On Thursday I published a post on Outrageous Official Misconduct in Missouri. If you haven’t read it, please do so now.
As noted in my earlier post, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan has a legal obligation (Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 116.025) to prepare ballot language that is “true and impartial” and that is “neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice.” No reasonable person — not even a predictably partisan mainstream editor or reporter — can believe she did that.
For example, the language that the organizers of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative proposed has one central purpose, clearly expressed: to prohibit the state from discriminating against, or granting preferences to, any person or group based on race, gender, or ethnicity. As redefined by Secretary Carnahan, this central purpose is translated, first, to ban “affirmative action” programs “designed to” eliminate discrimination against those groups. But what about other, non-“affirmative action” discriminatory programs, or affirmative action programs “designed” only to promote “diversity”?
Second, Secretary Carnahan’s transforming misrepresentation says absolutely nothing about prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, gender, or ethnicity. Instead, it states that the initiative’s purpose is to eliminate programs “designed to … improve opportunities for women and minorities.” If this is not partial, argumentative, and prejudiced, what is?
Supporters of the initiative believe eliminating discrimination is a better way to “improve opportunities” for everyone, including minorities and women, than granting race and gender preferences. The initiative is intended to give the citizens of Missouri a chance to decide whether they agree, whether they want their fundamental law to command non-discrimination or race/gender preference as the foundation of the state’s civil rights policy. Secretary Carnahan’s language is a heavy-handed attempt to prevent the people from having that clear choice.
Might the fact that Secretary Carnahan herself supports such discriminatory programs have had an influence on her omission of this central purpose of the initiative?
Is this sort of official contempt for the law, and for basic honesty, so common in Missouri that Secretary Carnahan’s attempt to prevent the citizens of Missouri from having an honest debate over whether they want their state to continue distributing burdens and benefits on the basis of race doesn’t rate extensive coverage in the Missouri press?
So far, the only article on this issue I’ve been able to find is this one, which just appeared in the Kansas City Star, prompted by MissouriCRI’s lawsuit against Carnahan in Cole County Circuit Court.
Note to Missouri editors and reporters: if I’ve missed other articles on Secretary Carnahan’s misconduct or the legal complaint against it, please send me citations and I’ll link to it or them immediately. If in fact you’ve neglected this story, shame on you.
UPDATE [29 July]
Finally, some Missouri papers have reprinted an AP wire story that reprints the Kansas City Star article. See here, here, here, and here.
This is not an impressive performance by the Missouri press.
UPDATE II [30 July]
MoCRI’s legal action against Sec. Carnahan is covered here by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
John writes:
>>>”Is this sort of official contempt for the law, and for basic honesty, so common in Missouri that Secretary Carnahan’s attempt to prevent the citizens of Missouri from having an honest debate over whether they want their state to continue distributing burdens and benefits on the basis of race doesn’t rate extensive coverage in the Missouri press?”
“Honest debate?” Are you calling the shennanigans that went on in Michigan from the MCRI “honest debating?”
PLEASE.
At least admit that you’re uncomfortable when NON-CONSERVATIVE, NON-Anti-Affirmative Action Types FRAME the argument, as opposed to the focus group designed, “trick the moderate white person” strategy that was utilized in California, Washington and Michigan.
–Cobra
Heh. That’s when you know you stand on unprincipled ground: when you need to “frame” something as simple and as intrinsically right as a prohibition on government sponsored racial and gender discrimination.
“Are you calling the shennanigans that went on in Michigan from the MCRI “honest debating?”
Honestly, I think little Cobra thinks most people are stupid and will read something like that and simply forget that it was the anti-Civil Rights Initiative side that brought violence and intimidation into public meetings and the streets. Or that it was the anti-CRI side, headed by By Any Means Necessary (hint hint), that tried their damnest to prevent the vote from taking place at all. There’s not much dignity in supporting such offensive ideals as government sponsored racial and gender discrimination, but little Cobra’s doesn’t seem to notice the absence.
