Vyan

Showing posts with label Affirmative Action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Affirmative Action. Show all posts

Friday, July 17

The Myth of Reverse Racism in Affirmative Action

This week Pat Buchanan wrote an Op-ed and made an appearance on Rachel Maddow where he argued vehemently that White People need to Rise UP against the "Evil of Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination."



Contrary to many progressives I don't think Maddow won this fight because nearly everything Pat said was flat-out wrong and she let it go by without correcting him.

First of all there's the claim, or view, that Sotomayor's Scholarship to Princeton wasn't deserved, when the fact is she graduated from a prestigious private Catholic High School Cardinal Spellman, as Valedictorian.

That means she was TOP OF HER CLASS PAT!

But that still doesn't mean that her grades or test scores were the best in the country largely because of different schools have different courses available - and AP (or College-Level) class get the student Bonus points.

For example many students applying to School such as UCLA come in with an Average GPA for 4.1 or 4.2. How do you get better than 4.0 Grades? Bonus Points for AP classes, classes which are rarely available in Inner City Schools.

Pat was largely riffing of of this report.

"I am a product of affirmative action," she said. "I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the south Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale. Not so far off so that I wasn't able to succeed at those institutions."

She said that using "traditional numbers" from test scores, "it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted."


In addition to this issue there was also a language barrier for Sotomayor at Princeton which she struggled with and ultimately overcame rising again to the Top of her Class.

Nobody Gave That to her, she earned it.

What she meant by "Perfect Affirmative Action" baby is that she got a chance and having that chance she made the best of it as many studies have shown many people admitted to prestigious schools under Affirmative Action usually do excell.

A major new study of the records and experiences of tens of thousands of students over 20 years at the some of the nation's top colleges and universities concludes that their affirmative action policies created the backbone of the black middle class and taught white classmates the value of integration.

The Bowen-Bok study limits itself to the practice of race-conscious admissions in elite higher education; that is, to considering the race of applicants to be a critical factor in whether they should be admitted, as important as, say, their region of origin or their extracurricular activities.

The study begins by documenting the problem clearly: blacks who enter elite institutions do so with lower test scores and grades than those of whites. And as they work their way through liberal arts colleges like Yale and Princeton and state schools like the Universities of Michigan and North Carolina, black students receive lower grades and graduate at a lower rate.

But after graduation, the survey found, these students achieve notable successes. They earn advanced degrees at rates identical to those of their white classmates. They are even slightly more likely than whites from the same institutions to obtain professional degrees in law, business and medicine. And they become more active than their white classmates in civic and community activities.


Often coming from weaker and deficient High Schools, it makes sense that some students, even those who are at the relative top of their class - like Sotomayor - may not hit the ground running as some of their better prepared collegues, but in time they are capable of Catching Up and in many cases - Passing Them while providing an even greater impact on their community and the world at large.

From Top of Her Class in High School to Top of Her class at Princeton Sotomayor like the Bowen/Bok Study shows was a "Typical Affirmative Action Baby" went on to Top of her Class at Yale and the Yale Law Review, followed by years as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, the Federal Bench and 17 Years on the Appellate Bench.

She has more Federal Bench Experience than any Supreme Court Nominee in 100 Years and still she isn't GOOD ENOUGH for Pat because simply put - she simply follows the law and doesn't SHOW OFF in her rulings? She hasn't written a flashy Law Review article? Yeah, so?

My problem with Pat's argument is that we shouldn't be comparing her to Harriet Miers who never even had a hearing but to those that DiD. I didn't see any of these requirements come up with either Justice Roberts or Alito. How many scholarly Law Reviews did they write? How much Bench Experience, particularly Roberts - who became Chief Justice Of the Supreme Court after being appointed to the Appellate Bench in 2003 with ZERO, NONE, ZIP experience as a Federal Trial Judge?

Three years experience. THREE!

If Roberts can be Chief Justice after graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard and 3 years on the bench - then Sotomayor can certainly be an Associate Justice with Suma Cum Laude's from Yale & Princeton plus 17 Years of Federal Bench experience.

And as far as being "Biased Against White Men", Sotomayor has far from a record of favoring minorities on discrmination cases. Via Scotusblog.

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions.


Let's do the math, 78/96 means she decided against minority plaintiffs in 81% of her cases on the appeals court. Frankly, I find that flat-out stunning - and as a progressive somewhat worrying.

The other thing is this entire "White Victim" mentality that Buchanan likes to pimp. He refers to the Bakke Case repeatedly which went to the Supreme Court in 1977 - and the court in that decision Banned Quota Systems that would do exactly what Pat is bitching about, unfairly take oppurtunities away from the majority by giving lessor qualified minorities their slot.

Twice denied admission to a California medical school despite better grades and test scores than successful minority applicants, Allan Bakke took his grievance to court and set off a major controversy over affirmative action. Bakke claimed that he was a victim of reverse discrimination, and his case has been considered by many as the most important civil rights decision since the end of segregation-and also one of the most difficult ever heard by the Supreme Court.

While four justices confirmed that Bakke had been the victim of reverse discrimination, four others agreed that the school's affirmative action plan was a logical application of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Justice Lewis Powell sided with both viewpoints, resulting in Bakke's admission to the school and the upholding of affirmative action. The Court's unusual split decision invalidated UC-Davis's quota program for minorities but also struck down a California court's ruling that race could not be used as a factor in considering applicants.


Since this decision Affirmative Action Programs had to be limited and targeted specifically to avoid creating the type of "Reverse Discrimination" impact that is apparently still lighting Buchanan's Hair on Fire - 31 years Later.

It's also worth noting that the President who was largely responsible for implementing Affirmative Action in the first place - was the one that Buchanan worked for - Richard Milhouse Nixon.

1970. The Labor Department, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No.4, authorizing flexible goals and timetables to correct "underutilization" of minorities by federal contractors.

