So basically this a an organization based on segregation. Got it.

I think I’m going to become an African American so I don’t have to be afraid anymore.

If a white republican had said “Number one, it allows us to reach audiences that may not be watching Meet The Press…I’m just saying, it might be a different demographic.” when speaking of African-American bloggers
it would be raaaaacist…

But since it’s our post racial sea-level raising Messiah saying it, we’re cool I guess.

CosmosDan said:
I think I’m going to become an African American so I don’t have to be afraid anymore.

You’ll have to start chasing Kumquat. All African-Americans do.

timzank said:
If a white republican had said “Number one, it allows us to reach audiences that may not be watching Meet The Press…I’m just saying, it might be a different demographic.” when speaking of African-American bloggersit would be raaaaacist… But since it’s our post racial sea-level raising Messiah saying it, we’re cool I guess.

Perhaps he meant that African-Americans were more likely to be in Church at that time. At least in my part of the world, African-Americans seem to attend Church in disproportionately higher numbers than Whites.

And the race stupidity continues .

More Liberty said:
So basically this a an organization based on segregation. Got it.

Like most Country Clubs (Golf)

right-is-wrong said:
Like most Country Clubs (Golf)

Actually Country Clubs are based on people who like to play golf and who want to spend a lot of money to play the same course over & over again.

lonestar77 said:
Actually Country Clubs are based on people who like to play golf and who want to spend a lot of money to play the same course over & over again.

Indeed, I marvel at the diversity at Barton Creek and Circle C.

Obama is saying that blacks aren’t getting the weekly propaganda he orders Meet the Press to deliver, so the White House’s Ministers of Propaganda needs to start distributing that “info” to alternative sources of news.”

The Real Royal King said:
Perhaps he meant that African-Americans were more likely to be in Church at that time. At least in my part of the world, African-Americans seem to attend Church in disproportionately higher numbers than Whites.

Well that’s racist.

timzank said:
Well that’s racist.

Actually, it’s demographics.

The Real Royal King said:
Actually, it’s demographics.

May well be, but if I’d said it (instead of you) I’d be roundly chastised for it’s “racist” implications and you know it.

*Editors note: The King went to all white private schools.

You hideous human, vile trash, permeating stench. It is never acceptable to assault anyone. RRK

Such a racist comment, Barry!

Headline: White House SMEARS African-Americans as too STUPID to be watching Meet The Press!

How many years have the Democrats monopolized the black vote by Playing the Race Card?

How’s the quality of life improved in those black communities that have overwhelmingly supported Democrats for the past 50 years? – Inner cities any better in 40 years? Less crime? Less drugs? Less gangs? More good-paying jobs?

How has black America’s level of dependency on handouts from government been? – Gone up or down?
Have they become MORE dependent on government, or more INDEPENDENT?

What’s that single-parent child-bearing statistic now, about 80%!!!!!!!!!!????????
Is that a GOOD result under Democratic governance? – or a bad result under Democratic governance?

Wake up black America! – The Democrats have EXPLOITED you through Racist Demagoguery. They use you to get them elected and then do NOTHING for you!

Look at 2008! – How’s unemployment in your community vs. what you were promised by Obama & the Democrats?

11-02-10 —– Send a message to all the Democrats that have taken advantage of you for the past half-century!!!

NORBIT said:
Headline: White House SMEARS African-Americans as too STUPID to be watching Meet The Press!

How many years have the Democrats monopolized the black vote by Playing the Race Card?

How’s the quality of life improved in those black communities that have overwhelmingly supported Democrats for the past 50 years? – Inner cities any better in 40 years? Less crime? Less drugs? Less gangs? More good-paying jobs?

How has black America’s level of dependency on handouts from government been? – Gone up or down?
Have they become MORE dependent on government, or more INDEPENDENT?

What’s that single-parent child-bearing statistic now, about 80%!!!!!!!!!!????????
Is that a GOOD result under Democratic governance? – or a bad result under Democratic governance?

Wake up black America! – The Democrats have EXPLOITED you through Racist Demagoguery. They use you to get them elected and then do NOTHING for you!