Mikem writes:
>>>”Honestly, I think little Cobra thinks most people are stupid and will read something like that and simply forget that it was the anti-Civil Rights Initiative side that brought violence and intimidation into public meetings and the streets.”
If you believe most people to be “smart”, then why can’t you put the initiative forward with Secretary Carnahan’s framing?
Why do you choose to operate under code words, winks and nods?
The goal of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative is the same as the goals for the other states Ward Connerly’s traveling race circus has played in: The knee-capping of minority progress and outreach–and the fortification of the White Male Power Structure.
–Cobra
If that’s the case then presumably you’d be all in favor of putting your language on the ballot as opposed to Carnahan’s, since we’re supposed to be using ballot summaries as recaps of the effects of initiatives rather than the initiatives themselves.
Funny, but I don’t recall Carnahan ever insisting on tax-increase ballot language that explained said increases in terms of the wealth they would destroy, the income they would confiscate, the devaluation in property they herald, the jobs lost, the useless bureaucracies they establish.
The truth is, the Democratic Party survives on its ability to pass out loot from the racial spoils system these initiatives seek to dismantle, hence its members’ panic at their popularity and passage. If we strip people like Carnahan to dole out the sugar, pretty soon the former recipients will wonder what good Robin and her party are. And we can’t have that, can we?
“…you choose to operate under code words, winks and nods?”
Laugh out loud. A straightfoward declaration against race and gender discrimination drives Cobra crazy. I wonder if Martin Luther King realized that his most famous words were “code, winks and nods” for evil.
Try some dignity, Cobra.
Cobra,
I wish we could have afforded a “focus group” — OUM and your side have all the focus groups, which is why they are trying to reframe the issues.
I’m ok with “reframing” as long as its honest and done privately – its a First Amendment right. But when the government reframes an issue tailored to its heavy-handed purposes, that’s wrong. It’s called Orwellian.
Cobra, I prefer your language on the ballot — “The knee-capping of minority…”. At least it is transparently biased and honest in its own weird way – Carnahan’s is cloudy, ambiguous, and inconsistent.
Cobra, most people are smart, but most also are busy and don’t have time to study in depth. Why allow your side to utterly bias the framing and get away with verbal murder? I wasn’t happy with MCRI’s ballot summary – but it wasn’t linguistic murder either. You’re the one choosing to operate under “code words, winks and nods” — “diversity”.
John, I think you’ve missed the central contradiction in Carnahan’s weirdness – paragraph one uses the the phrase “affirmative action” (ban the well-intentioned type) – paragraph two says MoCRI will ALLOW PREFERENCES to receive federal money, actually using MoCRI’s moderate clause to protect federal $ against it perversely.
Paragraph two shows the utter unfairness of the language. First, it recognizes “preference” as a legitimate term – hence, why not use it consistently in both paragraphs? Second, if “affirmative action” is the correct term, why not use it in paragraph 2 instead of “preference”? If “affirmative action” is well-intentioned as paragraph 1 suggests, then it would be fairer for the SoS to at least say MoCRI protects AA when federal $ are involved, rather than “allows preference” in that case.
So the language suffers from an internal inconsistency, as well as the obvious bias you point. I suspect with MoCRI could live with “affirmative action” in the language if it was as clear and evenly divided as the Michigan language (which at least “split the baby”, so to speak).
A second major flaw with Carnahan’s wording is that it actually proposes MoCRI would ban conduct already illegal everywhere. By focusing on the intent element (“programs designed”) and only listing the remediation of element for minorities and women, the implication is that MoCRI would stop the types of AA that are non-diversity justified. Since only diversity-justified preferences are allowed under SC precedent, Carnahan’s description of MoCRI renders it useless. I’d challenge the language on federal issues as well if necessary, although figuring out how to get a federal issue nexus into ballot language issues will be hard (due process maybe? or since the language “interpets” federal law?).
