When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
@Chihuahua: I guess you know what happpens when you assumme. Try Cesar Chavez. I notice also the usual misreading of Dr. King’s “content of their character” statement. This has been misused by conservatives (who tend to like their champions of social justice convienently dead) to do things like deny the need for affirmative action. Dr. King very much believed in economic justice. He championed the idea of a “living wage” for wage workers. When he was gunned down, he was in Memphis working for that very thing for sanitation workers.
Not that MLK needs defending from the likes of Lynn, it needed to be said and you did it well. I’m also glad you took the Chavez thing – it was the low pinata that needed whacking. I was ready to dismiss the “Senor” thing as an example of pretentiousness or just a case of being too lazy to go look it up when having forgotten someone’s first name. But “Hugo” is probably a very accurate assessment given Lynn’s liberal craving for class warfare.
@Chihuahua: You are a very good example, you and many other conservatives, of what I have been saying here about perspective. You take from Dr. King’s work and twist it to your own purpose. No wonder we need someone like Sotomayor on the Supreme Court Bench.
The truth about Dr. King and affirmative action is that King did support it in concept. I say in concept because affirmative action did not exist in his day. But he supported the basic idea behind affirmative action: groups who have suffered past discrimination need to have laws and policies which make up for such discrimination.
King supported affirmative action type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he 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).
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.” Veterans still benefit from this type of affirmative action.
@Mikkke: I bet reason why you confused Cesar with Hugo Chavez is that all Hispanics are alike to you. “Justicia y Dignidad Para Todos!” “Si Se Puede!”
Why don’t you go back and read up on Ricci v DeStefano and tell us how Sotomayor’s negating the results of a blind examination for promotions is justified since no minorities qualified for advancement when the results were in, Lynn Green.
Then why don’t return to all of us here and explain how those who are qualified need to be shoved aside for those that weren’t qualified merely because of race.
The GI Bill has nothing to do with affirmative action, but is legislation for physical disabilities. That legislation is blind to race or gender… offered equally to all. What you suggest is compensation and perks offered because of the same. In other words, you are a bigot, who continues to live in the past.
As I said, your idea of “christianity” is to tear down others, not raise up the downtrodden. The result is a homogenous society and a low rate of living for the masses, and power and wealth for the ruling class. I suggest you wander down to Venezuela and Cuba and spend your time practicing your peculiar brand of anti-Christianity there. That is if they let you.
BTW: “I have followed this man’s career for some time. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor.”–President George H.W.Bush, 1991 on his Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas
King supported affirmative action-type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he 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).
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.”
“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis.”
You’ll notice the words EQUIP and COMPETE.
In other words, Dr. King was advocating for blacks to receive the same tools (i.e. educational opportunities) that everyone else receives so that the field of competition is leveled.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”
The basic tenets of affirmative action are preferences for those of color or some other minority status simply based upon their color or minority status.
Affirmative action does not equate to competing “on a just and equal basis” which is what Dr. King spoke of.
It’s laughable that you accuse me of taking from Dr. King’s work and then twisting it to meet my own purposes while you are the one who is actually guilty.
Projection much?
Partial quoting. Lack of context. Plagiarism. All while cloaking yourself under the cover of Christianity.
Plus, PLUS, you’re an English teacher…..you, of all people, should know better.
Hypocrisy on line one for you. Hypocrisy on line one.
@Lynn Green said: “@Mikkke: I bet reason why you confused Cesar with Hugo Chavez is that all Hispanics are alike to you. “Justicia y Dignidad Para Todos!” “Si Se Puede!””
I never confused Hugo and Cesar. Apparently YOU are the one who is confused. And frankly, for Dems who demand a civil debate, your smear about me thinking all Hispanics are alike is a racist statement that does nothing to encourage a civil debate.
As soon as I hear your apology for poisoning the well of discourse on that score I will accept it.
@Mikkke: As soon as you apologize for falsely accusing me of supporting Fidel Castro et al as well as other slights and jibes.
As far as “plagarism” goes, this is not an academic research paper. If you want footnotes, then go to college. The truth of the matter is, King favored special consideration for groups victimized by past discrimination.
As King said 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.” In other words, simply giving a person freedom without providing the available means to utilize that freedom is very hollow. The apostle James has much the same idea in his letter to the Christian church: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2: 15-17)
To simply say that you want those who have been economically disadvantaged to have political rights without paying attention to economic justice, “what good is it?”