1971. Order No.4 was revised to include women.

1971. President Nixon issued E.O. 11625, directing federal agencies to develop comprehensive plans and specific program goals for a national Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) contracting program.

1973. The Nixon administration issued "Memorandum-Permissible Goals and Timetables in State and Local Government Employment Practices," distinguishing between proper goals and timetables and impermissible quotas.


Another point is that under all the Exec Orders issued by Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Affirmative Action is not something that every company is required to do. Only Federal Agencies or their Contractors. Which bring us to the Ricci case which simply put had nothing to do with Affirmative Action at all - this was a Civil Rights Case under the rules of Disparate Impact.

Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII's protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a "business necessity."

Proof of discriminatory motive is not required, because in these types of cases Congress is concerned with the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. If the employer proves that the requirement being challenged is job related, the plaintiff must then show that other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in efficient workmanship.


Frank Ricci was not Discriminated Against because the City of New Haven decided to double check their test to ensure they weren't vulnerable to a Disparate Impact suit. They were simply doing Due Diligence under the Law to make certain the test met the above criteria. If any of the potential Black Firefighters had sued, they would have had to prove that another alternative test which met the legitimate business needs of the Fire Dept could be crafted that didn't have this kind of clearly biased outcome which is a fairly high hurdle to climb.

How do you know that the results would be different with a different test unless you went through the expensive process of remaking the test and having it retaken by all applicants?

As a result no such suit was filed, and probably wouldn't have been filed.

What held up the promotions of Ricci and the other Firefighters for five years was their own Suit.

In response the Supreme Court has now added yet another hurdle for potential victims of Covert discrimination - they must now have a clear likelihood of prevailing in their action, prior to any case being filed.

As it stands right now under the law the only way that a White/Majority Person might lose a hard-one position to a minority or woman is when Discrimination has been Clearly and Demonstrably Proven in a Court and a Consent Decree has been put into place to Remedy an Ongoing and Current Crime. It's the equivalent of catching a crook (in the Majority) and giving his ill-gotten gains (Jobs/Promotions/Loans/Housing) back to the people that it was stolen from in the minority.

Most people would call that "Justice".

And in all likelihood, when something like this occurs as it has with the Pittsburgh Police, the Stuebenville Police, and the Los Angeles Police in the wake of the Rampart Scandal - we're not likely to hear "Uncle Pat" Railing about how unfair all of it has been to the various victims of this mistreatment.

At least now the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ (the group responsible for negotiating and enforcing these Consent Decrees) won't have people like Brad Schlozman driving minorities and women out of the Department in Droves to be replaced by "Good Americans" who don't seem interested in enforcing the Voting Rights Act. It's not encouraging when the people responsible for protecting the American people from discrimination - Can't Protect Themselves From it.

"Bradley J. Schlozman is systematically attempting to purge all Civil Rights appellate attorneys hired under Democratic administrations," the lawyer wrote, saying that he appeared to be "targeting minority women lawyers" in the section and was replacing them with "white, invariably Christian men." The lawyer also alleged that "Schlozman told one recently hired attorney that it was his intention to drive these attorneys out of the Appellate Section so that he could replace them with 'good Americans.'"


Haven't heard much from Buchanan - the great "anti-discrimination" Crusader - on this one have we?

The Reality is very different from what Buchanan paints, and the danger here is that to many aggrieved whites he makes sense. On the surface, if you've lost your job or don't think you've gotten the promotion you Must have deserved and some woman or minority got it - it's so easy to assume it must be Because of Affirmative Action even though you're employer isn't likely to even have such a program in place unless as I said, they are a federal agency or federal contractor.

Chances are - you didn't deserve the gig. Either that or you boss is kind of a dickhead, in which case it's certainly not the fault of the minorities around you or Affirmative Action.

Vyan

Tuesday, July 14

The Epic Fail of Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions attempts to challenge the Bias of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the basis of her past statements doubting that two "wise judges" will always reach the same decision.



In this section Judge Sotomayor denies the interpretation of her statements as presented by Sessions, and further states that her underlying point was that equally wise and richly experienced people - just might disagree.

First a quick Refresher on exactly who Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III really is.



In 1986 Jeff Sessions failed in his bid to become a Federal Judge himself because he thought the NAACP - the organization formed to fight Lynchings - was a "Anti-American/Communist" association. He also called a fellow White Lawyer who defended Black people a "Traitor to his Race" - and yet he presumes to Judge the bias of Judge Sotomayor?

Like. Wow!

Now a question, as Litigator Mom posted today - who said this?

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown."


Who said this?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor in the statements immediately following her comments where she HOPED a "Wise Latina with the wealth of experience" would come to better conclusion on a discrimination case than (a Wise someone) without that experience. Clearly she was saying she doubted that this was a foregone conclusion. And in the hearings today she underscore this meaning to her original comments.

She did NOT say that she couldn't see a case from the perspective of people whose experience different from her own, rather she truthfully stated the difficulty in seeing and fully appreciating circumstances of others that our outside our own experience and that "neutrality and fairness" is not our natural state, instead it is some we must work hard to achieve and maintain. In fact, I think Sessions seems to embody exactly what he's attacking since he seems completely incapable of reading and understand all of Sotomayor's statement simply because it's a perspective that is so far different than his own experience.

ie: "Boy. Better Watch Yourself. Traitor to your Race. The Klan is not to so bad... except for The Pot!"

In this section Beauregard challenges Sotomayor on the Ricci Case.



Sotomayor correctly points out that she didn't make this decision on her own, she was part of a panel - and that other appelate courts (the 6th Circuit) have come to similar conclusions on similar cases based on the standing precedent on the Disparate Impact standard under Title VI.

Disparate Impact: Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.


That is the Law. It has been the Law for 40 years.

The question in the Ricci case was whether or not the City was Justified in scraping the test and starting over in the likelihood of a potential Disparate Impact Suit - the Supreme Court has now determined and set a New Standard which says that in similar cases the employer would need to determine that they were likely to Lose a Disparate Impact Suit, not simply that one is likely to be filed.

