something to do with it, because it seems to me that I read somewhere that in assigning the task of writing judgments, the Chief Justice does take seniority into account.
Ok, then we'll need to include all the dissenting and partially dissenting opinions that Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg wrote.
When you include those, the totals become:
Justice Thomas: 374, avg 22.41
Justice Ginsburg: 273, avg 18.33
(Averages use your calculated terms.)
-
OUCH.....Tee takes yet another to the jaw of reason and reality
-
<<Ok, then we'll need to include all the dissenting and partially dissenting opinions that Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg wrote.
<<When you include those, the totals become:
<<Justice Thomas: 374, avg 22.41
<<Justice Ginsburg: 273, avg 18.33>>
What is your point? That Thomas is on the same level as Ginsburg or even superior because the totality of opinions authored by him (including dissents and partial dissents) is greater? That's absurd. The dissents are non-binding, non-precedent-setting and have none of the weight of the majority opinions, which alone make up the law at any given moment.
Basically, you are creating stats which show that Thomas has expressed his opinion more times than Ginsburg, as if the number of times a person's opinion is expressed were some kind of indicator of the quality of his thought. Thomas is the court idiot - - not because of how many or how few opinions he has written, but because of his totally undistinguished career and his inability to question counsel from the bench - - but you are trying to leverage the number of times he writes an opinion into evidence of his intellectual superiority over Ginsburg.
As if an idiot who yells out ten opinions an hour in front of the courthouse is smarter than all the judges inside.
-
What is your point? That Thomas is on the same level as Ginsburg or even superior because the totality of opinions authored by him (including dissents and partial dissents) is greater? That's absurd. The dissents are non-binding, non-precedent-setting and have none of the weight of the majority opinions, which alone make up the law at any given moment.
If it's a non issue, why did you bring it up?
Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. While you're at it, look this up: No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT. Innarrestin.
-
<<If it's a non issue, why did you bring it up?>>
It was an afterthought.
My primary reasons for calling Thomas a buffoon who didn't belong on the Court were, of course, (1) his totally undistinguished (in comparison to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's) record before being appointed to the SCOTUS and (2) his well-known inability to ask questions from the bench during argument. These two arguments against Thomas have never been satisfactorily answered, not in this thread anyway.
As an afterthought, because I mistakenly thought Thomas didn't write many opinions, I brought that up as well - - look into the number of opinions - - thinking that Thomas would show up very poorly, writing almost no opinions. My mistake - - I didn't realize the working of the assignment system whereby the Chief Justice tries to spread the work around, or of the clerking system, whereby even a dummy like Thomas has the use of some pretty bright law clerks who can write up any opinion and make it look good. So, instead of dealing with the real problems that Thomas has in trying to justify his presence on the court, you prefer to deal exclusively with the basic non-issue (given the structure of the system) of who authors more opinions, as if that had anything to do with the credentials of the justices.
-
As an afterthought, because I mistakenly thought Thomas didn't write many opinions, I brought that up as well - - look into the number of opinions - - thinking that Thomas would show up very poorly, writing almost no opinions.
It's more likely because that's your modus operandi - throw a bunch shit out there and see what sticks.
-
<<It's more likely because that's your modus operandi - throw a bunch shit out there and see what sticks.>>
No, actually, it's more likely to be an afterthought because that's what it was exactly - - a thought that occurred to me after I had already voiced the major reasons why it was even more than usually asinine for sirs to have tried to make the same accusation (being a lightweight) against Ginsburg that I had just made against Thomas. The actual wording of my post would have made that pretty clear to anyone with the average high-school grad's ability to read for comprehension:
<<Oh yeah, and I almost forgot. While you're at it, [i.e. while you're looking up Thomas' puny academic qualifications] look this up: No. of opinions authored by RBG; no. of opinions authored by CT. Innarrestin.>>
Since you're so interested in my modus operandi, I guess you won't mind if I look at yours - - bogging down the entire thread in nit-picking inconsequentialities like following up an afterthought in minute detail, hoping that the main thrust of the argument (Thomas' lack of academic qualifications, his inability to engage counsel in debate during argument) just gets lost in the shuffle. So that the entire issue of Thomas' fitness to serve on the court gets lost in the minutiae of how many opinions he writes, lumping the dissenting and partially dissenting ones in with the majority ones. Ludicrous.
-
Since you're so interested in my modus operandi, I guess you won't mind if I look at yours - - bogging down the entire thread in nit-picking inconsequentialities like following up an afterthought in minute detail, hoping that the main thrust of the argument (Thomas' lack of academic qualifications, his inability to engage counsel in debate during argument) just gets lost in the shuffle.
Well, actually, it's the only thing you said that wasn't opinion.
After all, his grades and class position were never published, so your assumption that his grades were not good is just that - an assumption. And just because you're a loud mouth who wants to argue with everyone does not mean that every Supreme Court justice must do likewise. There have been other justices that did not talk much during oral arguments before, and I'm sure there will be more in the future. Choosing to spend time in corporate law rather than working at a university is only bad because it's your opinion - there is no requirement for Supreme Court justices to have academic qualification, and again there have been many other justices that did not have them in the past. Your entire argument - after removing the part about number of legal opinions written - is pure speculation. And I take speculation by someone who thinks the laws of thermodynamics are optional with about a fistful of salt.
-
<<After all, his grades and class position were never published, so your assumption that his grades were not good is just that - an assumption.>>
Like most of my assumptions, pretty well grounded in fact. The guy never made law review and certainly never attained Ginsburg's later distinctions. How likely is it that his class standing would have been anywhere near hers? (Tied for first in class) The circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that it wasn't.
Actually, there is some information out there that he graduated in the middle of his class. http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=394&Itemid=46
Sort of lending a little more credence to my "assumptions" than you'd like to admit. Again, though, you're obscuring my point - - Ginsburg tied for first in class, Thomas has no such distinction. Ginsburg was appointed Professor of Law at TWO prestigious Ivy League law schools. Thomas has no such distinction. A Supreme Court judge is expected to bring outstanding qualifications with him The only qualifications Thomas brought were a black skin and the willingness to Tom for The Man.
<<And just because you're a loud mouth who wants to argue with everyone [Thanks!!] does not mean that every Supreme Court justice must do likewise.>>
Uh, nice diversion, but being a loudmouth wanting to argue with everyone is not a job qualification for Supreme Court justices, and I never claimed that it was. Focus, Ami, focus.
<< There have been other justices that did not talk much during oral arguments before, and I'm sure there will be more in the future.>>
This is not a case of "not talking much during oral arguments," unfortunately. It's a case of almost never intervening in them. A sign of pure intellectual inferiority.