Mikem – In Michigan & Washington State it is documented that Black Afrikan Wardell Connerly’s organization used voter fraud against petition signers to get them to fraudulently sign the petition to place the Anti-Affirmative Action ban on the ballots in Washington state & Michigan – that is why the Anti-Affirmative Action should not have been on the ballots in Washington State & Michigan
Chet – Good points all. There are surely enough inconsistencies and other offenses in Sec. Carnahan’s twisted rewrite to justify a number of critical deconstructions. The fundamental point, I think, is not this or that distortion or misrepresentation but her fundamental dishonesty in ignoring her duty to remain neutral in representing the nature and intent of the proposed initiative.
Thanks for introducing the “MoCRI” abbreviation there, Chet.
You know, John, for once I’ve find myself in complete agreement with Cobra.
There is no such thing as a “good” form of affirmative action. It’s all racial and sexual quotas. Special outreach programs for minorities and women are just other forms of racial and sexual quota mongering. I suspect, John, that you are (and probably must) be offering this “good” AA line for PR purposes.
No, minorities and women shouldn’t get a single thing that Cobra’s evil white (hetero) men don’t get. (Don’t forget, white men can avail themselves of the quota system simply by declaring themselves gay.) Cobra and FreeMan continually ask me what my motivation is for entering this debate. My motivation is simple self-interest. The racial and sexual quotas hurt me in the marketplace. I am for outlawing the quota systems completely, and for leaving no trace of them behind. All the diversity offices should be shut, all the diversity bureaucrats should be fired.
No university or employer should be “reaching out” to anybody one inch further than they are reaching out to me. So, in this case, I think Cobra is correct. In fact, I would vote for the initiative as stated, slanted and deliberately deceptive though it may be.
Just to clarify one thing about my previous statement:
I do support John’s efforts to return the initiative to its original language. Clearly, Ms. Carnahan is an advocate of racial and sexual quotas, and she’s doing her best to keep them intact.
Cobra, don’t gloat too much yet. Two things may happen that you won’t like: (1) Carnahan could lose in court, or (2) the voters could approve the initiative even if it is presented in Carnahan’s poison pill language.
Connerly is Afrikan [sic]? I thought he was American. Can you elaborate?
Further, if a ballot measure is disqualified because certain petitioners were shown to have acted fraudulently, does your punishment extend to the removal from the ballot all Democrats because of, say, ACORN’s use of the same tactic?
Finally, and back on-topic, I wonder why Carnahan’s ballot language stops at describing the effects of MoCRI passage for just a subset of citizens. IOW, why didn’t she also explain that passage would end the hiring of less-qualified minorities and other AA-boosted groups over white males? Isn’t this the truth, too?
Jeffersonian writes:
>>>”If that’s the case then presumably you’d be all in favor of putting your language on the ballot as opposed to Carnahan’s, since we’re supposed to be using ballot summaries as recaps of the effects of initiatives rather than the initiatives themselves.”
No. In fact I’d have NO ballot up for voting.
Why?
Every time I bring up the ONGOING discrimination against African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Native-Americans (you know, the stuff Ward Connerly, Jennifer Gratz and the MCRI crowd refuses to address)
I’m told by several posters here–
“Cobra, there are anti-discrimination laws already on the books…
Cobra, I support vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws…”
ETC.
Why, I ask you, Jeffersonian, do the anti-affirmative action types feel that the “laws already on the books” are insufficient when it comes to white male complaints, but just fine for black folks like me?
Are you claiming here today that there are NO anti-discrimination laws currently on the books in the State of Missouri that can address white male discrimination complaints?
Jeffersonian writes:
>>>”The truth is, the Democratic Party survives on its ability to pass out loot from the racial spoils system these initiatives seek to dismantle, hence its members’ panic at their popularity and passage. If we strip people like Carnahan to dole out the sugar, pretty soon the former recipients will wonder what good Robin and her party are. And we can’t have that, can we?”