Look at 2008! – How’s unemployment in your community vs. what you were promised by Obama & the Democrats?

11-02-10 —– Send a message to all the Democrats that have taken advantage of you for the past half-century!!!

Actually african americans overwhelmingly supported Clinton and his administration had the lowest minority unemployment rate on record as well as highest median income and lowest welfare roles. That debunks about half of your post.
Are you honestly trying to blame single parenthood on democrats? Wow that’s stupid.
Let me tell you something as an african-american; hope and faith are very big things in our community, and we’ve honestly never had more. To comedian earthquake “Now I don’t have to feel like I’m lying to my son when I tell him he can be president one day”. President Obama’s election alone has done more for us than you could probably ever fathom.

I just don’t see why there’s a need for an African-American Media at all, much less a summit. I think it’s time that the Black community commits fully to integration instead of a self-imposed isolation born from the belief that there won’t be acceptance. There’s nothing worth saying that can’t be said to everyone, and there’s definitely no reason why there should be a special message just for Blacks or any other race. This is definitely not the path to a post-racial, post-partisan society.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Actually african americans overwhelmingly supported Clinton and his administration had the lowest minority unemployment rate on record as well as highest median income and lowest welfare roles. That debunks about half of your post.
Are you honestly trying to blame single parenthood on democrats? Wow that’s stupid.
Let me tell you something as an african-american; hope and faith are very big things in our community, and we’ve honestly never had more. To comedian earthquake “Now I don’t have to feel like I’m lying to my son when I tell him he can be president one day”. President Obama’s election alone has done more for us than you could probably ever fathom.

I’m feeling lazy, so I’ll just address this question to you guys: How many cities out there that have a large urban black population that have been run for any considerable length of time by non-Democrats in the last 50 years? Has there been any true improvement in quality of life for the Blacks living in those “urban centers” comparatively? It would be interesting to see if there’s any real difference.

And everyone knows the state of the Black family should only be blamed on Blacks. Actually, every problem in the Black community is the solely the responsibility of the Black community, no matter how convenient it may be to claim to just be cleaning up the messes of the previous ‘administration’ that held power prior to the civil rights movement. There’s already been more than enough time to make a fresh start.

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Actually african americans overwhelmingly supported Clinton and his administration had the lowest minority unemployment rate on record as well as highest median income and lowest welfare roles. That debunks about half of your post.

That’s really a rather sad statement, that during one administration in the last 46 years their (african-americans) quality of life “sucked a little less”.

Yeah stick with those Dems…good thinking..

atreyue said:
I just don’t see why there’s a need for an African-American Media at all, much less a summit. I think it’s time that the Black community commits fully to integration instead of a self-imposed isolation born from the belief that there won’t be acceptance. There’s nothing worth saying that can’t be said to everyone, and there’s definitely no reason why there should be a special message just for Blacks or any other race. This is definitely not the path to a post-racial, post-partisan society.

You say they should not be isolated

atreyue said:
And everyone knows the state of the Black family should only be blamed on Blacks. Actually, every problem in the Black community is the solely the responsibility of the Black community, no matter how convenient it may be to claim to just be cleaning up the messes of the previous ‘administration’ that held power prior to the civil rights movement. There’s already been more than enough time to make a fresh start.

and then isolate them

The Reasonable Lib said:
“Are you honestly trying to blame single parenthood on democrats?”
———————————————————————————————

Yes! – Democratic policies foster government dependency and serve as enabling mechanisms to irresponsible childbearing.

If a woman does not have the financial means and emotional committment to bring a child into this world they shouldn’t be having one!
There’s no “right” to have a child without the commensurate responsibility to rear it! – and not depend on the government to do it for you!

I, like most blacks, get the news on mobile or online. Obama is so smart!!

The_Reasonable_Lib said:
Actually african americans overwhelmingly supported Clinton and his administration

That’s why they call YOU sheep!