<<Choosing to spend time in corporate law rather than working at a university is only bad because it's your opinion >>
No, actually, it's NOT my opinion - - I never said anything like that. My point was that a Supreme Court nominee has distinguished himself or herself in the law; as Ginsburg did in the academic field by teaching as a Professor at two Ivy League law schools, by making law review at two Ivy League schools, by tying for first in her class. Whatever field Thomas chose to practice in there was no comparable element of distinction or accomplishment other than being picked up by a conservative Republican Congressman (Danforth) presumably for his politically conservative views, and plunked down into a government job of relative mediocrity where he turned in a mediocre performance. He won his entree into Danforth's world, BTW, by opposing affirmative action for blacks. Nice. Not that that was Tommin', of course - - he just honestly happened to come to the conclusion by careful independent thinking that what had proven so beneficial to him as one black from an underprivileged background wouldn't be of any use to any other black from an underprivileged background. And by some extraordinarycoincidence, it happened to fit in with the way that Danforth and all his racist Republican buds saw things as well.
<<there is no requirement for Supreme Court justices to have academic qualification,>>
No, nor did I ever suggest there was. The requirement is that the candidate be distinguished in the field of law, academically or some other way. As a precedent-setting judge, as a skilled prosecutor with an impressive track record, as the learned author of useful and often-cited textbooks, as skilled counsel in high-profile civil or criminal trials . . .
<<and again there have been many other justices that did not have them in the past.>>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As if that's got anything to do with anything . . . zzzzz, wake me up when this part is finished, please.
<<Your entire argument - after removing the part about number of legal opinions written - is pure speculation.>>
LMFAO. Yeah, sure. I SPECULATED that Thomas had achieved nothing of distinction in his entire legal career, despite overwhelming evidence everywhere of his many stellar accomplishments. I SPECULATED that Ginsburg had tied for first in her class. I SPECULATED that Ginsberg had distinguished herself further by making law review at both Harvard and Columbia Law Schools. I SPECULATED further that she had distinguished herself even further by being appointed Professor of Law at two excellent Ivy League Law Schools. I SPECULATED that the Wikipedia article on Ruth Bader Ginsburg had even more evidence of even further distinctions attained, too numerous to mention here, and I SPECULATED even further that the distinctions attained as reported by Wikipedia were accurate.
I think your arguments are starting to sound more and more like sirs'. In other words, if I send a post with ten facts in it supporting something I'm arguing, it's almost guaranteed to elicit a post from sirs thanking me for my OPINION and reminding me that it's based on ZERO, ZIP, NULL facts. Maybe before you start slinging around words like "speculation," you should either (a) re-read the posts you're responding to to check for any supporting facts or (b) check out a good dictionary to see what "speculation" MEANS.
-
The requirement is that the candidate be distinguished in the field of law, academically or some other way. As a precedent-setting judge, as a skilled prosecutor with an impressive track record, as the learned author of useful and often-cited textbooks, as skilled counsel in high-profile civil or criminal trials . . .
There is no such requirement.
From the Constitution of the United States of America:
Article. III.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; ? to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; ? to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; ? to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; ? to Controversies between two or more States; ? between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; ? between Citizens of different States; ? between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
-
And I'm still waiting for plane to figure out who it was in this thread who raised the affirmative action issue first in here, and who if anyone had held it against Thomas. That'll be interesting.
Well if you would read the links I included with that post , you would see that his critics in Congress at his confirmation hearings were very dismissive of his abilitys , some bringing up his benefiting from affirmative action , some pointiong out how well he fit steriotype.
So I will have to say I brought it up , why not?
This is a good example of Affirmative action haveing a negative consequence , I can't pass that by.
-
Like most of my assumptions, pretty well grounded in fact. The guy never made law review and certainly never attained Ginsburg's later distinctions. How likely is it that his class standing would have been anywhere near hers? (Tied for first in class) The circumstantial evidence is pretty strong that it wasn't.
My grades were excellent (near top) even though I rarely cared about them, but I never made a number of distinctions - mostly because many of those, even those purported to be based on academic achievement, are actually based more on personality. One of the few was being selected to take part in a National Science Foundation project - they selected the top 30 chemistry students in the nation for this project. Most notable about that achievement was that an interview was not needed, selection was based on grades, standardized test scores, and a teacher recommendation. I was not interested in grades, but in learning. I soaked up everything my teachers knew, including a lot that was outside the normal curriculum. One of my physics teachers, for example, was also a licensed locksmith who taught me how to open virtually any lock. After school, I didn't make many distinctions because I wasn't interested in them. I'm still not.
Actually, there is some information out there that he graduated in the middle of his class. http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=394&Itemid=46
Sort of lending a little more credence to my "assumptions" than you'd like to admit. Again, though, you're obscuring my point - - Ginsburg tied for first in class, Thomas has no such distinction. Ginsburg was appointed Professor of Law at TWO prestigious Ivy League law schools. Thomas has no such distinction. A Supreme Court judge is expected to bring outstanding qualifications with him The only qualifications Thomas brought were a black skin and the willingness to Tom for The Man.
Yeah, that's an unbiased article. Let's look at the first line: "The most blatant and unashamed African American-hater on the U.S. Supreme Court - and probably on the national scene - is Clarence Thomas, a psychologically damaged ally of the worst sections of the white ruling class." I'm sure they had lots of good things to say about him, not.
Actually, from interviews with other blacks in Justice Thomas' graduating class, we get stories like the one where he took a class from a law professor that every black on campus had been told "hated blacks" and would "fail every black" in his class. Justice Thomas insisted on taking a class with this professor because it dealt with his preference for law later in life (an aspect of corporate law) and he ended up with the highest grade in that professor's class that semester.
So, actually, there is evidence that you are WRONG about his grades.
Oh yeah, as Bear pointed out, there is no requirement for distinction in academia for Supreme Court justices.
-
Oh yeah, as Bear pointed out, there is no requirement for distinction in academia for Supreme Court justices.
Actually, according to Wikipedia:
The Constitution does not require that Supreme Court Justices (or any federal judges) have any particular educational background. However, the majority of the Court's work is not momentous consideration of Constitutional provisions, but rather, unglamorous and dry legal arcana, interpreting minutiae of ERISA, RICO and so on. Consequentially, a legal education has become an unofficial prerequisite to appointment on the Supreme Court. As of 2008, every person who has been nominated to the Court has been an attorney, and nearly two thirds of nominees had previously been judges.
Many of the early Justices were appointed before the advent of modern law schools, and rather than attend a formal program, they "read law" - that is, their legal studies took the form of apprenticeships with more experienced attorneys. The first Justice to be appointed who had attended an actual law school was Levi Woodbury, appointed to the Court in 1846. Woodbury had attended Tapping Reeve Law School in Litchfield, Connecticut, the most prestigious law school in the United States in that day, prior to his admission to the bar in 1812. However, Woodbury did not earn a law degree; Woodbury's successor on the Court, Benjamin Curtis, who received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 1832, and was appointed to the Court in 1851, was the first Justice to bear such a credential.
-
<<There is no such requirement.>>
I never meant to imply that there is an express Constitutional requirement. I figured that would be understood by everyone. The fact is, dummies and schleppers are not expected to apply. This is the highest court in the most powerful country on earth and hopefully still governed by the elected representatives of a people who demand excellence in many things, their courts being among them.
