Just a bunch of dummies without a clue. History’s coming, and they still want to sit in the back of the bus.
» Breaking News
Psycho Threatens Life Of Melanie Brown And Family
Salma Hayek Does ?30 Rock?
Authors Say America Drenched In Porn
Angelina Jolie: If Obama Wins, It Would Be Nice For My Family
Who received the commission for placing those radio spots? It is all about money for those folks.
After all, there’s no better proof that the Democratic Party is racist against African-Americans than for that party to nominate one (well, okay, one who is half African-American) as their presidential candidate.
They just want to claim that they aren’t part of the African American Hivemind.
Good for a laugh.
First up, let me say that the ad as described is over the top — not as over the top as MoveOn’s “John McCain, you can’t steal my baby!” ad, but still overdone.
Next, Oliver, I’d recommend you be careful about using “bus” references, considering how many people your guy’s thrown under there. In fact, that article reminds us of one of the biggies: “I can no more disown him [the Rev. Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother.” No wonder Granny’s shown up in a few ads; Obama’s treatment of Wright can be considered a warning to her.
Then, snark aside, let’s look at the real message of Oliver’s typically brief commentary:
The evocation of the segregation era here is a deliberate one, and a reminder that while it was Republicans in Congress who pushed through the Civil Rights legislation over filibustering Democrats (at least one of whom is still in the Senate), it is the Democrats who now own the black vote, and they better not forget it.
Oliver frequently wonders how or why any black person would ever vote for a Republican. Well, I wonder how things would go over if I were to speculate as to why any white person would ever vote for a Democrat?
I wouldn’t do that. I happen to believe in Dr. King’s vision of a country where people are judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. And I hold with revulsion any system, any institution, any policy that sets aside judgments on any rational basis and substitutes skin color — or any of a bunch of equally irrelevant factors.
I’m an odd duck. When I heard about the University of Michigan Affirmative Action case, I heard that certain minority applicants were given 20 “points” towards admission (more value than perfect SAT scores), I suggested changing it — instead, all non-chosen-minority applicants would be docked 20 points. Or, a compromise — either you get ten points for being a minority or you lose ten points for not being one.
Mathematically, it was a wash — with admission being a zero-sum game, my changes would not have affected the outcomes one whit. But it would have made it clear that the preferential treatment given some was coming at the expense of others — and I found the basis of that preference repugnant.
Anyway, that is my way of saying I find Oliver’s use of the segregation metaphor disgusting. It smacks of a veiled warning — “remember, blacks, you are the property of the Democratic party, bought and paid for by decades of social policies that have utterly destroyed your family units and constantly reminded America that skin color DOES matter and blacks NEED special treatment and benefits and help to get by, so if you stray off the Democratic plantation, it’s back to the back of the bus, the separate water fountain and bathrooms, and the crappier schools (although how they could be worse than today’s public schools, I have to wonder), and all the other things that we fought so hard to maintain.”
It’s the same kind of double standard that says folks can spend eight years calling George W. Bush a chimp, but one guy who compares Barack Obama to Curious George needs to be locked up or tarred and feathered or something.
Oliver can say such things as “back of the bus” because he’s black.
I can’t say parallel things, because I’m white.
That’s not how I understood Dr. King’s message.
Maybe it’s because I’m a “typical white person” like Obama’s grandmother, and I’m bitter because I don’t have any guns or religion to cling to, so I find my comfort in ideals like the United States Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) and Dr. King’s message and Ronald Reagan’s vision for America.
Dr. King and President Reagan. Two men who knew the value and the worth and the rights of the individual, especially when contrasted with the craving by the State for more and more power and control over the individual. Two men who said, in the struggle between the person and the state, that the rights, the dignity, the freedoms, the opportunities of the individual should reign supreme.
I so miss them both — even though Dr. King was murdered less than a year after I was born.
J.
“They just want to claim that they aren’t part of the African American Hivemind.”
Am I dumb to ask what “the African American Hivemind” is/means?
“not as over the top as MoveOn’s “John McCain, you can’t steal my baby!” ad,”
You’re joking, right?