I personally don't have a problem the new standard, but it is unreasonable to blame Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit for following existing precedent, rather than changing the standard in an Activist Way.

Sotomayor followed the Law, The Robert's Court -Changed it.

Yet again, Jeffro Fails.

Vyan

Wednesday, May 27

O'Donnel(s) PWN Buchannan on Racism - Again

I'm watching MSNBC right now and Pat Buchanan is debating Lawrence O'Donnel on the Sotomayor nomination. Buchanan's position, not surprisingly, is the fact that she must have been an "Affirmative Action Pick" because the top four persons up for consideration were all women.



At one point Nora O'Donnell challenges Pat...

What if there weren't any White Males as qualified as these women?


And Lawrences counters with

What if there were only White Males in the Top Four, would That have been the result only of discrimination? You're like a dead fish on this issue, just flopping around aimlessly..


The irony here is that earlier this week, Buchanan had made exactly that claim in regards to the New Haven Firefighter Case, claiming that the fact that all of those that passed being white (and a few hispanic) was "natural" and to challenge the complete exclusions of all black applicants was "Reverse Racism".

The entire view that if the winners of a contest aren't white/males - It has to be Racist Affirmative Action, but if it winners are nothing but white/males - It has to be Merit! - is at the heart of Buchanan's Supremacist Conceit.

The core of the New Haven case was the fact that the City threw out the results of a test to avoid a possible Disparate Impact lawsuit. Now the concept of disparate impact is the idea that some tests which may appear racially neutral may in fact be hiding or disguising some hidden bias and the only way to undercover it is to watch and determine if the results create a completely unfair and illogical result.

Rather than go forward, the City of New Haven went back and did the test again - that's all. It doesn't argue that those who didn't pass the test should be granted "extra points" or given a pass simply because they were black, all it required was a racial neutral Do Over.

At the heart of the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc is the assertion that there was no Supreme Court or circuit law to guide this district court, or future district courts faced with similar claims. I disagree. The district court correctly observed that this case was unusual. Nonetheless, the district court also recognized that there was controlling authority in our decisions--among them, Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999) and Bushey v. N.Y. State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220 (2d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S. Ct. 803, 83 L. Ed. 2d 795 (1985). These cases clearly establish for the circuit that a public employer, faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability under Title VII, does not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause by taking facially neutral, albeit race-conscious, actions to avoid such liability.


This was previously discussed on Hardball with Pat.



Buchannan whines about the Bakke case, well Bakke WON THAT CASE and as a result all quota systems in Affirmative Action have been banned as unconstitutional since 1978! The only way to implement any kind of "Quota System" is as the result of a Guilty Finding in a Discrimination Suit or a Concent Decree as punishment for Current - no past or historical - CURRENT acts of discrimination.

In other words you have to give back the jobs and promotions that were illegally refused or taken. This would also apply in the case of the New Haven Firefighters if it was found that they were illegitamately denied their rightful promotions. Or vice versa if the opposite were the case.

Quotas have been banned for 31 Years So what's his problem now?

Sotomayor's finding, along with the other judges in that case, was that existing case law in the 2nd District was controlling and didn't allow them to reinstate the original results.

He clearly believes that a minority person couldn't have possibly been able to compete and win - without some special help, while simultaneously ignore the "special help" that white males give each other on a regular basis which occurs largely because of their own cultural socialization.

The video isn't up yet.. but here's an old conversation with Pat and Rachel on the Geraldine Ferraro flap, which was very similar in the presumption that a Black Men get special "priviledge" in this nation.



So here's the question, why is it all the white guys lose - it's gotta be an unfair test, but if all the black guys lose, it's "Reverse Racism" to complain about it and even question the fairness of the test?


Vyan

Friday, April 25

The Toughness Question

Much of DKos and other sites have gone full-on Obama as the level of rancor has reached a fever pitch. With the strike of pro-Clinton kossacks we really aren't hearing much from the other side of the argument and that just might be something we need to hear, and Obama needs to hear.

There actually are some reasons besides sexism and racism that people have been bitterly clinging to their support of Hillary Clinton, and I think it's simply the toughness question.

Does Barack Obama have what it takes to keep fighting and fighting and fighting...?

It doesn't really matter to Hillary supporters that she has continued to shift goal-posts, gone back on previous pledges, uses her fuzzy-math to claim the lead, has helped feed the fake outrage storm over his so-called elitist anti-american-secret-muslim leanings, and has fed the fires of White Wright-Panic and Affirmative Action resentment.

And there's only one reason why.

None of the under-handed dirty tricks and double-talk matters, because Hillary is showing us all something that we haven't seen from Nancy (Impeachment-is-off-the-table) Pelosi and Harry (We-just-can't-make-the-Republicans-Filibuster-the-War-Budget-Again!) Reid.

One word.

Backbone!

I've been a long-time Bill Clinton supporter and still feel he may have been probably the best President of the 20 Century after FDR. I think he did a massively important thing when he stood up to the Republican Congress to prevent them from gutting our budget with tax cuts, and twice shutdown the government.

They thought he would cave - like a typical Democrat - but he didn't.

Whether we Obama supporters like it or not, during this election Hillary Clinton has proven to be the Freaking Energizer Bunny of Politics.

In a way, seeing this side of any democrat is refreshing.

This carefully constructed image of invulnerability - laughing hysterically whenever she's asked a tough question, rather than grimacing and barking out a be-grudging answer or ducking the issue - is working for her precisely because it feeds into a deep seated need for Democrats to feel that someone is willing to be a full-on pit fighter for them.

We've had too many promises broken.

We've seen too many would be champions of the rule of law, such as John Conyers, eventually prove to be ineffective and deflatable. Henry Waxman and Pat Leahy had promised to dog the crimes of the Bush Administration to the ends of the earth, yet one memo from Fred Fielding claiming executive priviledge and their various investigations have crashed into a solid brick wall.