Following your theory to its logical conclusion, you would have to assume that Republicans, the opposition party, are little more than enablers of the White Male Power Structure, dilligently working to keep “loot” and “spoils” firmly entrenched in white male hands. Based upon browning population demographics, this “white makes right” political strategy will doom Republicans to the fate of the Whig Party within four decades.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>”Cobra, most people are smart, but most also are busy and don’t have time to study in depth.”
Which is exactly how neo-cons got away with selling the country on the Iraq War.
It’s exactly how the Bush Administration gets away with stripping away Constitutional rights from American citizens (Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps).
And it’s also how you folks at the MCRI can convince moderate whites that obstructing minority opportunities and outreach programs are in the best interests of a nation with a quickly growing minority population.
Chetly Zarko writes:
>>>”Why allow your side to utterly bias the framing and get away with verbal murder? I wasn’t happy with MCRI’s ballot summary – but it wasn’t linguistic murder either. You’re the one choosing to operate under “code words, winks and nods” — “diversity”.”
Chetly, I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Jeffersonian.
Do you believe that the State of Missouri currently has anti-discrimination laws on the books?
If your answer is yes, then what would the SOLE purpose of the MoCRI be IF NOT to destroy minority and gender outreach programs?
Mikem writes:
>>>” I wonder if Martin Luther King realized that his most famous words were “code, winks and nods” for evil.”
Dr. Martin Luther King realized that White Conservatives hated him and wanted him DEAD for his “most famous words.”
They succeeded, didn’t they?
–Cobra
Jeffersonian – Be aware that the “fraud” MCRI signature gatherers were most vociferously accused of was describing a measure that would require colorblind, non-discriminatory equal treatment as a civil rights measure.
Shouting Thomas – There is nothing wrong, and much that is right, with “affirmative action” as it was embodied in the two presidential executive orders, by Kennedy and Johnson, initially requiring it. What it required was the taking of “affirmative action” to ensure that no applicants, employees, or contractors were discriminated against on the basis of race.
“Dr. Martin Luther King realized that White Conservatives hated him and wanted him DEAD for his “most famous words.”
They succeeded, didn’t they?”
Cobra, this is your looniest bit yet. You really go over the side of the mountain when your enthusiasm gets the better of you.
That paranoia must really wear you out.
There is no “ONGOING discrimination African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Native-American.” You are lying. Period. As a matter of public policy, the ONGOING discrimination is all being executed against hetero white men. You’ve gotten 50 years of set asides and handouts.
Denying white men an equal shot at an education and a job… now that is a form of ONGOING discrimination that actually exists.
You’re just greedy, Cobra. You want to rip off even more… and you are well aware that the Mau-Mauing pushes people’s buttons. Your act is an ONGOING clown act of about 50 years.
Under Shouting Thomas’ rationale only White European-American Males are humans & deserve protection of civil rights laws – Agitation for equal rights for Women & People of Color is a Clown Act because it is not serious-
There is no current discrimination against People of Color
Affirmative Action programs that seek to equalize Women & People of Color in education and contracts where they have been discriminated against because of sexism against Women & racism against People of Color based on population measures is the only form of racial discrimination that exists in the US
By the way White European-American Males are the US’ most dominant social group
I’d bet that there are laws there to address white male complaints, but when white males are locked out of jobs because of legal discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action programs, those laws are not applicable, by definition.
Unless, of course, you are arguing that no government-sancioned preferences exist, in which case the effects of the MoCRI will be nil. Which is it?
Actually, that’s a logical fallacy you’re peddling, that of false dilemma. The choice isn’t between government enforcement of preferences for one race or another, but between those two undesireable choices and the desireable third: that of neutral, merit-based hiring.
I shoulda known. Let me guess, this “well-documented fraud” is just a series of turgid tracts pounded out by the proponents of the racial spoils system who disagreed with the MCRI’s boosters politically, right? After all, isn’t every difference of opinion a lie on its face?
On the contrary, the existence of Affirmative Action in all of its loathsome forms is prima facie evidence that equal rights in government action is phony. It is slanted against white (and even moreso, Asian) males. If it wasn’t, what’s your entire argument about?