That, btw, is what creates Castro and HUGO Chavez’s.
Apparently, Lynn Green, you distort not only Christianity to suit your particular politics, but you also deign to place words in the mouth of Martin Luther King. After listening to you mutilate Dr. King’s aspirations, I figure I’ve had about enough of your pompous attempts at piety and absolute stupidty. In your, and your cohorts, desperate attempt to legitimize reverse discrimination, you completely mischaracterize King’s deeds of addressing the economic plight of black Americans.
Take for example, King’s most notable “affirmative action” (as you want to call it) phase of his civil rights movement, Operation Breadbasket.
The establishment of Operation Breadbasket in Chicago in 1966 stemmed from what Martin Luther King, Jr. called the “second phase” of the civil rights movement, an expansion to northern cities where thousands of African Americans confronted economic exploitation in urban slums. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) believed that through the use of nonviolent direct action tactics such as boycotts, selective buying, and picketing, Operation Breadbasket could increase the number of African American workers hired by companies doing business in the inner city and encourage the growth of black-owned businesses. According to King, “the fundamental premise of Breadbasket is a simple one. Negroes need not patronize a business which denies them jobs, or advancement, or plain courtesy.”
Operation Breadbasket did precisely that… utilize the free market and consumer demand to boycott local businesses to achieve change for the local black community. Using your distorted analysis in parts, King utilized the person’s “granted equality” and “freedom” which gave him the “available means to utilize that freedom” – i.e. consumer demand and financial incentives to cater to the local black communities with both jobs and services.
Hardly “hollow”.
*No where*, I repeat no where, did he advocate government mandates for more-than-equal treatment, which is affirmative action. No where in King’s history would he support a blind examination for firemen for promotions, and then pronounce those results unjust because a black man did not come in with some of the top percentile scores. That is “affirmative action”… more-than-equal treatment based on race.
Instead, King changed the communities by using the driving force of consumer power… not Congressional legislation… to implement his “second phase”.
You’d do well to abandon your attempts to portray yourself as the son of a preacher and pay more attention to the man you purport would embrace government mandates. In the Kings Papers on his second phase nonviolent direct action:
2) Nonviolent resistance does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent, but to win his friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncooperation or boycotts, but he realizes that noncooperation and boycotts are not ends themselves; they are merely means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The end is redemption and reconciliation. The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, while the aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness.
3) This method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is evil we are seeking to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil. Those of us who struggle against racial injustice must come to see that the basic tension is not between races. As I like to say to the people in Montgomery, Alabama: “The tension in this city is not between white people and Negro people. The tension is at bottom between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. And if there is a victory it will be a victory not merely for 50,000 Negroes, but a victory for justice and the forces of light. We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may happen to be unjust.”
4) Nonviolent resistance avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives.
Dr. King was a genuine Christian spirit that never sought to use the government and laws to tear down the white man. He chose to educate him to the value of a black white partnership. Socialist government mandates have nothing to do with Dr. King’s dream then… or now. He – unlike you idiots that use and abuse his words today – was wise enough to know that you cannot legislate charity and respect into the heart of man. So when it came to economic equality, King used the same tools at the disposal of all races … black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native. … the free capitalist market.
Your socialist utopian dream of America is an abomination that not only Dr. King would detest, but would speak out today in protest. He would join such voices as Ward Connerly – and even the comedian, Bill Cosby.
So spare us all your pious arrogance and stupidity. You aren’t worth a drop of any of these men’s saliva by comparison. And I refuse to allow you to degrade them further.
BTW, I note with gratitude that the Republican leaders in the Senate have no plans at present to filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They will have a careful discussion of her qualifications, and I take them at their word for this. I think this is a good strategy. “Going to the mats” as Rush counseled will harm the GOP much more than it will help them.
As far as “plagarism” goes, this is not an academic research paper.
A thief is a thief and a liar is a liar.
You happen to be both.
Un mentiroso y un ladrón.
I love the way you quote the Bible when it’s convenient and ignore it when convenient.
Does Exodus give you instructions saying that it’s OK to steal as long as it’s not a research paper?
You will find nothing, nothing in Dr. King’s writings, his speeches, or his quotes in which he advocates for preferential treatment for blacks or any other minority group.
the basic idea behind affirmative action: groups who have suffered past discrimination need to have laws and policies which make up for such discrimination.
In practice, affirmative action does not make up for such past wrongs. It is about quotas and preferential treatment.