Not zesty.

We won the Congressional majority, but we still haven't stopped the war - or defunded it, in fact we have more soldiers in harms way today than we did when Pelosi and Reid were sworn in.

But Hillary? She keeps Going and Going and Going...

But she's not going to win. She simply doesn't have the numbers and she keeps bleeding supers.

And even if she does win in some magically way, what exactly are we getting?

Yes, it's clear we need Democrats who are willing to take it to the mat and then some, but the other question that needs to be asked and answered is - how much of our integrity, values and common-sense our we willing to give up in the process?

Winning isn't everything if in the process of winning you have to give up what it is your actually fighting for such as fairness, justice, integrity and truth. Do Democrats have to start operating "on the dark side" (as Dick Cheney has put it), and use any available excuse simply to get what they want?

Isn't that kind of "ends justify the means" thinking that has led the Bush Administration completely off the moral precipice with their ridiculous and endless justifications for Torture, Domestic Spying and Unprovoked War?

Here's another point that both Obamans and Clintonistas need to consider. It may be true that Obama has far less Washington experience than Clinton, but we need to consider what she's done with that experience and wonder just when have we ever seen this endless fighting spirit of Clinton's before?

As posted on Democratic Underground: When has Hillary Clinton really fought for anything except herself?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of John Ashcroft?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales?

Where was her "fight" during the failed Senate confirmation of John Bolton?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of corrupt corporatist Priscilla Owen, clearing the way for her confirmation to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of unqualified fascist Janice Rogers Brown, clearing the way for her confirmation to the DC Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of religious zealot and homophobe William H. Pryor, clearing the way for his confirmation to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR cloture on the nomination of John Roberts, clearing the way for his confirmation as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court?

Where was her "fight" during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito?

Where was her "fight" when she skipped the Senate debate and confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey?

Where was her "fight" against the Military Commissions Act?

Where was her "fight" during this summer's vote on the Iraq War Supplemental?

Where was her "fight" during the vote to extend FISA?

Where was her "fight" during the Walter Reid scandal?

Where was her "fight" during the debate on Telecom Immunity?

Where was her "fight" when she SKIPPED the Senate vote to strip TelCo immunity from the FISA bill?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of Dick Cheney?

Where was her "fight" on the possible impeachment of George Bush?

Where was her "fight" against the myriad scandals surrounding the current administration?

Where was her "fight" when she campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont?

Where was her "fight" when she proposed legislation to ban flag burning?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the renewal USAPATRIOT act?

Where was her "fight" when she voted AGAINST an amendment to prevent the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Iraq War Resolution?

Where was her "fight" when she voted FOR the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton only seems to be "a fighter" when she's fighting to feed her own naked ambition. Is that really what we want in a president?

It may be fair to say that we have seen Hillary the head-strong my-way-or-the highway pugilist at least once before: During her ill-fated Universal Health Care project.

What Hillary supposed learned, what she supposed discovered from that experience was how to accommodate, negotiate and reach across the isle. This is why she can now sit down with Richard Mellon Scaife and not involuntarily flinch from the squick factor.

There's another name for this tendency: Blind Bullheaded Ambition.

That kind of ambition and bullheadedness is likely why she voted for the Iraq War (showing she wasn't the typical squishy democrat on defense), and continues to defend that vote to this vary day.

Toughness is important, but so is Judgment.

On a variety of issues they break even. One might argue that Hillary's heath care plan has advantages over Barack's, and that his support of Nuclear Power is troubling considering the lack of a plan for long-term waste disposal.

But Barack has certainly shown better judgment when it comes to numerous issues - particularly Iraq, ethics reform and tracking down lose nukes - while Clinton has become even more Hawkish than the biggest neo-cons with her proposal for a nuclear umbrella over the middle east.

Clinton has clearly shown that she cares more about saying what people want to hear, than saying what they need to hear. This is a trait she shares with George W. Bush.

It's also clear she would be a far better President than George W. Bush could even dream of, but is that good enough? If we can do better, shouldn't we?

We democrats and the nation should realize that we need more than an unrestrained angry rampaging bull in the china shop of our foreign policy, domestic security and financial well-being.

We need a grown-up.

We need someone who can do more than rattle sabers and exploit fear to make cheap political points, but actually knows how to work with, deal with and find common ground with people whom they might otherwise have deep seated differences with. People like, ironically enough, Reverend Wright. People like William Ayers. Barack has said that he'd be willing to sit down and negotiate with those people that we don't like, such as Ahmadenijad as well as those that we do like - that he can bring disparate people together to meet common goals, rather than simply try to crush them, or "obliterate them".

We can do better, we have to.

Shunning and disavowing people we disagree with is not how you bring people together and solve problems, you have to engage them and challenge them - not simply walk away and expect them to come crawling apologetically to your feet.

Barack needs to make the argument that his wide and varied aquiantences are not a detriment, but an asset. He needs to rise to Clinton and the medias ridiculous arguments, all of them, and beat them back to where they belong - in the garbage. And do it with a smile.

Barack has the judgment, he has the rabid support of the people, but what he also needs to show is that he can go toe-to-toe with one of the toughest democratic politicians and political machines of a generation and not just barely survive it, but learn from it.

He needs to use this experience to Toughen Up, but do so without losing his integrity or his argument that he represents a shift away from the "old-time politix".

This is truly a clash of generations, the tried and true vs the new and dynamic. He needs to make that argument, and he needs his surrogates and supporters to continue to support this meme - it's time to put away the dirty tricks, the fear-mongering, the politics of division of the past and move forward with clean - but well worn and hard-working and fully engaged - hands.

Vyan

Tuesday, March 18

Breaking the Racial Stalemate

Barack said it today - he said what needed to be said, and what America needed to hear.