“Under Shouting Thomas’ rationale only White European-American Males are humans & deserve protection of civil rights laws…”
Quite the contrary. I believe everybody should be treated absolutely equally. You, FreeMan, are the one who favors discriminatory race and sex quotas. Apparently, you don’t believe that White European-American Males are human.
Your recitation of past grievances does not interest me. I simply do not care. I could recite my family’s grievances and sufferings, but that would not interest you. So, you see, we are absolutely equal there. I am treating you precisely as you treat me. You’ve got your troubles… I’ve got mine. Tough.
You are here for the same reason as Cobra, naked self-interest. You want stuff. The ideological ranting is just a cover for your own greed. I don’t believe for a second that you are here for any other reason than that you, FreeMan, want preferential treatment and access to other people’s stuff. And, FreeMan, you are that most dangerous person… you want the power to control other people with ideology.
Jeffersonian – Equality is not the issue – It is Equity or Justice based on Morality – Affirmative Action is Morally Needed in the US to correct the sexism against Women & racism against People of Color
“Justice – if only we knew what it was.” – Socrates
So we just assume into existence all of the pathologies you posit and everything falls into place. A permanent anti-Asian, anti-male, anti-white legislative wall.
And you’re different from the Klan…how?
Jeffersonian writes:
>>>”I’d bet that there are laws there to address white male complaints, but when white males are locked out of jobs because of legal discrimination in the form of Affirmative Action programs, those laws are not applicable, by definition.”
You’re making an argument that white males are “victimized” in a society, ironically, controlled by white males.
…
I will save this quote for further reference when I’m accused of using victimology when posting the on-going discriminations suffered by African-, Hispanic- and Native-Americans.
Jeffersonian writes:
>>>”Unless, of course, you are arguing that no government-sancioned preferences exist, in which case the effects of the MoCRI will be nil. Which is it?”
No. Cobra Argument #1 is that American society is racist and sexist, justifying a need for Affirmative Action. Your argument is apparently, that as long as the government doesn’t employ preferences, everything’s “fine.” That works out “fine” if you’re a card-carrying member of the White Male Power Structure.
Not so peachy if you aren’t.
>>>”Actually, that’s a logical fallacy you’re peddling, that of false dilemma. The choice isn’t between government enforcement of preferences for one race or another, but between those two undesireable choices and the desireable third: that of neutral, merit-based hiring.”
Except my dilemna about the White Male Power Structure isn’t a fallacy. It’s American History, and a tactile reality. The White Male Power Structure was written into the Constitution (3/5ths Clause)…Court decisions like Dred Scott, and Plessy v. Fergusson. People seem to forget that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was FILLIBUSTERED.
Today, I’ve often quoted Princeton Sociologist Devah Pager’s study that shows a white CONVICTED FELONY has better odds of being hired than a black man with NO CRIMINAL RECORD. http://www.princeton.edu/~pager
A college football hero and his college cheerleader sweetheart have to have armed security at their wedding because they aren’t of the same race…
…In 2007.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3425718
I would argue that YOUR
“desirable third choice” of some “neutral meritocracy” in America belongs on the silver screen, with the rest of the summer’s science fiction blockbusters.
It’s certainly more of a FANTASY than pirate-curses, wizard academies, web-slinging superhumans and ’77 Camaros that transform into 30′ tall robots from outer-space.
That is…unless you can give me an ACTUAL date and time when America actually WAS a “meritocracy” for ALL of its citizens.
–Cobra
“That is…unless you can give me an ACTUAL date and time when America actually WAS a “meritocracy” for ALL of its citizens.”
In another post, Cobra has argued that America is a “racist and sexist society,” thus justifying racial and sexual quotas.
The problem with both of these statements is Cobra hasn’t asked the question: Compared to what?
The U.S. is the least racist and sexist society in the history of humanity. Likewise, the U.S. is the most admirable meritocracy in the history of humanity.