It’s not recognizing racial characteristics that constitutes bigotry, it’s assuming those characteristic denote inferiority, as is evident in the anti-Obama billboard in Grand Junction, and in a picture of the White House with watermelons on the lawn, and the repeated claims about lazy “welfare queens” and “affirmative action” success stories. Affirmative Action is one of those government programs that actually shows signs of accomplishing the goal it was designed for, to give African-Americans a chance to catch up to modern society after generations of slavery and segregation. And of course, that success is what outrages the ultra-righties, because it does three things: 1) proves government programs CAN be effective in lifting the down-trodden to at least a functional working-class, if not educated, status; 2) proves that, given the access, people of all stripes have the capacity to achieve success, despite the repeated claims of bigots like Rush and others, and; 3) proves that conservatives who claim liberals are the real racists are liars, because the most commonly cited reason for black’s success by the right wing, is Affirmative Action, or indirectly, it’s benefits and the alleged all-powerful liberal tidal wave of sentiment that drives every decision on race in America, for instance -

“[Obama] wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money have a lot of money, because she’s black. It was Oprah. No, it can’t be. Yes, it is. There’s a lot of guilt out there, show we’re not racists, we’ll make this person wealthy and big and famous and so forth…. If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he’d be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago.” ~ Rush Limbaugh, Titular Leader of the Republican Tea Party

The GOP and it’s Tea Party apologists have become the big tent of bigotry and more Americans are figuring that out every day. I hope enough figure it out by election day, but we haven’t seen anywhere near the full spending for this season yet. The floodgates are just opening. SCOTUS really screwed us this time! :(

right-is-wrong said:
Like most Country Clubs (Golf)

Or jazz clubs, but this was specifically for “African-American bloggers.” They self segregated.

Paul Westlake said:
Affirmative Action is one of those government programs that actually shows signs of accomplishing the goal it was designed for, to give African-Americans a chance to catch up to modern society after generations of slavery and segregation.

Affirmative Action and Racial Profiling are both government sponsored discrimination practices. Both might produce some positive results, but that is at the expense of other private individuals who had nothing to do with past history. You see, AA and RP both are based on historical data regarding some hyphenated group. Nothing more, and nothing less. They don’t take into account reality, just race or gender. What the government does is view an individuals as nothing more than a hyphenated group such as “African-American” or Middle-Easterner. But the reality is we are individuals with unique backgrounds, up bringing, stories, failures and accomplishments. One individual is singled out, either in AA or RP, and discriminated against because of skin color.

It’s wrong and a clear violation of the “equal protection” clause. But many liberals, and conservatives don’t mind this type of discrimination because depending on the form, either AA or RP, it benefits them.

right-is-wrong said:
You say they should not be isolated

and then isolate them

Then I’m isolating everyone by your logic, because I believe in personal responsibility over social responsibility. Basically, no one gets a pass through blaming their faults on someone else instead of working to fix them. So if there is a problem prevalent and long-established in the Black community – like absentee fathers – that one might successfully make the case for being indicative of a cultural problem, that problem continuing to exist isn’t the fault of Democrats or Republicans or Whites or Jews, even if it was deliberately instigated from without. Failure to find the right solution or even attempt to lies with the community itself. Neither side should excuse the behavior of the Black community in a rush to malign the other side. And if I am guilty of having done that in the past, I certainly won’t make that mistake again. It’s patronizing to claim that people are just puppet, no matter who’s pulling the strings. I laud the white house for attempting to address issue of Blacks and anyone else being uninformed, but I wish them didn’t so shamelessly promote potential misinformation.

Paul Westlake said:
Affirmative Action is one of those government programs that actually shows signs of accomplishing the goal it was designed for, to give African-Americans a chance to catch up to modern society after generations of slavery and segregation. And of course, that success is what outrages the ultra-righties, because it does three things: 1) proves government programs CAN be effective in lifting the down-trodden to at least a functional working-class, if not educated, status; 2) proves that, given the access, people of all stripes have the capacity to achieve success

I don’t know if I would say that Blacks were behind modern society at the beginning of the Civil Rights era, even though there is no question that they were disenfranchised through segregation. But, for right or wrong, I don’t think Affirmative Action in practice is about just giving Blacks access, it’s about forcing Blacks access. Just as lifting the downtrodden is far different – and has far different consequences – from just ceasing to hold them down. I’m all for removing laws that are designed to hold people back and rewriting ones that are just implemented to do so. I think that it’s the worst thing that can be done to craft laws to hold people up, as well. Inherent in such an action is the belief that Blacks couldn’t attain success without it being given to them, which certainly indicates that anyone holding to that belief is, in fact judging those people to be inferior since they must have special help. Are any of the races that have received such special help doing well collectively as a result?