Separating himself from the hurtful comments of his former pastor - yet continuing friend - Jeremiah Wright without throwing away the man, without throwing away the community, without disowning his own family, without disowning America, Barack Obama managed to change the tone and refocus this debate in the direction that it needs to go.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years.

...

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

We need to go forward together - not seperately.

Many can and will say things that disturb and frighten us, but we must come to understand that when we seek to split ourselves off from those people - rather than their comments - we will continue to Divide ourselves from each other.

Divided we Fall, Together we Stand.


Black people do have legitimate reasons for resentment.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future.

With this statement he has finally shown that he does understand what it is to be Black In America - an issue with which I had had some significant doubt that he was fully commited to. I doubt no more.

However he went one step further and showed that he also understands that White people have legitimate reasons for resentment too.

Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.

Life is not a Zero-Sum game, where every positive thing that happens to one person must be snatched from the mouth of someone else. Yet we have been taught to address the things in our life purely in competitive these terms, in terms of Winners and Losers.

We rarely speak of it, but much of America is based on the idea that If you Play the Game, you will Succeed and be Rewarded, with riches, opportunity, leisure and prosperity.

We're all playing a game, a game in which we already know is at least partially rigged in the favor of those who already have every advantage.

We all feel resentment that somehow, somewhere - we've been robbed. Somebody should have called a foul. Where's the flag on the play? The Refs are all on the take.

It has been the lot of many politicians and political commentators to manipulate this resentment for their own gains.

Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Talking heads, screaming at each other - pointing the finger of Race Baiter. From Rutgers to Duke, it goes on and on. Playing the "Race Card", ignoring the Legacy of Discrimination. We Recriminate and Rebuke, never Solve and Resolve.

It's past time we stopped bickering, and started doing.

Yes, we are in a competition. Yes, we are in a game - but we need to learn that ultimately - We're All On the Same Team.

The Human Team.

Yes, we have indeed made great strides forward over the last 50 years, but we have not arrived at the Promised Land Yet. Not quite...yet.

We have to remember that sometimes being at 5 and Goal, is far more difficult than being on the 90 yards down field. We can't afford to give up now, not when we're so close.

White people can not walk away from this and pretend as many have, that their hands are clean and nothing should be asked of them.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds.

Black people must do more than just point fingers, they must also take some responsibility of their own, and continue to nurture hope rather than give in to cynicism and despair.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

We can not afford to disown each other, and we have spent far too long staring at each other across and angry divide of apathy and hopelessness, screaming our long list of deep grievances in impotent righteous rage, we must learn to listen to each others real concerns and issues not with a tin-ear, not with a "my pain is sooo much bigger than your pain", but instead we must embrace it all, as OUR COMMON PAIN. Our Common Suffering. Our Common Fears.

And Our Common Hope.

Hope for a safer America. Hope for a more tolerant and generous America.

Hope for a Better America.

It's well past time we started making that America, together.

Vyan


Obama Speach on Wright and Race


Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

"A More Perfect Union"

Constitution Center

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution – a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part – through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters….And in that single note – hope! – I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories – of survival, and freedom, and hope – became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about…memories that all people might study and cherish – and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments – meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families – a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country – a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen – is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope – the audacity to hope – for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.


Thursday, March 13

Playing the Affirmative Action Card - and Still Losing

We've all heard or read the comments by now. The comments which have quite literally taken the Hillary Campaign far over the edge of common sense.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept

We all realize this is just more of the Clinton Kitchen Sink Scorched Earth Policy of doing everything she can to destroy the Democratic Party if she can't be the Nominee.

But....

It should be noted that Geraldine Ferraro also said that she herself wouldn't have been the 1984 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee if she had not been a woman, despite her being fully qualified for the job, and we all know what this is code for.

She is saying that Barack Hussein Obama is the "Affirmative Action" Candidate.

The funny thing about it is - (as I say this in all seriousness as a black man myself) - she may actually have a point, but not in the way she apparently believes.

First off, I want to remind anyone who is just reading my comments in this regard that not that long ago I pointed out how I felt that Barack Obama was not the "Black" Candidate.

What I pointed out then, and still maintain, is that being a Black American has to do with far more than just your skintone. It's about having experience with and a connection to Black Culture, a culture of suffering and struggle of striving against insurmountable odds (Jesse Owens, The Tuskeegee Airmen, Jackie Robinson, Mohammad Ali, Benjamin Carver, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jimi Hendrix, Prince, Sidney Poitier, Tiger Woods) with incredible talent and perserverance to not only Win - but to set a completely new standard.

Being Black (as opposed to African) is a matter of who you are in response to Americas 400 year long mistreatment of us, not what you look like.

It can be very difficult to live up to these achievements. Sometimes Black Folk spend a lot of their energy actually trying to live them down because the burden can be sometimes too much to bare. Also there are many white people, from the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Eric Burden and the Animals, Eric Clapton, Stevie Ray Vaughn and many thousands of others who have felt and shown a clear link to black culture through black music - so you don't even have to have black skin to deeply feel what I'm describing here.

However for Barack, as a bi-racial son of an immigrant who grew up in Hawii - I really didn't really see how much his background connected him to any of that (for one thing - he really really can't dance), but I never precluded the possibility that like Clapton and Vaughn - he could still hear the music.

However with Ferraro's recent attacks - I think Barack has clearly had more than his fair share of the "Black Experience".

My main problem with her comments isn't with the first portion, because her implication that some for of Affirmative Action has benefitted Barack in my opinion isn't a bad thing.

Just a reminder: There's NOTHING WRONG WITH AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The point of AA is - doing something positive to help improve a problematic situation. Those who have opposed it, particularly during the 90's have all argued from a perspective of jealousy, that you can't possibly do something positive for one person or group without also doing something negative to someone else.

Most of those argueing against AA ignored the 1978 Bakke Decision which banned all forms of "Quota Systems" which might produce the type of negative reaction that so many decried as an unacceptable price to pay for 400 years of abuse, disenfranchisement, broken promises and oppression.