When you look at the records of virtually every judge who has sat on that bench in living memory, they are stellar. You don't and you shouldn't get on that court for making campaign contributions or because you're the President's chauffeur's nephew.
That some 18th century hillbilly got on the court and didn't turn out so bad, or that the Constitution doesn't actually post the job requirements (holy shit imagine that Batman!) are completely irrelevant. We all know there are no Constitutional job requirements for SCOTUS judges, and we all know that there aren't too many judges in modern times who were born in log cabins.
Can we not focus on the issues? Or better yet, just admit the obvious, that Thomas is an unqualified schmuck who just doesn't belong on that bench and barely wormed his way in by Tommin' for the Republicans, and that Ruth Bader Ginsburg richly deserves her spot and earned it with a 97-3 vote confirmation?
-
I thought the barb that it was surprising who was bringing up affirmative action as a disqualifying factor against Thomas was aimed at ME. Sorry, I gotta read these things more carefully. I know I've said that before, but time is one thing they ain't making any more of.
<<This is a good example of Affirmative action haveing a negative consequence , I can't pass that by.>>
I agree with you but affirmative action is bound to have some negative results. AA is usually justified not because it produces uniform 100% good results but because the undeniable harm done is greatly overbalanced by the redress of past injustices and their lingering after-effects, which are still considerable. I would have to agree that if anyone were to look for the worst consequences of AA, the elevation of that Tommin' jackass to the Supreme Court probably tops the list.
-
<<Yeah, that's an unbiased article. Let's look at the first line: "The most blatant and unashamed African American-hater on the U.S. Supreme Court - and probably on the national scene - is Clarence Thomas, a psychologically damaged ally of the worst sections of the white ruling class." >>
Yeah, they really nailed it. So?
<<I'm sure they had lots of good things to say about him, not.>>
Too bad you didn't read the rest of the article. :)
<< . . . he took a class from a law professor that every black on campus had been told "hated blacks" and would "fail every black" in his class. Justice Thomas insisted on taking a class with this professor because it dealt with his preference for law later in life (an aspect of corporate law) and he ended up with the highest grade in that professor's class that semester.>>
THAT'S a huge surprise. Racist white prick falls in love with Tommin' black. What're the odds, eh?
-
Can we not focus on the issues? Or better yet, just admit the obvious, that Thomas is an unqualified schmuck who just doesn't belong on that bench and barely wormed his way in by Tommin' for the Republicans, and that Ruth Bader Ginsburg richly deserves her spot and earned it with a 97-3 vote confirmation?
I'm not fighting that battle. I'm simply pointing out the facts to you and whoever else might be interested. If you don't like 'em, tough. I could give a shit.
-
<<I'm sure they had lots of good things to say about him, not.>>
Too bad you didn't read the rest of the article. :)
I did. And other than a statement that he made "middle of the pack" grades, it had absolutely no other support for your position that was not a simple anti-white rant. Even a respected "60 Minutes" interviewer was denigrated merely because he was white.
The article wasn't some scholarly work, it was an anti-white agenda piece, purely and simply.
-
The allegation that was made at the time that Thomas was the best qualified judicial candidate in the entire nation seems to be quite bogus.
He has not distinguished himself in any way on the bench, but there haven't been any scandals, either, about how he likes to make jokes about pubic hairs on cans of cola, either, or how he has invited the gang over for judicial watchathons of Long Dong Silver porno flicks.
-
"Too bad you didn't read the rest of the article" was a joke, and indicated as such by the smiley icon. The meaning of the joke is that the article trashed Thomas from head to foot, utterly. The irony was in the idea that if you didn't like what the first sentence said about Thomas, you'd like even less what the rest of the article had to say. The "too bad" was ironic. He's just a self-hating Uncle Tom who sold out to the white racist Republicreeps at the expense of poor blacks who could have benefited from the same program that he himself did. Probably one of the most despicable men who ever sat on that bench. And NO, it was not a scholarly article. The life and works of Clarence Thomas do not need any legal scholar to interpret them and never will.
-
<<I'm not fighting that battle. I'm simply pointing out the facts to you and whoever else might be interested. If you don't like 'em, tough. I could give a shit.>>
They were facts that everyone already knew and added nothing to the arguments on either side. But thanks anyway.
-
Everyone already knew about Woodbury and Curtis?
Seems to me more likely they were facts that were rather inconvenient to your argument and you'd rather not have seen posted. But you're welcome anyway.
-
<<Everyone already knew about Woodbury and Curtis?>>
No, of course not. Not specifically, not by name. I think everybody knew that 18th and 19th century standards for judicial office in America were necessarily laxer than they are today and that it was inevitable that some naturally intelligent and naturally able men without formal education would become elevated to the bench, just as a man like Andrew Jackson could become President. America then was not one of the leading lights of civilization, it was groping its way towards greatness and along the way there were plenty of bumps in the road, but the democratic principle was alive and well, and leaders could spring forth from the people with or without formal education. the complexities of modern law and life today demand something more than native ability (which Thomas in any case is completely lacking) and as an inspection of the careers of any of the other SCOTUS judges would show, distinction of some form in the legal field (including but not limited to academic distinction) is a virtual necessity.
-
Robert Bork would be Cheif justice by now if great qualification was the cheif consideration.
-
And NO, it was not a scholarly article.
They could have saved the long diatribe and done "Whitey is bad. Clarence Thomas is a whitey."
That's pretty much what they said anyway.
-
;D Yep
-
<<They could have saved the long diatribe and done "Whitey is bad. Clarence Thomas is a whitey.">>
That's ONE way to misinterpret what the article said. Thank you for your opinion.
-
I thought the barb that it was surprising who was bringing up affirmative action as a disqualifying factor against Thomas was aimed at ME. Sorry, I gotta read these things more carefully. I know I've said that before, but time is one thing they ain't making any more of.
<<This is a good example of Affirmative action haveing a negative consequence , I can't pass that by.>>
I agree with you but affirmative action is bound to have some negative results. AA is usually justified not because it produces uniform 100% good results but because the undeniable harm done is greatly overbalanced by the redress of past injustices and their lingering after-effects, which are still considerable. I would have to agree that if anyone were to look for the worst consequences of AA, the elevation of that Tommin' jackass to the Supreme Court probably tops the list.
All right , you deserved the barb even if I didn't know it at the time.
-
Apparently it's negative if it supposedly helped a minority, who then became an ideologocal conservative. If they became part of the liberal herd, than it was a thriving success
-
<<All right , you deserved the barb even if I didn't know it at the time.>>
Not really. The barb is deserved by the person who introduces the topic, which I would never have done. I believe in AA and wouldn't do anything to discredit it, even if it meant losing an argument. However, once the topic is introduced, the idea's on the table - - I can't lie and say it played no part, and I can't simply agree and say that AA's bad. I did the only honest thing I could do - - acknowledge that AA has its negative results and that Clarence Thomas is obviously one of them and at the same time defend AA by pointing out that on the whole the positives outweigh the negatives. So I don't think I deserved the barb after all.