“The evocation of the segregation era here is a deliberate one, and a reminder that while it was Republicans in Congress who pushed through the Civil Rights legislation over filibustering Democrats (at least one of whom is still in the Senate), it is the Democrats who now own the black vote, and they better not forget it.”
A larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the civil rights bill but the Republican Party Congressional caucuses that existed prior to 1968 bear no relationship to the Republican caucuses currently in the House and Senate except in name only. The Democrats don’t own the black vote. This is a common assumption promoted by people who claim to be color blind but believe that members of the black electorate are not rational, intelligent actors. That is, that black voters do not vote for what is in their self-interest as does any other bloc of voters in this country.
The black electorate began casting a majority of their votes for the presidential candidates of the Democratic Party in 1936, not 1964 or 1968. They began doing so not because FDR supported civil rights for black people because he did not. In their view his policies better served their economic interests. The Democrats did not sprinkle fairy dust over the heads of black voters or cast juju spells to secure their votes.
“That’s not how I understood Dr. King’s message.”
I don’t think you understood Dr. King’s message at all. Not at all. Hint: you have to move way beyond the speech you quoted.
Who will stand up for the white guy? Years and years of oppression of white males and all these minorities, women, etc. are getting preferential treatment over the white guy.
Who will speak for him? I invoke MLK’s name without a clue in order to ask: who speaks for the white male?!!!!
Not a total waste, Mr. Tea. At least you got one thing right:
Indeed!
Silly me, Oliver. I thought Dr. King spoke for me, too. I didn’t realize I was excluded — along with, apparently, anyone who thinks like me or looks like me.
Could you please provide us with a list of the classes of Americans considered not part of Dr. King’s vision? Along with your credentials that demonstrate your right to make such determinations?
J.
Oliver has learned well that racial grievance = political power. Why would he give that up for a silly principle like “character, not skin color?”
Yeah because there is so much racial diversity in Congress.
Morons. Of course black americans vote for the Democratic Party. The Democratic party is way way more liberal than the Republican party. The Republican party is mainly conservatives. Guess who fought against the Civil Rights Acts? Conservatives, although back then they were in both parties.
They ain’t stupid. Voting for an ideology that opposed giving equal rights to all people, that is stupid.
“They ain’t stupid. Voting for an ideology that opposed giving equal rights to all people, that is stupid.”
LOL,
Like the typical poster here has any desire for actual equality under the law. The majority here desire unequel treatment based on group identity rather than being treated as individuals. Liberal ideology panders to minorities by offering them special rights not equal rights.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
JT: Obama’s treatment of Wright can be considered a warning to her.
You mean his sticking up for Wright when it would have been much more politically expedient for him to denounce him. And eventually, reluctantly distancing himself only when Wright’s repeated actions, coming in an environment when Wright certainly should have known those actions would cause problems for Obama, made it impossible for Obama to do otherwise?
THAT treatment of Wright?
I wish my friends would stick by me for so long.
I think we are all equal, I just find white males - especially well of white males - lamenting oppression to be hilarious.
The majority here desire unequel treatment based on group identity rather than being treated as individuals. Liberal ideology panders to minorities by offering them special rights not equal rights.
First we’re out to confiscate wealth so we can give it away and now we’re offering “special” rights to minorities?
Are there any of the fake conservative frames to which you don’t subscribe?
Your notion of “equality” is to take a group of people and hold them in slavery for 350 years, finally release them but relegate them to a legally-sanctioned second-class status, maintain social and economic barriers that inhibit the accumulation of their own wealth or achievement of education–and then, finally, declaring it’s all over and ain’t it grand that we live in an equal and free society? Toss in a bit of chin-stroking concern for “the culture of dependecy” and you’ve got the whole package.
Modern conservatism at its very best, folks!
What QiB said. You don’t break someone’s legs and then say everything is equal because they are free to run in the same race as everyone else.
I’m sorry Jay Tea. I couldn’t read through you’re entire manifesto, but, snark aside, the stupidity was causing me to lose my will to live. Oh, the republicans were so noble and good to black americans in 1956!! Which is true if you can just manage to ignore the 52 years since then; it’s amazing how many republicans show up to teach liberals about their great history with so little knowledge of anything else. But Lincoln freed the slaves, so, you know, bygones.