Thomas Sowell has a whole book on this topic examining empirical studies of the actual consequences and results of affirmative action in practice around the world. And none of it looks good.
And when you speak of making up for “past discrimination”, what of the millions of recent immigrants from Asia or South America or Africa who qualify for affirmative action benefits because they are “minorities”?
No one today is “holding the black man down”. Everyone can succeed or fail on the strengths of his own merits and character. Not everyone- black, white, or whatever- is born into equal privilege and a silver spoon; but we all have equal opportunity, like anyone else, irregardless of skin color.
ditto
14 years ago
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me what her sex, race, or religion is. Nor do I care that she has been nominated to replace a liberal Justice. While her experience as a judge may be lengthy, if it is based on a career that has found itself often in conflict with the Constitution and other Supreme Court decisions, then she is not Justice material. What concerns me, and should bother everyone, is that she is without doubt an unabashed activist judge who believes in violating the separation of powers by legislating from the bench. What’s more, she places personal “empathy” in cases before her as more important than upholding the Constitution. There is sound reason why justice must be blind. Her on the record statement regarding that courts are “where policy is made” makes her wholly unqualified for the position.
~
On an unrelated nit=picky matter:
Is there a way we could please not have multiple FA threads covering the exact same issue? Interest in a subject is great, but it also gets monotonous and confusing when there are multiple but very closely related conversations.
Is there a way we could please not have multiple FA threads covering the exact same issue? Interest in a subject is great, but it also gets monotonous and confusing when there are multiple but very closely related conversations.
Sorry Ditto, I actually encourage this seeing as how we have multiple authors with different expertise and sometimes different viewpoints.
Drifting off topic is to be expected on forums. Whither it is because something related that is brought up in the course of the discussion or deliberate to confuse the issue (Especially when you have one group of people bent on changing the subject to avoid the issue.)
I do understand that a thread by one Author could have a much different angle or element of focus than another Author’s. (For example: the issue of torture at Guantanamo Bay and the events of Abu Ghraib are both related, but different cases) All I’m asking is when they are very similar, could Authors please at least consider adding their post as a comment under a pre-existing thread?
I apologize for going off topic. Sometimes I just get annoyed with forum redundancy because it often makes it hard to tell one thread from another or find your way back.
I understand what you’re requesting. The problem is, this is a blog and not a message board forum.
Curt’s started the open thread posts; I wonder if a popular topic might not have comments gathered from several threads and made into its own post? There’s been a number of good comments in the “torture” threads; and each time one gets buried, new commenters on the new thread inevitably retread covered turf and talking point/counter points have to be restated again and again.
Ron
14 years ago
To Wordsmith:
I agree….so what were you guys talking about again?
Ron
Aqua
14 years ago
Since Obama seems to be all about firsts, and empathy, and fairness, why didn’t he nominate a Native American to the Supreme Court.
Anyone? Bueller? Didn’t think so. Funny, lefties have a problem with NA’s. I was talking to the black girl one day not long after the election. She said, “finally we have a black president. Finally after all the things black folks have been through we have our president.” I said, I’m half Indian, where’s my president? She got pissy and told me I should be happy for black people and put race aside. Obama would represent all people of color.
So, I guess you have to be a minority to represent everyone. Guess Sonia will take care of all the brothers and sisters on the Rez.
@Aqua:So the woman tells YOU should put race aside as she continues to celebrate a racial victory? How typical is that!
ditto
14 years ago
Democrats: “Do as we say and not as we do. If you complain about it, our MSN goons will automatically put out a journalistic hit on you.”
Aqua
14 years ago
@ Mike
I’m trying to get my Master’s degree. For some reason, (read: the school wants more of my money) I have to take a bunch of core classes to qualify for the Master’s program. One of those classes is Ethics. I finished it about 8 weeks ago. I’m doing everything online and we have discussion questions every other week. No matter which group we were discussing that week, she would say there was a solution to the racial stife in our country and his name is Obama. I let it slide once and then I pounced.
@Aqua: What the woman really means is every problem like racial strife would be solved if opposition to the leftist political agenda were eliminated. Once a one party state is created the libs will declare racism no longer is a problem as every person who fails to meet their standards for ideological purity will be branded a criminal and denied employment, government benefits or imprisoned.
I can’t imagine a worse example of ethical misconduct than Obama.