In the admissions system devised by U.C Davis, minority studies received a "Plus" rating in order to help the school achieve diversity goals. This isn't to say they were less qualified, only that they received bonus points for being members of a minority group. The SCOTUS deemed this a Quota System and struck it down.

We (the Court) have never approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations.

So that accusation that six years later in 1984 that Ferraro herself was receiving "Plus Points" for being a woman is itself rather problematic that very thing had been ruled Unconstitutional.

Since Bakke federal attempts at Affirmative Action have been increasing limited in making adjustments to admissions standards, but have instead had to look at widening the recruitment pool through outreach. Instead of simply looking in your own backyard for qualified candidates - AA programs administered by the EEOC and OFCCP (both of which appear to now be defunct under Bush) have had attempted to help make more minority applicants better qualified to compete.

The Bottom Line is: Real Affirmative Action means - making everyone more competitive, not giving special breaks to those who don't need it.

Has Barack Obama been "Lucky?"

Hell, Yes he has, but he's also eminently qualified just as Ferraro herself claims she was back in 1984.

So where does that leave us? With this little gem.

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

No, people are not attacking you because you're white - Geraldine. They're attacking you because the assertion is patently false. Was Jesse Jackson "Lucky" when he ran against you in 1984 - yet unlike Barack, never achieved front runner status? Was Al Sharpton Lucky? How about Alan Keyes whom Barack defeated in order to enter the Senate, something you failed at three times?

Barack was only the third Black person to enter the U.S. Senate - EVER. I have two women Senators representing my state (California) right this second. Not to mention Olympia Snowe, Claire McCaskil, Kay Bailey Hutchinsen, etc...

And on this "women have suffered more than black men thing..." Although it's fair to say that the 15th Amendment gave Blacks the right to vote long before Women achieved it - the fact is that the right wasn't protected until 1968 when the Voting Rights Act was passed tends to mitigate the "advantage" that Blacks supposedly enjoyed.

One game we shouldn't be playing is "Whose victimhood is greater" - because there are no winners on that playing field. None.

The idea of helping those who clearly need it to help themselves is a core Democratic Principle. It's a sad day when the unbridled ambition and unchecked ego of one candidate has grown so far out of proportion that they would actually throw such a core principle not only under the bus, but to stop and back-up over it several times is somewhat shocking, but also in some ways sobering and healthy.

Repubs have long accused Dems and Liberals of being a hateful, spiteful, vindictive angry mob. We can now see that for Hillary and her supporters - that appears to be true.

But not all of us are with Hillary.

Not all of us think the world is "Zero Sum", we don't all agree with Terry McCauliff that we all need is to "Toughen Up", that the only way to win is to go lower than your opponent would ever expect.

Sometimes you can actually win with the better ideas, and simply focus on those ideas while pointing out that your opponent is throwing mud only because that's the only idea they have.

If the way that Hillary has run this compaign is any reflection on how she would run the WhiteHouse, she absolutely HAS. TO. LOSE. I wouldn't even accept her as Veep. Not a chance.

This can not be the way we conduct foreign policy. This can not be the way we deal with Congress. This can not be the way that America addresses it's own people.

We have to stand firm, and fight The Good Fight. Fairly. Honestly. Against insurmoutable odds with talent and fortitude.

We have to do what Black and many other oppressed People have been doing for Centuries.

WIN!

Lastly does Barack Obama's experience as "Black" man give him a unique perspective into how he would relate to America, and how he would relate to much of the rest of the world - particularly Africa?

I damn sure hope it does, considering what piss-poor job every other President has done with "Black Issues" over the last 40 years. Yeah, his being Black is a "Plus" in my column. I ain't to proud to say it.

Yeah, He's Black and I'm Proud.

It's past time we all openly embraced our inner (and outer) blackness.

Vyan

Thursday, November 15

Newsweek Hires Kos: Hannity and Colmes Lose Mind - Again

Newsweek has offered a job to Markos and conservatives can't stand the idea even though Newsweek already has conservative writers, and they plan to hire a conservative that will "make liberals heads explode."

Nothing, no amount of accomodation, will ever satisfy these greedy self-entitled bastards. I swear they won't be happy until they pry the last shred of liberty and truth from our cold, dead fingers.

Colmes does his usual wan job of playing desperate defense,and also as usual noone is listening when he points out - like - the facts.

Poor little Alan. All dressed up for a fair fight only to be rabbit punched into oblivion once more. He's like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, and falling on his back as Lucy yanks it back out of the way each and every time.

Silly Alan, Winning an Argument on Fox is for Conservatives.

Nothing he says stops Hannity and the wingers as they complain about Markos age old comments about not caring about merceneries who were killed in Fallujah. Let us recall that those were members of Blackwater, the mercenary company that the FBI just said was responsible for the unjustified and illegal death of 14 Iraqies, the mercenary company that has just been massively embarrised in Congress as the State Dept. Inspector General was forced to do a complete about face on whether his brother was a member of the Blackwater board.

Conflict of Interest much? I think so.

The facts have shown that Blackwater's vicious bully tactics have repeatedly incited violence in Iraq (far more than any movies by Mark Cuban) and have done our mission in the region far more harm than good. But nevermind that, Kos called them a bad word once, and even though he apologized let's just all pile on him because that way is so much more fun, ok? It's not that they're a bunch of murdering thugs, Markos - who actually is one of "The Troops" unlike everyone that is criticizing his comments - is the problem.

Yeah, ok, sure...

These guys are just so massively pathetic. Even though their endlessly noted canard that "Liberals outnumber Conservatives" in U.S. media has been repeatedly debunked over and over and over again, they still persist in attempting to implement their own version of Affirmative Action for Conservatives.

For over a decade conservatives have said that quotas, goals and parity for Blacks, Latinos and other minorities - even when they have been illegally excluded and persecuted - is somehow "reverse racism", but for Conservatives in the media it's a must. You can't ever have lone liberal gun-man speak his mind openly, anywhere.