Sean- to use your analogy - the solution then is to break other people’s legs so that we might all have the same difficulty? Even if I were to grant your premise, which I think is very arguable, being in the business of breaking legs seems a bit.. bad, no?
>now we’re offering “special” rights to minorities?
Not sure i’d call them rights, though one could argue that certain parts of the law (like employment discrimination) are available only to minorities. Certainly you are offering special favors based on skin color, though.
Look, I understand that you are trying to remedy historical injustice. I get that. The point is that it doesn’t seem likely that you’ll remedy discrimination on the basis of skin color by discriminating on the basis of skin color.
LOL,
Quaker you are a determined one. “Framing” is your special concept isn’t it?
Strangely, words have specific meanings, arranged in a specific fashion; sentences can actually mean something specific.
Let me be specific. It is my belief that the last thing you want is equal treatment. Furthermore you do not desire a colorblind system of law, but find it preferable to give preference to group identity rather than judge a man on his merits as an individual regardless of racial or ethnic identity.
Sean- to use your analogy - the solution then is to break other people’s legs so that we might all have the same difficulty?
Alternatively, the solution might be to give the injured person a head start. Or a wheelchair. Or by altering the rules to measure the same ability in both contestants.
But that would be discriminating against the guy without broken legs, wouldn’t it?
The point is that it doesn’t seem likely that you’ll remedy discrimination on the basis of skin color by discriminating on the basis of skin color.
If that was the basis for the original injustice, what other way is there to effect a remedy?
“Framing” is your special concept isn’t it?
No, as you explain yourself:
Strangely, words have specific meanings, arranged in a specific fashion; sentences can actually mean something specific.
That’s why I refer to framing. There’s an old newspaper joke that says, “If the Tribune reports the governor walks on water, the Post will report that the governor can’t swim.”
Framing.
It is my belief that the last thing you want is equal treatment. Furthermore you do not desire a colorblind system of law, but find it preferable to give preference to group identity rather than judge a man on his merits as an individual regardless of racial or ethnic identity.
Equal treatment is precisely what I want. what we disagree on is where we begin measuring the treatment. You want to start today, forgetting all that came before. I want to take the past into account.
Haplo: Sean- to use your analogy - the solution then is to break other people’s legs so that we might all have the same difficulty?
No, of course not. Are you deliberately trying to twist things around exactly 180 degrees? Do you actually not see a difference, to continue with my analogy, between providing the handicapped person with a wheelchair and breaking the healthy person’s legs?
The objection some people seem to have is with the former, with providing an actually equal starting point. I haven’t read every posting here but am not aware of anyone saying the solution is to reach equality by hampering those in the lead.
“Sir, when you’re elected will you do away with first class carriages on the train?” “No, I’ll do away with second class.”
- Harry Perkins
QiB: Equal treatment is precisely what I want. what we disagree on is where we begin measuring the treatment. You want to start today, forgetting all that came before. I want to take the past into account.
Even for those who want to start today and disregard all that came before a fair assessment would show things aren’t equal.
Sure, let’s forget about all of the reasons why things are as they are, but a fair assessment would show that some are starting the race from 10 yards back of the starting line.
(Heh. I try finding other analogies, but somehow I just can’t help but keep bringing “race” into it…)
If precise equal treatment is what you want then the present is all that you can rationally ask for. The mechanism of unequal treatment in the present cannot create equal treatment in the present at the same time. Creating equal treatment in the past where it did not occur is beyond the constraints of Newtonian physics.
Specifically, you can either have equal treatment of individuals in the present or you cannot. Is your preference for equal treatment or do you favor unequal treatment under the law?
If precise equal treatment is what you want then the present is all that you can rationally ask for. The mechanism of unequal treatment in the present cannot create equal treatment in the present at the same time.
The mechanism of equal treatment in the present leaves the effects of past inequalities to be borne by those who were disadvantaged. Further, I challenge the idea we have “equality under the law” even if the past is ignored. For pertinent examples, refer to the “equality” of treatment by law enforcement, in employment, and in education.
Quaker:
>If that was the basis for the original injustice, what other way is there to effect a remedy?