-
That's ONE way to misinterpret what the article said.
I don't misinterpret what I read. The article was nothing more than a racist hit piece.
-
He's just a self-hating Uncle Tom who sold out to the white racist Republicreeps at the expense of poor blacks who could have benefited from the same program that he himself did.
So many lies in this one sentence i don't know where to start.
Let's just say that poor blacks are still eligible for affirmative action.
-
<<So many lies in this one sentence i don't know where to start.>>
When I start to comment on some massive tissue of lies, I start with the first lie and work my way through in numerical order.
<<Let's just say that poor blacks are still eligible for affirmative action.>>
Yeah, no thanks to Clarence Thomas and his "conservative" patrons.
-
<<All right , you deserved the barb even if I didn't know it at the time.>>
Not really. The barb is deserved by the person who introduces the topic, which I would never have done. I believe in AA and wouldn't do anything to discredit it, even if it meant losing an argument. However, once the topic is introduced, the idea's on the table - - I can't lie and say it played no part, and I can't simply agree and say that AA's bad. I did the only honest thing I could do - - acknowledge that AA has its negative results and that Clarence Thomas is obviously one of them and at the same time defend AA by pointing out that on the whole the positives outweigh the negatives. So I don't think I deserved the barb after all.
If the success of a guy amounts to his being raised to high national office , and this is negative , I wonder what you would think was positive.
-
<<If the success of a guy amounts to his being raised to high national office , and this is negative , I wonder what you would think was positive.>>
He got there by betraying people just like himself to a bunch of white racist ass-holes. If you want to consider selling out some kind of "success," be my guest.
-
He got there by betraying people just like himself to a bunch of white racist ass-holes.
Who did he betray?
Who decides what is appropriate Negro thought?
-
<<Who did he betray?>>
Every black kid who stands in need of affirmative action to rectify the surviving legacy of past and present racial discrimination.
<<Who decides what is appropriate Negro thought?>>
Me. I do.
-
Me. I do.
What makes you any different than a knuckle dragging southern racist? Geography?
-
<<What makes you any different than a knuckle dragging southern racist? >>
Luck. Circumstances.
<<Geography?>>
That's part of it, but it's not all of it.
-
Frankly i don't see a difference.
unless you delude yourself into thinking your intentions are more pure.
-
<<Frankly i don't see a difference.>>
Let me spell it out for you, at the risk of seeming somewhat immodest: I'm smarter, I'm better educated, I come from a better family, I come from a better culture, I live in a better country and I've probably got better genes. That's why he's a southern racist knuckle-dragger and I'm not.
<<unless you delude yourself into thinking your intentions are more pure. >>
That's no delusion, that's a fact.
-
LOL......gotta love it
-
So Mikey is genetically superior to the Negro.
-
<<So Mikey is genetically superior to the Negro. >>
When did the "knuckle-dragging southern racist" morph into "the Negro?"
Just askin.
-
Quote
He got there by betraying people just like himself to a bunch of white racist ass-holes.
Who did he betray?
Who decides what is appropriate Negro thought?
<<Who did he betray?>>
Every black kid who stands in need of affirmative action to rectify the surviving legacy of past and present racial discrimination.
<<Who decides what is appropriate Negro thought?>>
Me. I do.
Quote
Me. I do.
What makes you any different than a knuckle dragging southern racist? Geography?
<<What makes you any different than a knuckle dragging southern racist? >>
Luck. Circumstances.
<<Geography?>>
That's part of it, but it's not all of it.
Frankly i don't see a difference.
unless you delude yourself into thinking your intentions are more pure.
<<Frankly i don't see a difference.>>
Let me spell it out for you, at the risk of seeming somewhat immodest: I'm smarter, I'm better educated, I come from a better family, I come from a better culture, I live in a better country and I've probably got better genes. That's why he's a southern racist knuckle-dragger and I'm not.
<<unless you delude yourself into thinking your intentions are more pure. >>
That's no delusion, that's a fact.
***********************************************************************
The southern racist thinks they know what is appropriate Negro thought just like you do.
They think that because they consider themselves genetically superior. Genetic superiority is a notion to which you subscribe.
So what is the difference again?
-
So what is the difference again?
<<The southern racist thinks they know what is appropriate Negro thought just like you do.>>
They chose the mode of "Negro" thought that benefits themselves at the expense of the "Negro." I choose the mode of "Negro" thought that benefits all of us, black and white. They are self-interested rationalizing schmucks as well as morons. I think of the interests of the entire human race, plus I'm a non-moron. The difference is that I am right and they are wrong.
<<They think that because they consider themselves genetically superior.>>
So what? They are wrong. The whole concept of genetic superiority is bullshit. These guys are bullshit artists extraordinaire, some of them so much so that they probably even believe their own bullshit, but that won't make it right.
-
I choose the mode of "Negro" thought that benefits all of us, black and white.
How does uniform standardized Negro thought benefit us all?
-
Q. How does uniform standardized Negro thought benefit us all?
===============
A. It provides a balance between uniform standardized honky thought.
===================
In my opinion, this argument has come off the tracks.
-
<<How does uniform standardized Negro thought benefit us all?>>
Since I never claimed that it did, and am reasonably certain it doesn't, I await your next question. Hopefully it will deal with a position that I have taken as opposed to your grotesquely contorted, virtually unrecognizable versions of what you claim I have been saying.
-
Since I never claimed that it did, and am reasonably certain it doesn't, I await your next question. Hopefully it will deal with a position that I have taken as opposed to your grotesquely contorted, virtually unrecognizable versions of what you claim I have been saying.
When i asked who determines appropriate Negro thought you claim you did.
Do you deny saying that?
-
Q. How does uniform standardized Negro thought benefit us all?
===============
A. It provides a balance between uniform standardized honky thought.
Is there such a thing?
And who determines what is appropriate uniform standardized honky thought.
Mikey might be too busy regulating appropriate Negro thought so we will probably need another watchdog to step up.
-
<<Do you deny saying that?>>
Of course not, but it doesn't necessarily follow from that remark that I would approve of only one standardized thought per issue for "Negroes." That's ludicrous. I can't begin to imagine what twisted logic would have led you to such a conclusion. I could foresee various respectable ways for blacks to approach any issue, but of course when a particular approach is obvious Tommin', I certainly intend to criticize it as such. As would any other logical, fair-minded individual. Just because a thought comes from a black person does not render it immune to any and all criticism from whites. Including the criticism that it's just plain Tommin.
-
I could foresee various respectable ways for blacks to approach any issue, but of course when a particular approach is obvious Tommin', I certainly intend to criticize it as such.
What exactly is wrong with Tommin'?
Isn't that the same as "when in Rome...."
-
<<What exactly is wrong with Tommin'?>>
Nothing. What exactly was wrong with Judas, for 30 pieces of silver, tipping off the Romans as to which guy was the one they wanted?
"When in [or occupied by] Rome . . . !"