That wouldn't be Fairly Unbalanced like Fox News would it?

But I wonder does this mean that every conservative hired for "balance" is nothing more than a token quota baby who should be ashamed they couldn't the job honestly with like - talent? I think possibly. And how 'bout this, maybe, just maybe, Newsweek is hiring Kos because they a) Like his writing and b) Think people might want to READ his writing? Y'know - letting the "Free Markets" rule and all that stuff?

This is just typical isn't it? What a bunch of punk-ass bullies whining to the Principal and painting themselves as the "poor hapless victim" every time they get caught sucker punching the nerdy kids who actually study after class.

What truly terrifies them with Markos hiring is that it's with a Mainstream Paper as influential as Newsweek. Kos blathering away on his little left-wing blog is one thing, but having his views show up on the shelves of Safeway where Sam and Sally Six-pack can read them while in line for over-the-counter diet pills for Puffy little Muffy and fresh Ritalin refills for Aggro Biffy is an entirely different matter. Following in the steps of Glenn Greenwald and Wonkette (Anna Marie Cox), these scruffy foul-mouthed little bloggers are upsetting the stuffy media status quo.

This. Simply. Will. Not. DO!

There's a tea-party taking place all over the Blogosphere that's moving into the Mainstream and people like Hannity and Colmes aren't invited. They can't even sneak in through the servants entrance. That makes them scared, and after they get scared they get mean.

So they lash out as they slowly sink further and further into irrelevance and obsolescence, and like Mark Cuban I think the best thing we can do - is laugh at them.

It's the very least they deserve, and quite possibly the most...

Vyan

Tuesday, August 7

Juan Williams Defends YearlyKos on Faux - and Wins?

Watch video


Last night on the O'Lielly Factor we had Episode #527.3 in the never ending saga of how the "Far Left Hate-Monger Blogosphere Ultra-Liberals" are leading the Democrat (sic) Party and it's Candidates around by the nose at Yearlykos.

It's something we've seen a thousand times, with the sneering moderator (Michelle Malkin), the firey True Conservative with the wind at their back (Rick Moran) and the weak, mealy mouthed Faux-macrat (Juan Williams) who is preordained to lose every significant point. The script is set and everybody plays their part in laying out their little psycho-drama for the O'Reilly blue-hairs.

But this time something different happened. Williams actually Won.

As Al Franken so wonderfully described in his book "Lies and Lying Liars" watching Faux Noise is a lot like going to a Harlem Globe-Trotters game.

The Conservatives are always the "Home Team" - who always win - while the (usually fake) Democrats high-lighted on Fox are always the Washington Generals who just can't seem to get their act together, fumbling and stumbling while the Trotters dunk, whirl and spin around, through and over them as if they were mired in molasses. Either that or they're weak-kneed surrender monkeys who finally concede whatever fantasitigorimical point the Cons are trying to make.

But Not. This. Time.

It started out normal enough as Malkin tossed the first slow-pitch at Moran (who she also happened to reveal is the comment moderator on her site as well as the head of the Pajamas Media video crew who were "covering" the event).

Malkin: Would you agree that Edwards and Hillary were the "Prom King and Queen" of the Nutroots Convention?

Yeah, that's right, she oh-so-uncleverly slipped in "Nutroots", I listened to it multiple times just to be sure.

Yuk yuk, that Malkin sure is a wit.

A half-wit, but a wit.

Moran himself, did a great job of tripping over himself with his response.

Well, Hillary would certainly like to think so. Certainly Edwards was the most popular - um, uh, - candidate there in terms of the applause meter is concerned.

Ok, Edwards most popular - got it. Except that Moran decided to argue with himself with his next sentence.

I thought Denise Kucinich, the other Far-Left Democrat (as compared to who?) who was there, probably was more popular than Hillary - that was my impression anyway.

Uh, what? Let me get this straight, Hillary thinks she's popular but really isn't compared to Edwards - but then Kucinich is more popular than she is, and I suppose Edwards is, or something.

I guess they haven't completely worked out the Hillary is a Far-Lefty and therefore the Far-Left must love her, except for all the other people they like better - like Obama, Edwards and even Gore!

According to the results of this Dkos Poll on who won the Yearlykos Presidential Debate, currently (after 600 votes) Edwards wins it handily with 37%, Barack is in second with 27%, Hillary is in third with 17% and Kucinich is in a distant fourth with 5%.

It's amazing to me that this guy actually attended Yearlykos and didn't event notice that we don't really like the Hillary very much. Simply stunning.

Just look at some of these diaries.

Now we know that this Moran character isn't exactly the sharpest fork in the drawer if he hasn't noticed the enormous ambivalence for Hillary among the Netroots over her Iraq War Vote. I should know, I've tried to defend her vote here on Kos and it wasn't pretty.

Then you had Malkin's next leading question.

Malkin: Did you see a lot of "9-11 Truth" types, y'know the conspiracy theorists?

Moran: No, no. I've made a point of asking a lot of people - a lot of the bloggers there - these are not really - I wouldn't say radical leftists in the sense that they - uh - they're conspiracy mongerers and so forth. These are the mainstream netroots. Which is still far-left, but not way out there like the truthers,

Malkin: Mmm

Yeah, well that might be because presenting conspiracy theories on Kos is a bannable offense. But let's not belabor - y'know - The FAQ. Nice, sleuthy detective work on your part there - Moran.

They of course, as I expected, had to mention the Sergaent Aguina kerfuffle and announce that the Moran will have an exclusive interview with him on The Factor tomorrow. Oh joy.

Then she, finally, turned to Juan.

Malkin: I take it you don't think it was a mistake for these Presidential Candidates to go to this convention?

Williams: Not at all, gosh, in fact it's part of the media landscape right now. It's part of American politics, what goes on, on the blogosphere. "Michellemalkin.com". In fact, what you see there is often cutting edge in terms of the debate that helps shape the policies and determines who's going to be the winning candidate on both Republican and Democratic tickets this year.