To eliminate the original injustice. That is as good as you are going to get. Past that, you are just creating a new injustice. The fact that you think the new injustice is a good idea doesn’t change the fact that it is an injustice.
Sean:
>No, of course not. Are you deliberately trying to twist things around exactly 180 degrees? Do you actually not see a difference, to continue with my analogy, between providing the handicapped person with a wheelchair and breaking the healthy person’s legs?
Sure, I see the difference, but you are ignoring the negative effects of affirmative action - for every person that is raised up, one is lowered. It helps a favored group, at the expense of a less favored group. While you may think such a thing is justified, it doesn’t change its nature.
>I haven’t read every posting here but am not aware of anyone saying the solution is to reach equality by hampering those in the lead.
The point is that if you favor affirmative action you are implicitly favoring hampering those “in the lead” over those who are not. While I understand why you think thats a good idea, I don’t see how its a net positive for society.
I think AO puts it pretty well - you either prefer equal treatment or you don’t. If you really prefer equal treatment, then you would oppose those things that go against your favored groups, *as well as* things that go for your favored groups. You can’t have it both ways.
To eliminate the original injustice. That is as good as you are going to get. Past that, you are just creating a new injustice. The fact that you think the new injustice is a good idea doesn’t change the fact that it is an injustice.
The past injustice creates a disadvantage for those who had to bear it. Obversely, it creates an advantage–privilege–for those who weren’t disadvantaged.
If you’re not willing to address the effect of past injustice, you’re saying privilege is just.
The point is that if you favor affirmative action you are implicitly favoring hampering those “in the lead” over those who are not. While I understand why you think thats a good idea, I don’t see how its a net positive for society.
The alternative is for those “in the lead” to complain that the rest of the field isn’t keeping up. That’s not really going to help.
And if I may embroider this analogy a little more, I should point out that “those in the lead” and “those who trail” are on the same team. Nobody “wins” until everybody crosses the finish line.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UWHEcIbhDiw
Bastard! You made me listen to Rush!! Aieeeeee!!
The 14th essentially wipes out the three-fifths compromise and the fugitive slave clause, in addition to banning Confederates traitors from Congress. (It’s also a big nuisance for the seal-the-borders crowd, but we’ll save that for another day.)
I assume you’re looking for an explication of section 1:
This alters Article I, Section 2 which counts three-fifths of “other persons” to determine the apportionment of representatives in the House. It also negates Article IV, Section 2, which mandates that escaped slaves be returned to their owners.
In effect, this Amendment transformed citizens of states into citizens of the United States.
The really interesting part is section 5, though.
Indeed Quaker,
Your concept of equality through equal protection through unequal application of the law seems a wee bit tortured. I fail to see how article 5 giving Congress the power to enforce equal protection supports unequal application of the law. You may argue that unequal treatment now is to make up for unequal treatment then but you cannot do so by adhering to a policy that forbids unequal application of the law. It is a case of wanting your cake and eating it too.
The Constitution applies to the rights of individuals. It is the right of the individual that provides the intellectual foundation upon which unequal treatment of members of a group can be found to be unconstitutional. If you do not treat two citizens in a colorblind fashion before the law you are not engaging in equal protection. You are using the force and power of the state to benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Granted you have good intentions, but what of it. Good intentions cannot overcome the laws of Newtonian physics where time moves in one direction only.
At this point in time and space we cannot all have an equal starting point, equal abilities or equal outcomes in life. What we can have and what the Constitution provides for us with the 14th amendment is equality before the law. I have seen nothing in your writing to suggest that you favor equal treatment under the law, indeed you suggest that unequal application of the law in the present is acceptable because of events located in the past
Your concept of equality through equal protection through unequal application of the law seems a wee bit tortured.
It may seem so to you, but the Supreme Court agrees with me. In decisions from 19 to 2003, the court ruled that universities may consider race when accepting applicants for admission. They say it’s constitutional even if you don’t. Who shall I believe?
If you do not treat two citizens in a colorblind fashion before the law you are not engaging in equal protection. You are using the force and power of the state to benefit one citizen at the expense of another. Granted you have good intentions, but what of it. Good intentions cannot overcome the laws of Newtonian physics where time moves in one direction only.