@Chihuahua: I guess you know what happpens when you assumme. Try Cesar Chavez. I notice also the usual misreading of Dr. King’s “content of their character” statement. This has been misused by conservatives (who tend to like their champions of social justice convienently dead) to do things like deny the need for affirmative action. Dr. King very much believed in economic justice. He championed the idea of a “living wage” for wage workers. When he was gunned down, he was in Memphis working for that very thing for sanitation workers.
@Lynn Green:
Dr. King would have opposed affirmative action because it gives preference based on skin color.
Dr. King fought for equality and blindness toward skin color.
You say that you notice the usual misreading of Dr. King’s “content of character” statement.
Who is misreading that statement here?
@Lynn Green: Oh come on Lynnn… Admit you are a secret admirer of Hugo Chavez too.
@ Mike
Oh, I’m betting Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro are among his idols as well. Prolly has a Che flag in his mommies basement.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Gracias.
Not that MLK needs defending from the likes of Lynn, it needed to be said and you did it well. I’m also glad you took the Chavez thing – it was the low pinata that needed whacking. I was ready to dismiss the “Senor” thing as an example of pretentiousness or just a case of being too lazy to go look it up when having forgotten someone’s first name. But “Hugo” is probably a very accurate assessment given Lynn’s liberal craving for class warfare.
@Chihuahua: You are a very good example, you and many other conservatives, of what I have been saying here about perspective. You take from Dr. King’s work and twist it to your own purpose. No wonder we need someone like Sotomayor on the Supreme Court Bench.
The truth about Dr. King and affirmative action is that King did support it in concept. I say in concept because affirmative action did not exist in his day. But he supported the basic idea behind affirmative action: groups who have suffered past discrimination need to have laws and policies which make up for such discrimination.
King supported affirmative action type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he 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).
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.” Veterans still benefit from this type of affirmative action.
@Mikkke: I bet reason why you confused Cesar with Hugo Chavez is that all Hispanics are alike to you. “Justicia y Dignidad Para Todos!” “Si Se Puede!”
Why don’t you go back and read up on Ricci v DeStefano and tell us how Sotomayor’s negating the results of a blind examination for promotions is justified since no minorities qualified for advancement when the results were in, Lynn Green.
Then why don’t return to all of us here and explain how those who are qualified need to be shoved aside for those that weren’t qualified merely because of race.
The GI Bill has nothing to do with affirmative action, but is legislation for physical disabilities. That legislation is blind to race or gender… offered equally to all. What you suggest is compensation and perks offered because of the same. In other words, you are a bigot, who continues to live in the past.
As I said, your idea of “christianity” is to tear down others, not raise up the downtrodden. The result is a homogenous society and a low rate of living for the masses, and power and wealth for the ruling class. I suggest you wander down to Venezuela and Cuba and spend your time practicing your peculiar brand of anti-Christianity there. That is if they let you.
BTW: “I have followed this man’s career for some time. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor.”–President George H.W.Bush, 1991 on his Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas
@Lynn Green:
Hey Lynn, Mr. Christian, Mr. Son of a Preacher Man, why is it that you copy/paste/plagiarize/STEAL the words of someone else and present them as your own?
Did you think that no one would notice?
Need a refresher on Exodus 20:15? I’m sure your Daddy would be proud.
The partial quote was the clue.
All it took was a simple Google search to find where you stole it from and to show everyone here, once again, what you’re all about.
Un mentiroso y un ladrón.
From Dr. King’s book Where Do We Go From Here, this is what he actually had to say:
You’ll notice the words EQUIP and COMPETE.
In other words, Dr. King was advocating for blacks to receive the same tools (i.e. educational opportunities) that everyone else receives so that the field of competition is leveled.
The basic tenets of affirmative action are preferences for those of color or some other minority status simply based upon their color or minority status.
Affirmative action does not equate to competing “on a just and equal basis” which is what Dr. King spoke of.
It’s laughable that you accuse me of taking from Dr. King’s work and then twisting it to meet my own purposes while you are the one who is actually guilty.
Projection much?
Partial quoting. Lack of context. Plagiarism. All while cloaking yourself under the cover of Christianity.
Plus, PLUS, you’re an English teacher…..you, of all people, should know better.
Hypocrisy on line one for you. Hypocrisy on line one.
Lynn Green.
Rope.
Some assembly required.
.
@Aye Chihuahua:
Ouch! What a smack down. Lynn should have just stuck to looking at the pictures from that ’65 Playboy.