So far so good - in fact, maybe a little too good as Malkin narrowed in.

Malkin: "Cutting edge" is that your euphemism for "Radical and "Hate-Mongering", because in fact if you are a regular consumer of the Kos website you know that that's exactly the stuff that "they traffic in" there?

Oh, brother - here it comes.

Williams: I don't agree. I think that sometimes there are people that are "Hateful", there's an occasional wacko individual but that doesn't necessarily speak to the nature of the entire Dailykos or Yearlykos meeting. I think that they've, to the contrary, I think you see some very serious arguments put forward there. Things that people are forced to respond to, which is why you see serious people - like those who are running for President of the United States - would think that it was worth their time to show up.

Not too bad. Then Malkin got "serious".

Malkin: You think that Markos Moo-litz-os, the founder is a "serious" person. Someone who we've talked about many times (But never had cojones to actually have as a guest!) - the kind of comments that he's made about civilian contractors that were murdered (he apologized for that) and kind of comment that he made about Dick Durbin, where for example, after Dick Durbin apologized or non-apologized, about his comments about the military in Guantanamo Bay, agreed with another fellow liberal blogger that Durbin should quote "F- Himself" - is that "serious" conversation - "serious" policy debate, Juan?

That's when William's calmly turned around, called his shot like the Bambino of old and hit it out of the park.

Williams: Michelle you could say the same thing - about the Vice President on the Floor of the U.S. Senate talking to Pat Leahy! I mean, people are going to sometimes say things that are wrong-headed and profane..

If you heard some loud whopping and hollering at about 1am P.S.T. in Southern California - that was me an my wife sitting BOLT UPRIGHT in bed when we heard that one.

Hello!!

But Malkin wasn't satisfied.

Malkin: He never apologized for that comment, he never retracted it.

Williams: I don't know that Dick Cheney ever apologized either (He didn't), but gosh, let's go to the "parallel universe" to this left-wing blogosphere, let's talk about Right-Wing Radio (DING!) Where you can hear people like Michael Savage say Secretary of State Rice is "an Affirmative Action Hire"...

Malkin ignored his point, arguing that this was "Moral Equivalency", and that there their were right-wing blogs that do not "Traffic" in this sort of thing, in the process ignoring that Williams didn't bring up right-wing blogs - cuz, generally speaking they suck - he brought up Right-Wing Radio and fact that Dick Cheney made the exact same remark on the Floor of the U.S. Senate when Leahy was just being Nice to him - Juan was absolutely on the mark.

But she doesn't try to defend Cheney - cuz she can't - and she doesn't try to defend Savage - because no one can.And let's not even get into Neal Boortz and Dennis Prager and Laura Ingraham... ooh boy.

This following exchange really got me... as Mr. Moran attempted to bolster Michelle's deft duck, deflect and cover maneuver.

Moran: When you're talking about Dailykos and Yearlykos you're talking about the Big Lefty Bloggers (Awww, I thought we weren't as bad the conspiracy nuts just 2 minutes ago? My how times change) and yes, they do in fact traffic in this kind of (searches for the word) - Hate-mongering (Wow, what a surprise!) I guess would be the best way... and y'know the reason it's hate-mongering Juan, is because the left has lowered the bar on what is Hate Speech

If you can, watch the split screen reaction on Juan's face as his eyes widen when Moran says this -- it's just priceless.

Moran: On kos they talk about the Israelis. The Jewish people in general, gassing Joe Lieberman you can't say that kind of stuff and expect to be taken seriously in politics.

Let's again point out that the Moran is the moderator on Malkin's website and it should be noted that in Malkin's illustrious career as a "voice of moderation" she has ...

  • Repeatedly claimed she doesn't believe in "Hate Crimes" because they "punish thought" (unless I guess those thoughts are about Joe Lieberman?)
  • Defended Don Imus when she called the flap over his "Nappy Headed Hos" comment an attempt to "Blame Whitey"
  • Compared Latinos protesting a House bill aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration to "white supremacists and neo-Nazis." (But they didn't commit a Hate crime or nothin')
  • Blasted coverage of the Haditha killings by U.S. Troops in the Media claiming that they created "puddles of drool in the offices of the L.A. Times and The New York Times."
  • Stated that the proper reaction to suicides occurring at Guantanamo - despite reports that many of those held there are innocent of any terrorist activity - should be "Boo-freakin-hoo.'"

This person has standing to criticize Markos for dropping the F-Bomb? And dropping it on a Democrat no less, I'm surprised she didn't jump up and cheer in a ecstatic fit of shadenfreude.

Anyway, Williams summed it up perfectly.

Williams: I think if you're listening to Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, I mean these guys - these guys use outrageous language and I think what you're seeing there is that people are trying to match it in terms of intensity on the left, given the intensity and the success that we've seen on the right for that kind of language and that kind of rhetoric. I don't think there's any question where that language and rhetoric started - it started on the Right.

No Shit.

Next time some Right-Wing says we're "mean and foul-mouthed" let just say politely - "And you can thank Mr. Cheney and Mr. Savage for setting the standards for political discourse in this country at the absolute Rock Bottom!"

And just for the record Michelle, let me quote one of my favorite comments in this entire O'Reilly/Kos Fued after Dennis Miller came on as BillO's fluffer to revive him after Dodd KO'd him last week.

Fuck Dennis Miller in the ear (8+ / 0-)

Fuck Bill O'Reilly in the other ear

Fuck Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuck

Daily Kos

Fuck

by calipygian on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:28:39 AM PDT

Yeah, I think it's safe to say that your guys little "Ms Manner's spiel" is really making us re-think our approach. Er, not so much. Because for starers - we made you look!

(In Nelson Voice) "HA hah"

Oh, and just to clear out your palate after the Malkin Dumpster Dive, he's part of Gen Clark's Keynote Speech.

Vyan