What Cobra calls “racism and sexism” is just the natural state of humanity. Most humans prefer to live and work with their own kind, and most humans also prefer that men and women continue to live as they have for centuries. Cobra is, in fact, at war with human nature, which accounts for the hyperventilating and hysteria of his verbage. He is a would-be Messiah, determined to lead us out of our state of Original Sin.
What is really remarkable about the White Power Structure that Cobra screams about is that it has created a legal and constitutional structure that has developed into an equitable arrangement for people who are not white and male. This is a first in human history. The clan in power created a structure that allowed other clans to gain power and wealth.
So, no, Cobra, white men are not suffering from Original Sin, nor are they uniquely prone to racism and sexism. White men are doing better than anybody else has ever done. That’s why you are able to scream and weep over the fact that everything is not perfect. In just about every other human society in history, you would be carted off to prison or summarily executed for doing this.
Do you deny that Affirmative Action causes protected individuals to be hired/admitted/promoted over more qualified individuals on the basis of race, sex, etc? And, as I said earlier, the most affected groups (in terms of bias) are Asian males, not whites.
Oh, and the 3/5 rule wasn’t put into place by slave holders (who wanted all slaves counted), but by representatives of ‘free’ states.
As long as AA is in force, that will certainly be the case. Things like the MoCRI will bring it closer to reality.
Thank you, Jeffersonian, for pointing out the fallacy of the 3/5th clause. Too many people wrongly believe that it is evidence of evil whites defining the relative worth of blacks vis a vis whites. It refers to the counting of residents for the purpose of determining how many representatives each state would get. The more residents, the more seats, thus the more power. Slave states, particularly South Carolina with had huge numbers of slaves, wanted to have slaves counted as one resident, thus increasing their representation in Congress. The 3/5ths was a compromise that effectively reduced this power grab by slave states. Many reresentatives of free states didn’t want slaves counted at all because they didn’t want the slave states to benefit, in terms of power, from a cynical and dare I say evil, manipulation of apportionment.
Jeffersonian – The Klan supports bans on Affirmative Action – The Klan uses hate crimes to terrorize People of Color to support White European-American supremacy – The Klan believes that God created White Europeans to rule the world over biologically inferior Non-White Peoples
Webster defines moral as a distinction between right & wrong
Webster defines justice as conformity to moral principles or law
Morality means because Women & People of Color suffer & have suffered under this White- European American Male dominated society – they should be allowed by population measures representation in education & professions where they have been denied because of sexism against Women & racism against People of Color
Asians are victims of White European-American supremacy too only country to experience 2 nuclear bomb attacks Japan 1945
FreeMan,
White Americans equal about 50% of the population. Estimated gang membership: 97,500 (from Wikipedia).
Blacks equal about 12% of population. Estimated gang membership: 232,500.
The membership of the KKK is estimated at 5,000.
In every major U.S. city, people live in fear of the overwhelming reality of black crime and black gangs. The KKK is virtual non-existent.
You are talking nonsense. If any reparations are to made as a result of gang violence, then blacks owe everybody else big time. (Well, hispanics seem determined to compete with blacks for this honor.)
No, you are wrong. Women and minorities don’t deserve a thing more than white men. Your assertion is racist. You need to abandon your racism as a matter of moral principle. Your racism is immoral and indefensible. I don’t care about what happened in the past. You got your troubles, I got mine. So, why don’t you just cease whining about your complaints and your desire for revenge?
And, your comments about the use of atomic weapons to end WWII are just plain nuts. You should think for a moment before you speak.
Nobody important – nice try – but explain to me why Black Afrikan indentured slave contracts to stop working were not honored – & White European indentured slaves were counted as Whole persons in the US Constitution – but Black Afrikan slaves were counted as 3/5 persons in the US Constitution – consistent with AntiBlack Afrikan racism that considers Black Afrikans subhumans
Free states – Hmm – New York – New Jersey had slaves until 1827 – To end on point – Affirmative Action is needed in the US to help reduce sexism against the Women & to help reduce racism against People of Color & it is based upon Moral Justice
FreeMan,
Keep telling them the TRUTH about American History.