-
Tommin' just in case anyone didn't "get" my last post, is nothing more or less than betrayal. One member of an oppressed group selling out to the oppressors to advance his personal fortune at the expense of all the other members of the group. Most people would find that despicable. They would not need to be told why. Some will inevitably ask, What's wrong with that anyway? I'm afraid if you have to ask, you'll never understand. From the point of view of the snitch and the traitor, nothing IS wrong with it. There are basically two kinds of people in the world, one in whom self-interest trumps all other values and one in whom it does not.
-
One member of an oppressed group selling out to the oppressors to advance his personal fortune at the expense of all the other members of the group.
What expense to all the other members?
Be specific. What was the cost of Thomas's assimilation?
-
Thomas saw a need for a Supertoken and he took it. He is not respected by most Black people. But he does have one of the cushiest jobs in the USA.
-
<<What expense to all the other members?
<<Be specific. What was the cost of Thomas's assimilation?>>
Wrong question. You're assuming that a sell-out is only reprehensible if it accomplishes or helps to accomplish some nefarious end.
Thomas sold out to forces opposed to affirmative action. That his white racist benefactors were not able, even with his sold-out assistance to roll back affirmative action doesn't make his sellout any more palatable.
You might as well argue that although William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw") sold out to the Nazis, they lost the war anyway and no British troops were seduced by his Nazi BS, so what does it matter anyway? Thomas' act itself was noxious, the inability of white racists to profit from it does not make it any less reprehensible.
-
<<What expense to all the other members? Be specific. What was the cost of Thomas's assimilation?>>
Wrong question. You're assuming that a sell-out is only reprehensible if it accomplishes or helps to accomplish some nefarious end. Thomas sold out to forces opposed to affirmative action.
You mean he actually didn't support reverse discrimination??...reverse racism?? Doesn't support setting 1 race above another?? Thats the big "crime"
The bastard
::)
-
<<You mean he actually didn't support reverse discrimination??...reverse racism?? Doesn't support setting 1 race above another?? Thats the big "crime"
<<The bastard>>
I take it from your sarcasm that you consider affirmative action to be "reverse racism" and "setting one race above another.>>
Would you agree with me that Thomas' attitude is very unpopular among blacks and that most of them in fact are in favour of affirmative action?
If so, do I take your remarks as quoted above to mean that a wide majority of American blacks are "bastards" for supporting "reverse racism" and for "setting one race above another?"
Just askin'.
-
Would you agree with me that Thomas' attitude is very unpopular among blacks and that most of them in fact are in favour of affirmative action?
How do we know this?
-
<<You mean he actually didn't support reverse discrimination??...reverse racism?? Doesn't support setting 1 race above another?? Thats the big "crime"...The bastard>>
I take it from your sarcasm that you consider affirmative action to be "reverse racism" and "setting one race above another.>>
Ummm, yes. ANY, I repeat ANY actions that pushes 1 race over another, be it white over black, or black over white is by definition RACIST. Any effort to justify 1 while condemning the other is sheer hypocrisy
If so, do I take your remarks as quoted above to mean that a wide majority of American blacks are "bastards" for supporting "reverse racism" and for "setting one race above another?" Just askin'.
Sarcastically as referenced above, yep. Which includes messers Condi Rice & Colin Powell, IIRC
-
Well, affirmative action is kind of a gray area for a lot of people, myself included. I've decided to support it with some reluctance and despite the obvious drawbacks and the unfairness of excluding better-qualified white students in favour of lesser-qualified blacks. I support it on the "lesser of two evils" theory, the other evil being the perpetuation of racial inequality dating back to slavery but traceable in a direct parent to child line from those days forward.
If there were some other way to right the imbalance, that had less injustice built into it, and less "racial preference," then I would support it. But since racism and slavery weren't colour-blind, I don't see how the rectification of their surviving after-effects can be colour-blind either. And I really don't see any alternatives that wouldn't short-change an entire generation (THIS generation) of black students.
-
General Sherman wanted to hand over workable farms , he even supported an abortive attempt to found a colony of sorts on a Georgia island.
The time was ripe to do something like that , but whether the result would have been greater independance for the Black people who would have become farmers for themselves ,or greater conflict between the former slaves and the Plantation owners who would have been asked to give up all that land is something we cannot know now.
But fourty acres and a mule is an idea whose time is really past, more modern and workable would be ideas that made good education more availible and usefull to the greatest number of Americans includeing all , if a mind is a terrible thing to waste , it is terrible when it is anyones mind not just the members of one race or another.
-
The real key seems to be early childhood development because the kid is already hard-wired for life by the time he or she is five or six years old. Our Premier here in Ontario has undertaken a very serious initiative to reduce poverty by twenty-five per cent in I don't know how many years and the project is still in its initial information-gathering phase, but already it seems that one of the major elements of the project is going to have to be early childhood development because that's where the kids are lost.
-
The "other way" to right the so-called imbalance is to treat everyone EQUALLY, to look at the content of his/her character and abilities, not his skin pigment. By definition that's balance, and ironically, precisely what MLK Jr advocated and tragically lost his life in the pursuit of such. Now we have those completely mutating his message 180degrees, in order to justify discriminative policies, he'd be condemning, if he could
-
The real key seems to be early childhood development because the kid is already hard-wired for life by the time he or she is five or six years old. Our Premier here in Ontario has undertaken a very serious initiative to reduce poverty by twenty-five per cent in I don't know how many years and the project is still in its initial information-gathering phase, but already it seems that one of the major elements of the project is going to have to be early childhood development because that's where the kids are lost.
Well the USA has reduced poverty twenty five percent in fourty years , and gripeing has not decreased at all.
Don't get your hopes up.
-
That his white racist benefactors were not able, even with his sold-out assistance to roll back affirmative action doesn't make his sellout any more palatable.
Thomas was appointed by George H W Bush. What evidence do you have of his racism?
-
That his white racist benefactors were not able, even with his sold-out assistance to roll back affirmative action doesn't make his sellout any more palatable.
Thomas was appointed by George H W Bush. What evidence do you have of his racism?
Good point , let me add that one of Thomas's most enthusiastic backers was Sen. John Danforth, what evidence do you have of his racism?
-
The presence of white racist elements in the Republican Party is well-known. Men like George Allen, Trent Lott, the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, etc. All of these racists have racist constituencies to please. A black Uncle Tom, found by John Danforth and brought to the President's attention is a very cheap and easy way to undermine affirmative action, which is going to please a lot of the racist supporters of racist Republican leaders, whose support is obviously important to Bush.
The need for any Republican President for support from the most racist wing of his party is obvious. Whether the Prez or Danforth are racists is not important. The fact that their party contains a big racist wing is significant. There alone is sufficient reason for the Prez or Danforth to undermine affirmative action and one way to do it is through the use of Toms like Thomas to "prove" that even the blacks don't want it.