Paul Westlake said:
“[Obama] wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money have a lot of money, because she’s black. It was Oprah. No, it can’t be. Yes, it is. There’s a lot of guilt out there, show we’re not racists, we’ll make this person wealthy and big and famous and so forth…. If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he’d be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

The idea that Oprah only has success because of white guilt is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard, and Rush is a total idiot. More than anything though, I’m upset at the fact that affirmative action created an atmosphere where this kind of bs can be taken seriously. This is what happens when tries to solve society instead of regulating it enough to take care of itself.

More Liberty said:
It’s wrong and a clear violation of the “equal protection” clause. But many liberals, and conservatives don’t mind this type of discrimination because depending on the form, either AA or RP, it benefits them.

The problem with your ideological purity is causation. What causation can white Americans prove combined with AA to deny them basic rights? Is a white person entitled to go to a particular school? Is a white person, who has the identical academic record, being discriminated against when a government steps in and prevents the initial act of racism that would have given that white person a slot over the academically equivalent black person due to skin color? Can whites show that a systemic and pervasive racism exists without AA? No, we can’t. The discrimination that existed, and still exists, favors white people, exclusively. There is no extant causation outside of AA that indicates discrimination against whites, but every indication of independent discrimination against blacks throughout society as a direct result of the stratification created by the legacy of slavery and segregation. Not only are whites unable to show any extant discrimination outside of their claims of discriminatory government intervention, but those same whites are the direct beneficiaries of that generational discrimination that allowed their rise to the top strata of American society.

Now, you can say that a black-only club is an act of discrimination, but that would assume that the all-white golf club is inherently discriminatory. But that’s nowhere near where the issue lies – it’s in education and access to the means of self-improvement. Before and after AA, it has been conclusively shown, time and time again, that blacks lose to their white counterparts, even when they are clearly more qualified. With AA, blacks get a chance to get through the screening process. That’s what AA forces. And as long as dropping AA would mean cutting the academically qualified black student body at Ivy league schools by 90%, AA is still necessary. Barack Obama was smarter and more academically accomplished than dozens of white people who would have beaten him for the Harvard slot if not for the legacy of AA – not because they deserved it, but because they were white. Obama deserved it, and got the chance because liberals made sure colleges would think twice about dumping all the black applications in the trash, which is exactly what they did before AA.

Ideological purity feels good inside, and Rush is a the perfect non-stop primal scream of the bigot, but these ideas contribute nothing to effective governance. Benjamin Franklin made it clear that idealism is all well and good as long as it can be applied through practical means. The rubber has to meet the road at some point, and that’s what AA is. If you think simply doing away with AA wouldn’t result in all those black applications getting dumped in the trash again, you haven’t really been paying attention to what Rush, and Glen, and Sean, and Ann, and Michelle, and Laura, and Billo, etc, have been saying all these years. They hate diversity and long for the days when a white person was clearly in charge by virtue of skin color. And their most vociferous supporters are all of that same feather. They couch it in all kinds of terminology, from socialism to anti-colonialism, but it’s always the same – stop helping black people and restore whites to their rightful place of unquestioned authority over America. That’s it. And this white boy isn’t going to sit around and let that happen quietly. ;-)

atreyue said:
But, for right or wrong, I don’t think Affirmative Action in practice is about just giving Blacks access, it’s about forcing Blacks access.