Jeffersonian writes:
>>>”Do you deny that Affirmative Action causes protected individuals to be hired/admitted/promoted over more qualified individuals on the basis of race, sex, etc? And, as I said earlier, the most affected groups (in terms of bias) are Asian males, not whites.”
That’s a spurious question. “Qualification” is a subjective term. To many anti-affirmative action types, having white skin and the propensity to pee standing up makes one congenitally “qualified” for anything.
And the old “Asian” trick doesn’t wash on Discriminations anymore, since I have this nasty habit of posting pro-Affirmative Action Asian organizations and professors often enough.
Jeffersonian writes:
>>>”As long as AA is in force, that will certainly be the case. Things like the MoCRI will bring it (neutral meritocracy) closer to reality.”
Oh…so what was America’s excuse, particularly the white males in charge, for NOT having a “neutral meritocracy” at ANY TIME during the 196 years between the Declaration of Independence and Nixon signing resolute Affirmative Action laws into place?
AND… Given two centuries of FAILURE to establish a “neutral meritocracy”, what makes you think that after 35 years under essentially the same white male stewardship, destroying Affirmative Action is going to suddenly result in success?
Like I said…pure Hollywood Fantasy.
Nobody Important writes:
>>>”Thank you, Jeffersonian, for pointing out the fallacy of the 3/5th clause. Too many people wrongly believe that it is evidence of EVIL whites defining the relative worth of blacks vis a vis whites.”
And then he writes…
“Many reresentatives of free states didn’t want slaves counted at all because they didn’t want the slave states to benefit, in terms of power, from a cynical and dare I say EVIL, manipulation of apportionment.”
…hmmm
I believe both parties were “evil.” Those who make deals with the devil should burn with the same flame.
The ABOLITIONISTS’ position was another story entirely, and history does not herald their accomplishments enough.
My best buddy Stephen writes:
>>>”The U.S. is the least racist and sexist society in the history of humanity. Likewise, the U.S. is the most admirable meritocracy in the history of humanity.”
And…
>>>”What Cobra calls “racism and sexism” is just the natural state of humanity. Most humans prefer to live and work with their own kind, and most humans also prefer that men and women continue to live as they have for centuries.”
And…
>>>”What is really remarkable about the White Power Structure that Cobra screams about is that it has created a legal and constitutional structure that has developed into an equitable arrangement for people who are not white and male. This is a first in human history. The clan in power created a structure that allowed other clans to gain power and wealth.”
And…oh..I can’t…I–
Brother, please…you have to let me buy you a drink sometime. For all you’ve done to UNDERSCORE my positions and arguments here…
I owe you BIG TIME.
–Cobra
Actually, Cobra, I demolished your “positions and arguments” and left you unable even to respond.
You and FreeMan imagine yourselves to be holy warriors. You are, in fact, creations of white liberal guilt. The Mau-Mauing, and the constant efforts to invoke white guilt are attempts to cash in on white liberals’ desire to appear solicitous of blacks.
That clown act doesn’t sell any more, Cobra and FreeMan. If you notice from this blog, and from the losses you are suffering at the ballot box, the constant attempts to reach back 170 years and invoke guilt are failing.
You are both relics of the past. You are clowns in the old minstrel show, trying to get a hand out by playing the radical, fire-breathing Negro who will burn down his own neighborhood if he doesn’t get what he wants.
It’s a pathetic spectacle. I haven’t been so much arguing with you and trying to convince you to live with a modicum of dignity and self-respect.
Shouting Thomas – if you are a White European-American – your use of the word “Negro” is a racial slur – You should apologize – But I know you won’t – To end on point Affirmative Action is needed to help reduce sexism against Women & racism against People of Color & is based upon moral justice
I posted my comment on the wrong thread, my apologies. However, the point stands and still eludes FreeMan.