Once again, the Supremes say you’re full of old shoes. See Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, 1978 and Grutter vs. Bollinger, 2003. Where there is a valid state interest, a state university may consider race in selecting applicants–within broadly defined limits.
At this point in time and space we cannot all have an equal starting point, equal abilities or equal outcomes in life.
No one is looking for equality of outcome. That’s another Borkism that wrongly attributes nefarious motives to anyone who seeks to right past and continuing wrongs.
I have seen nothing in your writing to suggest that you favor equal treatment under the law, indeed you suggest that unequal application of the law in the present is acceptable because of events located in the past.
Once again, no. Not because of events in the past. Because the effect of those past events is still evident today. If I stomp on your foot today, it’s ridiculous for me to come back tomorrow and say, “Tell you what, let’s not stomp on each other’s feet,” and call that “equal.” Your foot still hurts.
The plain fact is, in our society, white people have an advantage. We have an advantage in jobs, in housing, in education, in banking, and in how we are treated by the justice system. You can find evidence either in aggregate or anecdotally.
And that brings us ’round to good ol’ section 5 of the 14th. Section 5 authorizes Congress to make any laws necessary to enforce “equal protection of law” under the amendment. Now that doesn’t apply only to laws that were in effect at the time the 14th was ratified. Congress is also authorized by the 14th, Section 5 to enforce “equality under the law” for all laws passed since.
The law says a state university may not discriminate in admissions based on race. If we look at the university’s enrollment and see their admissions are 99 percent white and 1 percent “other,” we’ve got pretty good evidence the university has not been living up to the law. Congress is constitutionally authorized to enforce equality in university admissions.
Bah! In decisions from 1978 to 2003,
Quaker,
The Supreme Court has made wrongheaded decisions in the past. You have brought up several splendid examples. The very concept of compelling state interest is a sham. The Constitution does not give us rights; it limits the power of the government. It is not about the interests of the state but the limitations of the state and the defines only some of the unassailable rights of the individual, rights that exist regardless of what a majority might desire. We live not in a democracy but a Republic, something many liberals either forget or never knew.
“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” cannot be rationally construed as meaning the application of the law should vary between two citizens based on the identity of group membership.
Your distinction between events in the past and effects today as sufficient reason to allow the unequal application of the law between fellow citizens is noted but not accepted. Yet your distinction is the paradox of your position. One cannot be for something while simultaneously being against it. You most stringently favor unequal application of the law. Equality under the law is an objective standard. You favor subjective standards that favor one over another.
We are all creatures formed by a mixture of nature and nurture. Alleged white advantage is a mixture of culture, history, genetics, effort, and human nature. It is human nature to prefer people that are like you to the “other”. Only colorblind application of the law can meet both objective standards and the limits on human nature proscribed by the 14th amendment.
Your example of state university admissions is perfect. Indeed attendance at a university funded with public money must be based on Constitutional standards without regards to race. Colorblind standards of enrollment based on merit do not rely on subjective human nature nor do they rely on unequal application of the law to achieve demographic balance of a student body. Nor should they strive for demographic balance, the student body should reflect individual merit not group membership.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment authorizes Congress to pass legislation to enforce the entire amendment, which encompasses citizenship, representation, legislator requirements, public debt and a rejection of claims for loss of property described as human beings. It most specifically does not authorize an exception to the right of all citizens to equal protection of the law based on subjective standards and undefined effects as you claim.
Thanks, Quaker! If we could turn back the hands of time, the folks who are arguing against your position would have argued for Ferguson you know.
A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro.
-Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., blatant opponent of Affirmative Action assuming you’re as fucking retarded as Jay Tea
I’d like to invoke special privilege to apologize for Teabag on behalf of all white men in this country. We’re really sorry about these things but no one’s perfect and mistakes fall through the assembly line from time to time.
Interesting that you cite Bollinger. The case Opinion says that in less than 20 years, “racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” Given that we’re already at the point that an African-American is going to end up being a nominee for President (and, as of now, is ahead in the polls) tells me we’re probably already there.
The Supreme Court has made wrongheaded decisions in the past.