Yes, it is. But it was and still is necessary. See my comment to More Liberty above…

It’s far from ideal to have to codify AA at all. But when the economics are secondary to the social, the market can’t fix it. And that’s when government steps in, because that’s what we created government for in the first place. The intellectual pool of whites is smaller than the intellectual pool of all Americans. When we ignore a portion of that intellectual pool, we hurt ourselves as a society – who know how many black Einstein’s never got the education they needed to make the next great leap? Who knows what great advances were denied to America and the world as a result of preventing the next black genius from obtaining the education necessary for that great invention? For every scion of wealth who goes on to a career in finance or politics, was there an equivalent black who might have discovered cold fusion? We don’t know as long as merit takes a back seat to skin color. And it has, and it will, if AA isn’t in place. Every study on the subject has shown that we would revert almost instantly and totally to the pre-AA days of nearly non-existent black enrollment in upper tier schools. Literally, almost instantaneously. When that’s no longer the case, I’ll be at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the dawn of a new America – but that’s still a long way off it seems.

Nice soliloquy, Paul. You’re conveniently leaving out that 70% of black households are single parent. That’s almost twice the rate among Native Americans. Have Native Americans ever been discriminated against? When young black men irresponsibly get their women pregnant, with no intention of raising a child, is it any wonder there aren’t scads of blacks beating the doors down to get into college? Mom has to work, and the kids are left to roam the streets. And yet the left pretends it’s ALL due to racism. Until you start being a little more realistic about the real problems going on, they’re going to continue.

writer said:
Nice soliloquy, Paul. You’re conveniently leaving out that 70% of black households are single parent. That’s almost twice the rate among Native Americans. Have Native Americans ever been discriminated against? When young black men irresponsibly get their women pregnant, with no intention of raising a child, is it any wonder there aren’t scads of blacks beating the doors down to get into college? Mom has to work, and the kids are left to roam the streets. And yet the left pretends it’s ALL due to racism. Until you start being a little more realistic about the real problems going on, they’re going to continue.

What do you think the real problem is?

More Liberty said:
Or jazz clubs, but this was specifically for “African-American bloggers.” They self segregated.

If you are not allowed or accepted, what should you do?

right-is-wrong said:
If you are not allowed or accepted, what should you do?

So now Blacks are not allowed or accepted in American Media outlets not “run” by Blacks? What may have been needed 50 years ago isn’t anymore.

writer said:
Nice soliloquy, Paul. You’re conveniently leaving out that 70% of black households are single parent. That’s almost twice the rate among Native Americans. Have Native Americans ever been discriminated against? When young black men irresponsibly get their women pregnant, with no intention of raising a child, is it any wonder there aren’t scads of blacks beating the doors down to get into college? Mom has to work, and the kids are left to roam the streets. And yet the left pretends it’s ALL due to racism. Until you start being a little more realistic about the real problems going on, they’re going to continue.

I never said the law ideally constructed, and we already covered the single-parent household issue. And by the way, you keep bringing that up in his context in an very ugly way – your implication is that blacks have a lesser character than their white counterparts. And for people who allegedly believe in the free market, you conveniently ignore the economic factors that lead to a number like 70%. For instance, the numbers for single-parent white household is about the same at the same income levels. Blacks who are middle class and above have nowhere near a 70% single parent rate. The rates follow economic lines MUCH more tha racial lines – and blacks are disproportionately represented in the lower classes. Not to mention all the other factors in that number, from switched addresses to deceased recipients. Gaming the system is exactly what every Fortune 500 company is doing every day, and I’m not going to blame anyone down the food chain from doing the same when they see leadership leading the charge. Sorry.

As for Native Americans, my heart breaks for them every day. No group of people has suffered more and more consistently in America than them. Even blacks have fared slightly better. If your point is that we should also do something to right the wrongs of America’s past vis-a-vis Native Americans, I’m totally on board. If you were instead saying we should do nothing for anyone and just let white rule resume… I’m out. ;-)

atreyue said:
So now Blacks are not allowed or accepted in American Media outlets not “run” by Blacks? What may have been needed 50 years ago isn’t anymore.