-
<<The "other way" to right the so-called imbalance is to treat everyone EQUALLY, to look at the content of his/her character and abilities, not his skin pigment. >>
Well that's just plain ridiculous considering that in many cases the black's character and abilities are directly traceable to the malignant effects of racism passed from one generation to the next. As I calculated once before, using any college-age black, even assuming that his mother and grandmother were giving birth at age 20 each, you have a kid whose grandma, often a formative influence in his life, was a product of and someone who lived in the Age of Lynching in America. The kind of inferiority and hopelessness and low sense of self-worth caused by institutionalized racism has a tremendous stultifying effect on parenting abilities and thus on the development of the child, not only the grandma but the mother of today's college-age black kid.
It's the height of social irresponsibility for white Americans to pull out all this "equality" bullshit when they're really asking blacks to compete in a footrace with whites on an equal basis with whites who have saddled them with thirty pounds of additional weight, just ignoring the burden that comes with the racial identity. That's not equality, that's cheating. What you really want is to do nothing to remove burdens which you yourself or your ancestors created and roped around this guy's neck and then compete with him, pretending the competition is equal in all respects. And that is just bullshit.
-
<<The "other way" to right the so-called imbalance is to treat everyone EQUALLY, to look at the content of his/her character and abilities, not his skin pigment. >>
Well that's just plain ridiculous considering that in many cases the black's character and abilities are directly traceable to the malignant effects of racism passed from one generation to the next.
AND.......you're never gonna get pass that if one continues to perptuate discriminatory & racist policies. Slavery is over. Different drinking fountains are a thing of the past. Yet, the left contiunes to try and convince the African American community that we're still in the Jim Crow era, and that' it's the Republican's fault. AA is precisely the opposite of what MLK preached. He'd want blacks to be seen for who they are and what they can do, and NOT get preferential treatment based on their skin color. He'd want them to get preferential treatment if they performed better that someone else, REGARDLESS of skin color
-
The argument that "slavery is over," "segregated drinking fountains are gone" is disingenuous. I am not talking about the institutions, which can be created or abolished on the dot of midnight by the stroke of a pen. I am talking about the EFFECTS of the institutions on real people - - if you dehumanize a human being in all the ways that a human being can be dehumanized by pernicious institutions like slavery and Jim Crow and Lynch Law, and then one day in one legislative act, those institutions are abolished, do you really think that the human being that those institutions shaped is also abolished from one day to the next, by the legislation, and a new human being magically appears in her place?
If generations of slavery, Jim Crow and lynching created a young girl who "knew her place," was convinced in her bones of her own inferiority, lacked all self-esteem and knew better than to try, because trying would always end in defeat and disappointment, do you really think that the passage of the Voting Rights Act radically changed her personality in any way? It didn't, she and her family were not ideal parents for a huge complex of reasons and the children they raised had multiple problems that left them unfit to cope on many levels the way whites would cope, and their children had the same problems.
It's an intergenerational problem, and I want to be clear that the problem is not the presence or absence of the institutions of racism, it's the effect that those institutions had on the human sould. Those are permanent scars and wounds, and that many, many blacks have been able to cope with them and triumph over them on their own, without affirmative action, in the worst days of segregation, lynching and Jim Crow, is a remarkable testament to the strength of the human spirit. Just think of Rosa Parks as one woman who did NOT let Whitey rob her of her spirit or her self-respect. But realism tells us that many did not and could not rise to that challenge, but fell back, wounded and scarred and raised children with little or no motivation to learn, no love of learning, no self-respect, no real hope of betterment. And it's for those victims of white racism that affirmative action is a necessity, a moral necessity for the white racist Americans or their descendants to make some kind of amends and in more practical terms a necessity if the lingering effects of American racism are to be eliminated so that every American citizen is free of the psychological barriers or at least one of them, that kept him or her from reaching their fullest potential as individuals and contributing the maximum that they are potentially able to contribute to American society.
-
So, there you are folks.....it's the residual feelings, not just left over from slavery, from Jim Crow, but handed down, to each generation. And Tee's answer in dealing with it.......DON'T. Instead embrace the very antithesis of MLK's dream, and push policies that place 1 race over another, discriminate 1 race over another, because.........people have feelings. And apparently they need to remain of the angry sort. And if someone fails, it's "the white man's fault", or in this case, Bush's
Pretty sad, if not pathetic
-
The presence of white racist elements in the Republican Party is well-known.
No I challenge the reality of this absolutely, the racist element has been treated as disposable ever since George Wallace made them stand and be counted , they didn't amount to much then and no one has been willing to do them any favors ever since
The need for any Republican President for support from the most racist wing of his party is obvious.
No, it is the Democrats that had this element locked up as their own until the middle sixties , when the Democrats began to abandon them they found no home with the Republicans . Richard Nixon in particular made certain that his appointment of Black persons would break any record set by his predecessors .
I find this amusing that I, a Son of the Confederacy and You a proud Semitic Canadian are holding court on the character and the cultural authenticity of a man who has struggled out from under obstacles we measure with borrowed yardsticks.
-
You assume that because Nixon gladly catered to the racist vote, that this was contradicted by his appointment of Black people to various public offices.
These are not contradictory. Indeed, they were typically savvy political moves.
Some good ol' boy in Alabama would perhaps see appointing a Black judge in NY would be just givin' them damyankees what they deserved. He would be happy so long as the appointments were not given to some radical Black guy in his own beloved Tallahatchiefalootchmatawpha County.
It was not difficult for Nixon to make more appointments of Blacks in 1969, as there were so few at that time.
Carter's Black appointees were more numerous than Nixon's, too.
=============================
Many favors have been done for racists, like the end of the busing issue in many parts of the country. Observe that schools are still largely segregated, and busing students for integration purposes is no longer an issue.Even when the dead vote, they are not too concerned with issues.
Observe how the GOP consistently kowtowed to Senators Thurman, Helms and East
The most fervent of the racists are now all deceased or over 90, so this is less and less a concern.
-
<<I find this amuseing that I, a Son of the Confederacy and You a proud Semitic Canadian are holding court onthe caricter and the cultural authinticity of a man who has struggled out from under obsticles we measure with borrowed yardsticks.>>
Unfortunately the Jews don't have to borrow anyone's yardsticks to measure racism and persecution and oppression. That's why there were so many Jewish activists in the Civil Rights struggles of the Sixties, we knew in our guts what the blacks had gone through.
<<No, it is the Democrats that had this element [southern white racists] locked up as their own untill the middle sixtys , when the Democrats began to abandon them . . . >>
True
<< . . . they found no home with the Republicans . >>
False
Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, George Allen, etc., these were squatters in Nixonland? Come on, Nixon knew how to keep white racists on board, so did every Republican since Goldwater's Southern Strategy roped them in. Appointment of token blacks to an anti-black party is the easiest and cheapest way for a national party to diffuse charges of racism by concentrating on a tiny number of favoured Toms while the black masses of the nation were getting the shaft. Believe me, Strom Thurmond might have gagged at the thought of black appointees but he understood the necessity. These guys, after all, are politicians. They know how to count.
