Rue the Day?

As the board's outstanding loopy liberal it would be more appropriate for shays to 'rue (regret) the day' when negros' votes were counted at 1/3 of a citizen. Once the negro slaves were freed and morphed from coloreds to 'blacks', they were given a full vote and the terrible history of the political slavery of the carpetbaggers was allowed to unfold. Now there was a glorious page in the history of Black America. And now it's been 7 generations, and the liberals think that reverse discrimination is the answer. It wasn't the answer during the carpetbaggers years, so why should it be expected to work now? Oh yeah, that's the classic definition of insanity.Doing the same actions and expecting different results.

And how conveniently the lopsided left forgets that it was a Republican who first set job quotas and goals to enact affirmative action -

"Incredible but true," declared Fortune magazine at the time of Richard M. Nixon's death in 1994. "It was the Nixonites who gave us employment quotas."(1) Until recently, many scholars and journalists have credited Democratic Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson with initiating affirmative action. Yet it was a Republican president who first sanctioned formal goals and time frames to raze barriers to minority employment. Nixon, recalled civil rights leader James Farmer, was the strongest president on affirmative action--up to that point."(2)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-20649393.html

I'll Take My Freedom -
You Keep the Change!

RealAmerica

Why are you so presumptive as to assume that I have never faced the  “dark and sinister forces of racism”? This would make you either naïve or disingenuous, and I really don’t think that you are either. The first time I was called a racial and ethnic epithet was by a fellow six year old. Racial epithets weren’t used in my home, but apparently, the child that called me the name was well versed in racial and ethnic epithets.

While I appreciate your attempt at modifying your statement, I still contend that a single consistent standard is best. Until no racism is tolerated there can be no true healing. I assume that true healing is your goal as it is mine.

And it's quite easy to attain and maintain power by using the "institutionalized racism" argument when things don't go the way you expect. How many times has Jesse Jackson shaken down major companies for their "lack of diversity"?

We can't promote/hire/measure the performance of someone for fear that an accusation/lawsuit (however baseless) is right around the corner.

" I'll just crawl back into my cave and thanks for all the enlightment. "

You're more than welcome.

This entire discussion makes me want to puke.  It is a non-issue.  I fell into the trap of goading words, and now must pay for it by circling deeper and deeper into the vortex of "he said/she said" neener, neener, neener!

Socialism (and certainly many forms of it) does work.  We have pretty good police and fire departments in this country, I think (we have to monitor the ranks for the occasional bad seed ... but we should be doing that in all professions, I think).  Our public library system used to be awful darn good, too (I remember, growing up as a kid in southern California, I could walk to the local public library branch whenever I wanted, and could easily bicycle to two others if need be).  We used to have a darn good interstate highway system (which actually ought to serve as a model for a universal health care system), air traffic control system, harbor system, interstate rail service and a whole slew of other national or even local systems that were administered directly by government, or else closely regulated by it.  Heck, some even argue that our military system is a form of socialism.  I would include our public school systems in the examples, but we have allowed them to become such a hot-potato of political opportunism and interference that they are struggling to perform their basic function while still trying to kowtow to the most recent mandate from high above.  But the VA system works pretty darn well (unless certain administrations don't really support our troops as much as they claim ... especially the "broken" ones in need of repair and who have lost functionality), and Medicare did too (again, until the last administration "reformed" it by providing multi-trillion dollar handouts to Big Pharma in the form of prescription drug "benefits").  So has Social Security (that is, until the last four presidents began the tradition of raiding its surpluses to make the budget balance look a little better).  I could go on ... but you're residing in your cave and don't give a rat's patootey.

As to toleration of conservative views ... I have great respect for honest conservatives.  You are correct, however; I have absolute intolerance (not pathological, because I know what I do) for liars, expedient con-artists, sleaze-ball entertainers who pass themselves off as wise pontificators, and others who knowingly spread disinformation with the intent to inflame, misinform, delude and otherwise deceive people in order to advance their own cause -- be it in higher "ratings" or in bigger speaker fees.

Good to know that you know yourself so well. I do like your syntax it rings like "effete intellectual snobs" and "nattering nabobs of negativism" and other colorful but inaccurate phrases said by one of the many  convicted Republican felons, Spiro Agnew.

I think the entire piece I wrote was about scrutiny and dialogue.  Part of the dialogue (and scrutiny) is to point out the prejudicial nature of the comments made by individuals with an axe to grind and an agenda to fulfill.  Their comments are made all the more seriously dangerous because they have a microphone and access to commercial and PUBLIC airwaves that influence a lot of people who have elevated them to positions of supposed authority that they ... as simple entertainers ... do not truly deserve.  I ask that the dialogue be more substantive, and about real issues ... not over issues invented to drive a wedge of fear into the consideration.  I would like to trust our elected representatives in the Senate to do that ... that's why we elect them, after all (but the cynic in me tells me that many of them are in the grip of fear, themselves, and will have a hard time seeing outside its darkening sphere of influence).  The record and the facts may tell us that Sonia Sotomayor is not qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice (though that certainly hasn't always been a criteria in the past), in which case, her nomination should be rejected.  If otherwise, then she should be confirmed.  If conservatives wish to vote against her confirmation because they feel she is too liberal, that certainly is their prerogative.  But I would hope that determination comes from facts gleaned through the hearings, not because Rush Limbaugh misquotes her and claims that "proves" she is a "racist".

And a racist by any other name is still a racist and almost all of the negative comments seen here about Justice Sotomayor are racist. some are cloaked in righteous indignation at being called racist but that does not make them not racist. They are racist to the core. Here is what these racists do not want you to focus on:

Part II:

My objection to the focus on this statement (besides the non-existent racism it attempts to demonstrate) is that it also suggests that Judge Sotomayor will offer opinions from the bench based less on the rule of law and more on her life experiences, ethnicity, and gender.  As pointed out in Part 1, she made the unnecessarily controversial sentence while discussing the larger significance of diversity in adjudicating race and sex discrimination cases.

Her critics also are remiss in not recognizing that other Justices, already confirmed, have made similar statements in the past.  During his 2006 confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito said (passages in italics are for emphasis):

I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.  And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.  But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.  But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

During the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas, the nominee said in response to a question about why he wanted the job, said, "I believe, Senator, that I can make a contribution, that I can bring something different to the Court, that I can walk in the shoes of the people who are affected by what the Court does."

In short, the two citations aside, we ALL bring with us in our decision-making functions whatever experiences and background in our personal histories.  To varying degrees, we learn to objectify and stand outside those experiences ... but no one can do so completely.  No one.  And in many circumstances, those experiences bring understanding that eludes others who have not shared them.

A 'Certificate of Live Birth' IS a 'birth certificate'. He produced the document on file in the vital statistics registry of the State of Hawaii. The only mystery here is why the right wing nuts refuse to accept the truth, and lower themselves to conjuring up false assertions to argue against the facts. Just what facts do you contend 'don't support the preconceived notions'? What verifiable evidence do you have that these 'facts' are truthful? And how do you explain all of the inconsistencies that have been offered in support of these specious claims? Calling me a 'liberal' is nothing but a diversion from the truth that is offered as a pathetic substitute for confirmed factual support for your wholly discredited claims.