Really, since Bernard Shaw, what blacks have been allowed to position themselves as top anchors – Don Lemon? Is Don Lemon the new Bernard Shaw? I think not. Rick Sanchez? As a poster child for Hispanic success, Sanchez was far from ideal, I think we can agree. The top anchors are all white, and the producers are mostly white, and the top executives are mostly white, and the owners are all white. It’s still a white world. No way around that. And you can’t say it’s just about capacity because there are outstanding talents out there that nobody knows, because they’re not white. And by the way, a black girls goes missing off a city street every day in America, how come it’s only the pretty white girls that make the evening news? Sorry, I’ve been doing media analysis for far too long – you can’t win this one with me. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Yes, it is. But it was and still is necessary. See my comment to More Liberty above…

It’s far from ideal to have to codify AA at all. But when the economics are secondary to the social, the market can’t fix it. And that’s when government steps in, because that’s what we created government for in the first place. The intellectual pool of whites is smaller than the intellectual pool of all Americans. When we ignore a portion of that intellectual pool, we hurt ourselves as a society – who know how many black Einstein’s never got the education they needed to make the next great leap? Who knows what great advances were denied to America and the world as a result of preventing the next black genius from obtaining the education necessary for that great invention? For every scion of wealth who goes on to a career in finance or politics, was there an equivalent black who might have discovered cold fusion? We don’t know as long as merit takes a back seat to skin color. And it has, and it will, if AA isn’t in place. Every study on the subject has shown that we would revert almost instantly and totally to the pre-AA days of nearly non-existent black enrollment in upper tier schools. Literally, almost instantaneously. When that’s no longer the case, I’ll be at the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the dawn of a new America – but that’s still a long way off it seems.

I read your answer to More Liberty, and your’re the one who sounds like the ideological purist. You throw out suppositions based on “studies” you don’t provide and no actual experience. You see racist white people everywhere you look (unless they’re Democrats, of course). You cite that poor schooling is the problem, but Affirmative Action does absolutely nothing for fixing the problems in public schooling. Treating everyone equally is not “ignoring a portion of the intellectual pool”, that’s what Affirmative Action is. Affirmative Action forces everything to always be about skin color while bemoaning the social climate it ensures. Guess what? If Affirmative Action could be taken away today and everything would instantaneously – as you claim – revert to how things were socially before it’s inception, that should be the ultimate proof that it is certainly no “fix”.

It saddens me that you apparently think so little of White people, that you think everyone who’s not on your side is of such low character. If you thought and reasoned as strongly as you seem to feel, you could have a real shot with coming up with an idea that actually benefits and improves society instead of just trying to control and suppress it. Unfortunately, you get lost in partisan hyperbole. People who need so strongly to be right will call up down and say 2+2=16 if that’s what their narrative demands, then try to pat themselves on the back and call it intelligence. Don’t let yourself become another statistic. There are already so many losers on both “sides” serving as object lessons.

It doesn’t wash, Paul. If economics were the only factor, then Native Americans would have the highest illegitimacy rates. And I’m not afraid to say it. Yeah, knocking up your girlfriend, then walking out on her, shows a lack of character. If a white person behaved like that, you’d have no trouble questioning hischaracter, but when blacks do it, out come the excuses. Even Bill Cosby has recognized that the 70% figure is shooting the black community in the foot. Is he a racist?

Paul Westlake said:
Really, since Bernard Shaw, what blacks have been allowed to position themselves as top anchors – Don Lemon? Is Don Lemon the new Bernard Shaw? I think not. Rick Sanchez? As a poster child for Hispanic success, Sanchez was far from ideal, I think we can agree. The top anchors are all white, and the producers are mostly white, and the top executives are mostly white, and the owners are all white. It’s still a white world. No way around that. And you can’t say it’s just about capacity because there are outstanding talents out there that nobody knows, because they’re not white. And by the way, a black girls goes missing off a city street every day in America, how come it’s only the pretty white girls that make the evening news? Sorry, I’ve been doing media analysis for far too long – you can’t win this one with me. ;-)