I see. So do they also lack “comprehension and appreciation for our Constitution”?
When it comes to interpreting the Constitution accurately, I’ll throw in with those bums on the Supreme over your opinion, Arky.
“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” cannot be rationally construed as meaning the application of the law should vary between two citizens based on the identity of group membership.
That’s about the fifth time you’ve repeated yourself on this point, AO. The Supreme Court still disagrees.
Interesting that you cite Bollinger. The case Opinion says that in less than 20 years, “racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”
You trimmed that quote a bit too close, Farris. Ms. O’Connor stated that as a hope, not an inevitability.
I didn’t realize I was excluded — along with, apparently, anyone who thinks like me or looks like me.
Looks like you? No. Thinks (or lack thereof) like you? Yes.
Interesting that you cite Bollinger. The case Opinion says that in less than 20 years, “racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” Given that we’re already at the point that an African-American is going to end up being a nominee for President (and, as of now, is ahead in the polls) tells me we’re probably already there.
This is what is called “the exception that proves the rule”. The apartheid didn’t disappear overnight when Nelson Mandela was elected president of South Africa.
Quaker,
Your rebuttal is awesome, the points you bring up are incredibly insightful, your logic is impeccable, and your debating skills are simply devastating. I can see the foolishness of discussing Constitutional minutia with such a master of its subtleties.
You needn’t debate anyone when your opinion is even greater than that of the experts.
By the way, “compelling state interest” also comes into play when interpreting the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.
You can look it up.
Interesting that you cite Bollinger. The case Opinion says that in less than 20 years, “racial preferences will no longer be necessary.” Given that we’re already at the point that an African-American is going to end up being a nominee for President (and, as of now, is ahead in the polls) tells me we’re probably already there.
I’ll admit I’m not familiar with the court opinion in question, but I don’t believe one African-American excelling enough to reach the Senate and then the Democratic Presidential Nomination is enough proof that the work of civil rights (or, put another way, democratizing the blessings of society) is over.
To my knowledge Sen. Obama is, sadly, a statistical outlier in the African-American demographic. I haven’t seen the stats since around 2006 but at that time African-Americans were still making something on the level seventy cents on the dollar that whites were making for the same work, and the difference in household net worth for both them and Hispanics relative to whites was enormous. If I recall the lot of all non-Asian minorities (because Asians are basically already on par with whites) showed a steady improvement, with still a hell of a long way to go. Again, I don’t have a link to support this unfortunately, but most of this is common enough knowledge, I think.
If we are to discount the long-discredited and easily disprovable notion that there is a difference in intelligence or iniative, then, as Sean and Quaker have pointed out earlier on this thread, clearly there has been some past hobbling via discrimination that still has powerful ramifications in the present. Racial preferences are only one possible tool to deal with the problem - I’m kinda partial to Alterman’s idea of class-based affirmative action myself.
Your distinction between events in the past and effects today as sufficient reason to allow the unequal application of the law between fellow citizens is noted but not accepted. Yet your distinction is the paradox of your position. One cannot be for something while simultaneously being against it. You most stringently favor unequal application of the law. Equality under the law is an objective standard. You favor subjective standards that favor one over another.
So…I take it you support the rights of minors to drive, drink, smoke, and vote?
Quaker,
You support legal discrimination.
Parthenon,
“If we are to discount the long-discredited and easily disprovable notion that there is a difference in intelligence or iniative”
If it is easily disproved you should have some really awesome cites. Am I correct that you are stating that there are no variations what so ever in intelligence between different human genetic subtypes? That the bellcurve for IQ is a constant and identical shape across ethnic, cultural, and racial lines?
Zython,
I don’t quite get your question regarding citizens who have not yet reached the age of majority. You presumably have a point, what is it?
I don’t quite get your question regarding citizens who have not yet reached the age of majority. You presumably have a point, what is it?
By your loose definition of “legal discrimination”, you must also support the things that I listed. Or dod you support “legal discrimination” of minors?
If it is easily disproved you should have some really awesome cites.
Ask and ye shall receive sir!
The ‘lower-intelligence’ caste of different regions in the world, From ‘Inequality by Design,’ Princeton University Press.