And plagiarism too! What a mess but Joe Biden will still be your friend.
@Lynn Green said: “@Mikkke: I bet reason why you confused Cesar with Hugo Chavez is that all Hispanics are alike to you. “Justicia y Dignidad Para Todos!” “Si Se Puede!””
I never confused Hugo and Cesar. Apparently YOU are the one who is confused. And frankly, for Dems who demand a civil debate, your smear about me thinking all Hispanics are alike is a racist statement that does nothing to encourage a civil debate.
As soon as I hear your apology for poisoning the well of discourse on that score I will accept it.
I’m waiting.
@Mikkke: As soon as you apologize for falsely accusing me of supporting Fidel Castro et al as well as other slights and jibes.
As far as “plagarism” goes, this is not an academic research paper. If you want footnotes, then go to college. The truth of the matter is, King favored special consideration for groups victimized by past discrimination.
As King said 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.” In other words, simply giving a person freedom without providing the available means to utilize that freedom is very hollow. The apostle James has much the same idea in his letter to the Christian church: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2: 15-17)
To simply say that you want those who have been economically disadvantaged to have political rights without paying attention to economic justice, “what good is it?”
That, btw, is what creates Castro and HUGO Chavez’s.
Apparently, Lynn Green, you distort not only Christianity to suit your particular politics, but you also deign to place words in the mouth of Martin Luther King. After listening to you mutilate Dr. King’s aspirations, I figure I’ve had about enough of your pompous attempts at piety and absolute stupidty. In your, and your cohorts, desperate attempt to legitimize reverse discrimination, you completely mischaracterize King’s deeds of addressing the economic plight of black Americans.
Take for example, King’s most notable “affirmative action” (as you want to call it) phase of his civil rights movement, Operation Breadbasket.
Operation Breadbasket did precisely that… utilize the free market and consumer demand to boycott local businesses to achieve change for the local black community. Using your distorted analysis in parts, King utilized the person’s “granted equality” and “freedom” which gave him the “available means to utilize that freedom” – i.e. consumer demand and financial incentives to cater to the local black communities with both jobs and services.
Hardly “hollow”.
*No where*, I repeat no where, did he advocate government mandates for more-than-equal treatment, which is affirmative action. No where in King’s history would he support a blind examination for firemen for promotions, and then pronounce those results unjust because a black man did not come in with some of the top percentile scores. That is “affirmative action”… more-than-equal treatment based on race.
Instead, King changed the communities by using the driving force of consumer power… not Congressional legislation… to implement his “second phase”.
You’d do well to abandon your attempts to portray yourself as the son of a preacher and pay more attention to the man you purport would embrace government mandates. In the Kings Papers on his second phase nonviolent direct action:
Dr. King was a genuine Christian spirit that never sought to use the government and laws to tear down the white man. He chose to educate him to the value of a black white partnership. Socialist government mandates have nothing to do with Dr. King’s dream then… or now. He – unlike you idiots that use and abuse his words today – was wise enough to know that you cannot legislate charity and respect into the heart of man. So when it came to economic equality, King used the same tools at the disposal of all races … black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Native. … the free capitalist market.
Your socialist utopian dream of America is an abomination that not only Dr. King would detest, but would speak out today in protest. He would join such voices as Ward Connerly – and even the comedian, Bill Cosby.
So spare us all your pious arrogance and stupidity. You aren’t worth a drop of any of these men’s saliva by comparison. And I refuse to allow you to degrade them further.
BTW, I note with gratitude that the Republican leaders in the Senate have no plans at present to filibuster Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They will have a careful discussion of her qualifications, and I take them at their word for this. I think this is a good strategy. “Going to the mats” as Rush counseled will harm the GOP much more than it will help them.
@Lynn Green:
A thief is a thief and a liar is a liar.
You happen to be both.
Un mentiroso y un ladrón.
I love the way you quote the Bible when it’s convenient and ignore it when convenient.
Does Exodus give you instructions saying that it’s OK to steal as long as it’s not a research paper?
You will find nothing, nothing in Dr. King’s writings, his speeches, or his quotes in which he advocates for preferential treatment for blacks or any other minority group.
Equality yes. Preference no.
It simply isn’t there.
@Lynn Green: Please show me where I accused you of supporting Fidel Castro?
Seems your state of confusion is worsening.
No apology then for the poisoning of the discourse here then hunh? Typical.
@Lynn Green #57:
In practice, affirmative action does not make up for such past wrongs. It is about quotas and preferential treatment.