Who is Black in the media who should be a top anchor is the question you should ask. Rick Sanchez certainly shouldn’t have been, but he’s most likely an example of a quota being filled as well. Show the the outstanding talent we do know who’s not getting the attention they deserve. Should it be a hack like Roland Martin? Al Sharpton? Outstanding talents usually rise to the top because of hard work through the ranks. Affirmative Action makes it much harder for that to happen. No one takes you seriously and you don’t take yourself seriously. So what happens? DL Hughley gets a shot at the evening news instead of Don Lemon. Marc Lamont Hill is obviously smart enough, but he uses his intelligence to advance a narrative and try to win debates with rhetoric instead of having conversations and discussions. You diagnose a problem, but don’t offer any real solutions. The ones you cling to obviously don’t work, because the problems aren”t getting any better.
And by the way, a poor white girl goes missing off a city street every day in America, how come it’s only the middle class and rich white girls that make the evening news? Sorry, I live in Iowa where there are very few Blacks, so the poor neighborhoods and ghettos are made up of most white people. The evening news covers them the same way they covered Blacks in NYC, not at all or negatively.

writer said:
It doesn’t wash, Paul. If economics were the only factor, then Native Americans would have the highest illegitimacy rates. And I’m not afraid to say it. Yeah, knocking up your girlfriend, then walking out on her, shows a lack of character. If a white person behaved like that, you’d have no trouble questioning hischaracter, but when blacks do it, out come the excuses. Even Bill Cosby has recognized that the 70% figure is shooting the black community in the foot. Is he a racist?

right-is-wrong said:
What do you think the real problem is?

Writer, you bring this up enough now that it’s time you actually answer the question and tell us why you think this is. I hate to say it, but there really are people who throw out facts without their own beliefs in causation who are racists. I’d appreciate it if you gave us your counter-narrative to the one Paul proposes.

atreyue said:
It saddens me that you apparently think so little of White people

Maybe it does, but I doubt you’re as saddened by that as I am by the FACT that too many white people, and nearly every conservative, thinks so little of black people that they blame blacks for nearly every social ill in America and would happily usher in segregation again. Affirmative Action is the favorite target of the racist and the argument is always made on purely ideological grounds. Free marketeers incapable of making an economic argument that makes sense is nothing new to me, and reveals the emptiness of the ideology itself. Make an economic argument that a level playing field is bad. Because if you think taking away AA is “leveling” anything, you’re wrong.

writer said:
It doesn’t wash, Paul. If economics were the only factor, then Native Americans would have the highest illegitimacy rates. And I’m not afraid to say it. Yeah, knocking up your girlfriend, then walking out on her, shows a lack of character. If a white person behaved like that, you’d have no trouble questioning hischaracter, but when blacks do it, out come the excuses. Even Bill Cosby has recognized that the 70% figure is shooting the black community in the foot. Is he a racist?

Couple reports from a study in the 90s…

- http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19944462.html
- http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n23_v92/ai_19944462/

This controversial study includes this line:

“Allowing a black person based on racial preferences is the same problem as a white person who gets in because his father donates a million dollars to the elite law school…”

- http://www.dailycal.org/article/17663/affirmative_action_study_generates_controversy

…which would be true if the applicants being accepted were not up to academic snuff, but they are. And other studies have shown cultural differences in educational background can take time to overcome for minority students…

- http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/support/cultural-differences-student-performance.gs?content=704

…so measuring after one year is inconclusive and, by most measures, considered an unfair assessment.

This is not an easy question to tackle and AA is, by its nature, imperfect, to be sure. But assuming the free market will fix discrimination and provide America with the best opportunity to tap all its resources is short-sighted. We “institute governments among men” for a reason – and this is one of those reasons, imo.

Paul Westlake said:
and nearly every conservative

That was an unfair description, I meant to say “neo-con” or “reactionary” or “ultra-conservative.” I didn’t mean to imply ALL conservatives are racist. Quick typing and no proofread.

atreyue, I’m merely going by the Census figures. There are many more poor whites than blacks, yet the rate for whites is 25%. The rate for Native Americans is 43%. Economics alone doesn’t explain it. I don’t pretend to know all the reasons, but step back from it for a minute and pretend the 70% rate didn’t apply to blacks. Suppose it was whites, or Asians. Just looking at the numbers, you’d say they were really inflicting damage on themselves by not dealing with that. They should start taking some personal responsibility. But with blacks, suddenly the topic becomes very touchy and we have to tip toe around it. And that tip toeing doesn’t seem to be helping the problem.

atreyue said:
Writer, you bring this up enough now that it’s time you actually answer the question and tell us why you think this is. I hate to say it, but there really are people who throw out facts without their own beliefs in causation who are racists. I’d appreciate it if you gave us your counter-narrative to the one Paul proposes.