‘The Mismeasure of Man,’ Stephen Jay Gould.
‘The Emperor’s New Clothes - Biological Theories of Race at the Millenium,’ Joseph Graves.
‘Race is an unscientific concept,’ NY Times via Augsburg College -
“We truly are all kin beneath the skin, many scientists are concluding.
The more closely researchers examine the human genome — the complement of genetic material encased in the heart of almost every cell of the body — the more most of them are convinced that the standard labels used to distinguish people by “race” have little or no biological meaning.”
The Times again, via Temple University, similar subject -
“As it turns out, scientists say, the human species is so evolutionarily young, and its migratory patterns so wide, restless and rococo, that it has simply not had a chance to divide itself into separate biological groups or “races” in any but the most superficial ways.
“Race is a social concept, not a scientific one,” said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. “We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world.”
Let me know if you’d like some more. I understand that there are plenty of links that suggest otherwise, but from what I’ve read and seen regarding racial intelligence theories, it appears they are based on pseudoscience and bad methodology.
Am I correct that you are stating that there are no variations what so ever in intelligence between different human genetic subtypes? That the bellcurve for IQ is a constant and identical shape across ethnic, cultural, and racial lines?
I’m stating that ‘different human genetic subtypes,’ as stated above, are purely cosmetic. I’m stating that it’s possible that there are IQ differences between cultures, but that is because ‘IQ’ is an incomplete and flawed measurement of one’s intelligence. Can you pick out an edible mushroom from the poisonous ones in the Papua New Guinean rainforest? Because without the help of a Papua New Guinean, I’d be fucked.
Quaker,
You support legal discrimination.
You’re finally starting to get it. Legal discrimination. Constitutional discrimination. As I have pointed out to you time and again, the people we rely on to interpret the Constitution say it is sometimes both legal and Constitutional to take race into account.
Now go away or I shall taunt you another time.
Quaker,
You certainly are good at rationalizing. Slavery was once legal and as you well know it took a Constitutional amendment to change that, the 13th. The next amendment made all citizens equal under the law and enumerated the right of all citizens to equal protection of the law.
Article 5, does not carve out a special exception to the 14th amendment. That a liberal court can create such an exemption where none exists speaks more to thier desires than thier fealty to the Constitution.
I’m glad to see you have finally admitted that you support discrimination. Rejecting denial is an important first step towards achieving a colorblind society.
That a liberal court can create such an exemption where none exists speaks more to thier desires than thier fealty to the Constitution.
I see. Our esteemed Constitutional scholar, Mr. Observer, holds a more highly refined “understanding and appreciation” of the Constitution than Justice Powell; than Justice Brennan; than Justice Blackmun; than Justice Stewart; than Justice O’Connor; than Justice Stevens; than Justice Souter; than Justice Breyer; than Justice Ginzburg.
How has the Republic endured these many years without your wisdom?
Dude, get real. It takes quite a load of self-important delusion to convince yourself that you, and only you, carry the light of genuine understand (and appreciation!) of the Constitution, that your personal version outshines the opinions of not just one, but a couple of generations of Supreme Court justices.
Do you clank when you walk?
Article 5, does not carve out a special exception to the 14th amendment.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment? It authorizes Congress to make any laws necessary to enforce the rest of the Amendment. It tilts the scale–deliberately–in favor of Congress over the legislatures of individual states. It creates for Congress a great deal of latitude to write law that enforces the intent of the Amendment.
Huh, AO, you seemed to have ignored my explanation. How convenient.
Poor AO, why do you hate America so much?
OK, it’s my turn, Mr. You-Have-No-Appreciation-Or-Understanding.
The Fifth Amendment says: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
The Supreme Court’s controversial 2005 Kelo decision brought renewed focus on this clause. Please explain the issues in the case and the majority opinion, highlighting any new or novel interpretations in this decision.
What? Don’t want to play any more? I was so looking forward to learning from your keen understanding of the Constitution.
This is too easy, all you have to do is throw their own twisted logic back at them, and the ultra cons run with their tail between their legs.
OK, OK. I’ll make it easier, AO. Just explain the meaning of the terms “public use” and “just compensation.” That ought to be easy for a Constitutional expert like you.