-
<<So, there you are folks.....it's the residual feelings, not just left over from slavery, from Jim Crow, but handed down, to each generation. >>
I appreciate the sarcasm, but have you anything factual to indicate that this description is not accurate for large numbers of black families? Is there something illogical in suggesting that racism, Jim Crow, lynch law and de jure segregation are harmful to one's development as a person? Or that damaged parents can produce damaged chilren? Or that this can cycle down through the generations? Really, sirs, if you see any flaws in those arguments, I would appreciate your pointing them out for me and for the millions of others who find this all very reasonable and in fact predicatble.
<<And Tee's answer in dealing with it.......DON'T. Instead embrace the very antithesis of MLK's dream, and push policies that place 1 race over another, discriminate 1 race over another, because.........people have feelings.>>
This might be an excellent time to address the current right-wing bullshit that Martin Luther King would have - - based on one phrase in one speech -- opposed affirmative action. A giant lie that has often passed uncontradicted in one right-wing racist diatribe after another. In fact King advocated, more than once, affirmative action to even out the playing field and redress to some extent the persisting injustices of white American racism.
The following is but one of many articles which tell the truth about King and affirmative action:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm
-
<<So, there you are folks.....it's the residual feelings, not just left over from slavery, from Jim Crow, but handed down, to each generation. >>
I appreciate the sarcasm, but have you anything factual to indicate that this description is not accurate for large numbers of black families?
See?, that's the point. It wasn't sarcasm, that is your foundation to this whole debate....feelings. Since there are no longer actualy widespread tangible avenues of racist actions (outside of AA currently), all you have to hang your hat on our the residuals feelings of an era long gone.
Sure there are still pockets of racism, and not just the south, but as Ami and Bt have referenced on numerous occasiona, all over, including metropolitan areas of Liberal land. Point being, where racism does try to stand out, it's condemned by pretty much everyone, left and right. Racist practices are condemned by nearly everyone left and right. So, all that's left for folks like yourself, is to try and focus everyone on the residual feelings of Jim Crow, of Slavery, and claim that those feelings are enough to "damage" a child, and then that's child's child, and so on and so on. Ironically then, to justify precisely the opposite of MLK's dream.
Dr. King would be rolling in his grave if he saw how mutated his message had been made
-
<<See?, that's the point. It wasn't sarcasm, that is your foundation to this whole debate....feelings. Since there are no longer actualy widespread tangible avenues of racist actions (outside of AA currently), all you have to hang your hat on our the residuals feelings of an era long gone. >>
You keep talking about "feelings" when I am talking about damaged people. People who have been told they're worthless by so many people in so many ways for so long a time that they internalized that judgment and felt themselves to be worthless. They gave up on hope. They lost the motivation to improve, to learn. Lost motivation is more than a "feeling." Something's been killed in them and it is not coming back.
My point was that some of that damage had to be permanent and that some of those damaged persons had to be bad parents, incapable of instilling feelings of self-respect or self-worth in their own kids.
Your point seems to be that when the cause of the original damage is removed, the damage done will also go away. Like Joe has polio that he got as a kid, but now polio's been eradicated through vaccination. So if polio's gone, Joe must be cured, right? Wrong. My point was that the damage, once done, is not so easily undone. You don't just tell a woman after thirty years of racist abuse dunning a non-step message of inferiority into her head, "Hey it's OK now, you can drink from this water fountain after all," and expect that she will suddenly turn into a great parent, filled with newfound pride and self-respect and suddenly capable of imparting her new-found self-respect to her kids.
I am not saying that EVERY black family proved unable to escape from the cycle of inter-generational transfers of the "lessons" of racism. Many, to their everlasting credit, DID break free of the effects, went on despite everything to develop pride, self-esteem, academic and other distinctions and transmitted their values successfuly to their progeny. Many others were not able to do so - - it is for them that programs like affirmative action are needed.
-
<<See?, that's the point. It wasn't sarcasm, that is your foundation to this whole debate....feelings. Since there are no longer actualy widespread tangible avenues of racist actions (outside of AA currently), all you have to hang your hat on our the residuals feelings of an era long gone. >>
You keep talking about "feelings" when I am talking about damaged people.
How convenient....unmeasurable, unseen, mystic "damage". That only happens by the "passing on" of such earlier "damage". Nothing to actually say, "See?, racist!!, right there". In other words, feelings that one has been "damaged". I actually work with "damaged" people, every day, both physically and emotionally. Their damage was brought on by ACTUAL events, and not talked into.
What a scary world you live in, where depending on one's pigment, you could be born damaged. And to make sure, we'll remind you over and over and over again. Again, the absolute antithesis of MLK Jr's Dream
-
<<How convenient....unmeasurable, unseen, mystic "damage". >>
Unseen, unmeasurable mystic damage? There's nothing unseen or unmeasurable or mystic about rates of incarceration, rates of school dropouts, rates of mental illness, disease, etc.
<< That only happens by the "passing on" of such earlier "damage". >>
Silly, eh? How could psychologically damaged parents produce damaged kids? What a crazy radical concept.
<<Nothing to actually say, "See?, racist!!, right there". In other words, feelings that one has been "damaged". I actually work with "damaged" people, every day, both physically and emotionally. Their damage was brought on by ACTUAL events . . . >>
ah, I see, ACTUAL events, not like lynchings, publicly segregated facilities and schools, Jim Crow laws and customs. Actual events. Like whiplash. Never saw an emotionally traumatized patient that didn't get the trauma from an auto accident, right, sirs? Nothing but whiplash produces emotional trauma, sez so right here in the DSM-IV, doesn't it?
<<What a scary world you live in, where depending on one's pigment, you could be born damaged.>>
No, you'd probably be born OK, but you stand a good chance of being raised in a way that you'll never reach your full potential, because your parents or parent just aren't capable of doing that for you. I don't know if you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument here, or just didn't get it,
<< And to make sure, we'll remind you over and over and over again. >>
Honestly, sirs, I don't think too many of them are following this newsgroups. Just so you don't misrepresent my ideas again, I'll take the pro-active step of reminding you I am not talking about all black children or all black families, just a significant number of them, the ones who weren't able to shake off the legacy of white American racism and the negative effects it had on their family.
<<Again, the absolute antithesis of MLK Jr's Dream>>
Just to correct your misleading bullshit once again, MLK DID recognize the NEED for affirmative action and the JUSTICE of it, as the article I cited made perfectly clear. It contained excerpts from MLK's speeches and writings where he argued in favour of affirmative action, one particularly in which he told white America that it could not, after hundreds of years of special abuse to the Negro, decide now that for reasons of equality the Negro could not receive special accommodation to make up for the earlier abuse. That is just plain common sense and justice, it shouldn't need MLK's or anyone else's endorsement, but since you are so fixated on the bullshit idea that affirmative action is the "antithesis" of MLK's dream, I thought it was a fact that you should be aware of.
-
"I have a dream that my 4 childrent will 1 day live in a nation, where they will NOT by judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their Character"
Yea, that's REALLY a push for policies that push 1 color of race over another, and the support of passing down generation after generation of how bad you supposedly have it. Screw individual responsibility, it's the white man's fault for anything that goes bad in your life.