Thomas Sowell has a whole book on this topic examining empirical studies of the actual consequences and results of affirmative action in practice around the world. And none of it looks good.
And when you speak of making up for “past discrimination”, what of the millions of recent immigrants from Asia or South America or Africa who qualify for affirmative action benefits because they are “minorities”?
No one today is “holding the black man down”. Everyone can succeed or fail on the strengths of his own merits and character. Not everyone- black, white, or whatever- is born into equal privilege and a silver spoon; but we all have equal opportunity, like anyone else, irregardless of skin color.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter to me what her sex, race, or religion is. Nor do I care that she has been nominated to replace a liberal Justice. While her experience as a judge may be lengthy, if it is based on a career that has found itself often in conflict with the Constitution and other Supreme Court decisions, then she is not Justice material. What concerns me, and should bother everyone, is that she is without doubt an unabashed activist judge who believes in violating the separation of powers by legislating from the bench. What’s more, she places personal “empathy” in cases before her as more important than upholding the Constitution. There is sound reason why justice must be blind. Her on the record statement regarding that courts are “where policy is made” makes her wholly unqualified for the position.
~
On an unrelated nit=picky matter:
Is there a way we could please not have multiple FA threads covering the exact same issue? Interest in a subject is great, but it also gets monotonous and confusing when there are multiple but very closely related conversations.
Ditto:
Sorry Ditto, I actually encourage this seeing as how we have multiple authors with different expertise and sometimes different viewpoints.
@ditto: I understand your point. Each post has it’s own unique take on an issue but the comment threads do kind of overlap.
Also, you might have noticed that some commenters will jump off on a tangent no matter what the subject matter is.
But that’s life I guess.
Damn it, Mike….quit drifting off topic!
This thread’s about…..
….
…..affirmative action!
Drifting off topic is to be expected on forums. Whither it is because something related that is brought up in the course of the discussion or deliberate to confuse the issue (Especially when you have one group of people bent on changing the subject to avoid the issue.)
I do understand that a thread by one Author could have a much different angle or element of focus than another Author’s. (For example: the issue of torture at Guantanamo Bay and the events of Abu Ghraib are both related, but different cases) All I’m asking is when they are very similar, could Authors please at least consider adding their post as a comment under a pre-existing thread?
I apologize for going off topic. Sometimes I just get annoyed with forum redundancy because it often makes it hard to tell one thread from another or find your way back.
I understand what you’re requesting. The problem is, this is a blog and not a message board forum.
Curt’s started the open thread posts; I wonder if a popular topic might not have comments gathered from several threads and made into its own post? There’s been a number of good comments in the “torture” threads; and each time one gets buried, new commenters on the new thread inevitably retread covered turf and talking point/counter points have to be restated again and again.
To Wordsmith:
I agree….so what were you guys talking about again?
Ron
Since Obama seems to be all about firsts, and empathy, and fairness, why didn’t he nominate a Native American to the Supreme Court.
@ Aqua
Anyone? Bueller? Didn’t think so. Funny, lefties have a problem with NA’s. I was talking to the black girl one day not long after the election. She said, “finally we have a black president. Finally after all the things black folks have been through we have our president.” I said, I’m half Indian, where’s my president? She got pissy and told me I should be happy for black people and put race aside. Obama would represent all people of color.
So, I guess you have to be a minority to represent everyone. Guess Sonia will take care of all the brothers and sisters on the Rez.
@Aqua:So the woman tells YOU should put race aside as she continues to celebrate a racial victory? How typical is that!
Democrats: “Do as we say and not as we do. If you complain about it, our MSN goons will automatically put out a journalistic hit on you.”
@ Mike
I’m trying to get my Master’s degree. For some reason, (read: the school wants more of my money) I have to take a bunch of core classes to qualify for the Master’s program. One of those classes is Ethics. I finished it about 8 weeks ago. I’m doing everything online and we have discussion questions every other week. No matter which group we were discussing that week, she would say there was a solution to the racial stife in our country and his name is Obama. I let it slide once and then I pounced.
@Aqua: What the woman really means is every problem like racial strife would be solved if opposition to the leftist political agenda were eliminated. Once a one party state is created the libs will declare racism no longer is a problem as every person who fails to meet their standards for ideological purity will be branded a criminal and denied employment, government benefits or imprisoned.
I can’t imagine a worse example of ethical misconduct than Obama.