As I said, he's rolling in his grave at the mutation of his message
-
"I have a dream that my 4 childrent will 1 day live in a nation, where they will NOT by judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their Character"
As the article pointed out, that ONE statement is the ONLY thing MLK ever said that the the opponents of affirmative action can interpret as being against affirmative action. And it's obviously a dream of an ideal future, not a recipe for the policies that the nation requires to implement in order to get there.
The article points out the specific support that MLK gave to affirmative action initiatives, in fact, points out that MLK developed the first active program of affirmative action. So to say that MLK opposed affirmative action, which he not only defended but actively put into practice, on the basis of his dream of an idealized future, is both dishonest and misleading.
Instead of selectively quoting from one single sentence of MLK's, which is not specifically dealing with policies but with long-range objectives, why don't you consider the specific words of support that MLK gave to the notion of affirmative action, and why don't you consider the specific affirmative action plan, referred to in the article, that MLK actually promoted himself? Why don't you, in fact, read the article, which deals with King's lifetime work, rather than promoting your own absurd view of MLK's beliefs, based on one single sentence that he spoke?
-
"I have a dream that my 4 childrent will 1 day live in a nation, where they will NOT by judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their Character"
As the article pointed out, that ONE statement is the ONLY thing MLK ever said that the the opponents of affirmative action can interpret as being against affirmative action.
By all means, demonstrate some quotes of MLK where he advocates policies of pushing his race over any others. Please.
And it's obviously a dream of an ideal future, not a recipe for the policies that the nation requires to implement in order to get there.
And repeating the mantra of how terrible your life is, generation after generation, and that you can only accomplish getting out of it, NOT by your abilities, but only by policies that place your race ahead of others, is the opposite of of trying to "get us there". It's an absolutely accomplishible goal, WHEN we start stopping treating and judging others by their skin pigment. AA judges a person precisely by their race, and NOT by their character or abilities
-
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm
Like Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, King viewed affirmative action as a means to achieving a truly egalitarian and color";blind society.
So the establishment in law of color lines is the path to a color blind society?
Some people like their illogic raw.
-
Brazil and Mexico were two societies in which there were unequal minorities. In both countries, until recently, it was illegal to identify people by race. There is no indication on a Mexican or Brazilian ID (carnet) or driver's license that a citizen is White, Black, Indian, Sambo, Mestizo or any other such classification.
The result?
Indians are overwhelmingly poor in Mexico, and Blacks are overwhelmingly poor in Brazil. The richest Mexicans and Brazilians, with the exception of the odd sports star or recording artist, and all pretty much white European.
Turn on Latino TV and you will see no Black, Mulatto, Sambo, Indian or dark Mestizo announcers.
The richest Mexican is Carlos Slim. The best known TV host is Don Francisco, a Chilean Jew.
There is no EEOC in Mexico or Brazil. That is the result.
The only attempts to reward competent Blacks with high profile jobs has taken place under Fidel Castro in Cuba and i Puerto Rico under the US EEOC.
It is logical to do that which works.
-
sirs: <<By all means, demonstrate some quotes of MLK where he advocates policies of pushing his race over any others. Please.>>
I am happy to oblige.
1. Martin Luther King's involvement in the first known affirmative action program is dealt with here:
<<The term "affirmative action" did not come into currency until after King's death--but it was King himself, as chair of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, who initiated the first successful national affirmative action campaign: "Operation Breadbasket."
<<In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable," King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of "800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries."
2. <<As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.">>
3. <<As he [King] put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).>>
4. <<In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action-style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war.">>
see http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1292 for the article from which the above was taken.
sirs: <<And repeating the mantra of how terrible your life is, generation after generation, and that you can only accomplish getting out of it, NOT by your abilities, but only by policies that place your race ahead of others, is the opposite of of trying to "get us there". >>
sirs, you are obviously very confused. NOBODY is "repeating" any "mantras" to black kids to explain anything. The "mantras" that you hear are probably white people arguing against white people over matters that concern black people. If current anti-poverty theory is correct, a large part of the permanent underclass is hard-wired for lifetime failure somewhere between their second and fourth or fifth birthdays. This did not happen because somebody was reciting mantras at them. It was due to inadequate parenting, caused by inadequate parenting in the generation before, caused by inadequate parenting in the generation before, . . . all the way back to slavery.
Most people seem to have no difficulty accepting the fact or the theory that slavery can seriously mess up a person's head, cause difficulties in self-esteem, submissiveness, hopelessness etc. Most people have no difficulty accepting the fact or theory that persons so damaged are not likely to be ideal parents, that they can fail miserably in creating self-respecting, resourceful, optimistic, well-adjusted children. Most people have no difficulty with the concept that the abolition of slavery will not cure the damage that slavery has already done to the psyches of many former slaves and will not stop them from being bad parents once they were already damaged psychologically. And most people seem to have no difficulty accepting the fact or theory that the children of damaged slaves will themselves not be ideal parents of the next generation, will not have the parenting skills to break the cycle of inadequate parenting ==> kids who will be themselves inadequate parents = = > another generation of kids who will not be adequate parents = => more damaged children etc.
You for some unfathomable reason or reasons seem to be unable to grasp these simple concepts. I give up on getting you to see this. I am only setting it out one more time as clearly as I can, NOT so as to persuade you, but merely in the hopes that if you wish to pursue the thread, you will at least get my ideas down straight without any more misrepresentation of them.
-
....the children of damaged slaves will themselves not be ideal parents of the next generation, will not have the parenting skills to break the cycle of inadequate parenting ==> kids who will be themselves inadequate parents = = > another generation of kids who will not be adequate parents = => more damaged children etc.
Is there any eveidence that Government action or any other affirmative action has improved Black Family cohesiveness or parenting over the last four decades?
-
<<Is there any eveidence that Government action or any other affirmative action has improved Black Family cohesiveness or parenting over the last four decades?>>
Keep your eye on what the Ontario Premier's initiative to reduce poverty by 25% is going to be doing. If there is no evidence to date on the effectiveness of early child development interventions, the Premier's initiative may in fact produce that evidence over time. Someone my wife and I know and are in frequent contact with is playing a key role in that initiative and the next time I see her, later in the week, I will ask her about your question.
-
<<Is there any eveidence that Government action or any other affirmative action has improved Black Family cohesiveness or parenting over the last four decades?>>
Keep your eye on what the Ontario Premier's initiative to reduce poverty by 25% is going to be doing. If there is no evidence to date on the effectiveness of early child development interventions, the Premier's initiative may in fact produce that evidence over time. Someone my wife and I know and are in frequent contact with is playing a key role in that initiative and the next time I see her, later in the week, I will ask her about your question.
Don't be too shocked if you find out that Family cohesiveness and childrearing success have dropped in the same years that poverty has decreased.
An Inverse relationship is not thereby proven , but a direct relationship is indeed disproven.