I would, too. And thank you for keeping this argument on a clinical level. This is a debate that can get ugly fast, and I won’t deny I’m on a hair-trigger with some of the aspects of this issue. ;-)

Your level-headed approach is much appreciated.

Paul Westlake said:
Affirmative Action is one of those government programs that actually shows signs of accomplishing the goal it was designed for, to give African-Americans a chance to catch up to modern society after generations of slavery and segregation.

Yep. It has also been instrumental in causing hiring managers to ask a very important question. Can I fire this person if they fail to perform the duties necessary without paying Holy Hell for it?

Affirmative Action has done wonders for blacks. 70% of black children are born to single uneducated women who are heavily subsidized by welfare. Having been born into Single Parent Welfare homes for generations, more than 70% of Black Americans understand that it is at least equally important to ‘learn how to work the system” as it is to become Interdependent. What an Achievement! Where would Blacks be without it!?

It takes lower scores, dark skin by heredity, and the ‘proper’ income (low) to get into college. Hooray for Affirmative Action! Setting the bar low and building a ramp up to it is a perfectly acceptable means to educate those who had family members held in bondage 140 years ago and had grandparents called “The N Word” 40 years ago.

Who needs exercise when your competition is forced to build you an escalator!

Affirmative Action has done so much FOR the descendants of dark skinned slaves and those who share dark skin that the list is virtually infinite. Those that help keep Affirmative Action Alive and Healthy forever can say with pride, Black Pride that is, that they are responsible for Black History Month ALWAYS being about HISTORY rather than Posterity.

Paul Westlake said:
Maybe it does, but I doubt you’re as saddened by that as I am by the FACT that too many white people, and nearly every conservative, thinks so little of black people that they blame blacks for nearly every social ill in America and would happily usher in segregation again.

See my hyperbole comment to you above about your “FACTS”.

Paul Westlake said:
Affirmative Action is the favorite target of the racist and the argument is always made on purely ideological grounds. Free marketeers incapable of making an economic argument that makes sense is nothing new to me, and reveals the emptiness of the ideology itself. Make an economic argument that a level playing field is bad. Because if you think taking away AA is “leveling” anything, you’re wrong.

I’m not sure you know what a level playing field is. It doesn’t mean everything being exactly equal for everyone. It means there is no rule that gives anyone an advantage or disadvantage. No one is forced to run uphill or gets to run downhill. Some people will still be faster or slower than others. Some people’s parents were irresponsible and fed them way too much as kids, so they’re slow fatasses who need to get in the gym and exercise to lose weight if they want to be running backs. Or they could just use what they already have to be lineman. I know it looks unfair that Colt has been playing since PeeWee football at 8 years old and Malik only started playing in high school because his schools or family couldn’t afford the equipment. You want to address that imbalance, go start a PeeWee league in Malik’s neighborhood or donate money to the school to use for equipment so it can form it’s own team. That’s equality. That’s a real solution, and you can recognize it as such because it has long term as well as short term benefits. Making Malik the starter when he hasn’t earned it doesn’t make things any better for his little brother Tyquan.

writer said:
atreyue, I’m merely going by the Census figures. There are many more poor whites than blacks, yet the rate for whites is 25%. The rate for Native Americans is 43%. Economics alone doesn’t explain it. I don’t pretend to know all the reasons, but step back from it for a minute and pretend the 70% rate didn’t apply to blacks. Suppose it was whites, or Asians. Just looking at the numbers, you’d say they were really inflicting damage on themselves by not dealing with that. They should start taking some personal responsibility. But with blacks, suddenly the topic becomes very touchy and we have to tip toe around it. And that tip toeing doesn’t seem to be helping the problem.

I don’t think Bill Cosby is tip-toeing around it. And yes, there’s a backlash, of course, as always, whether rooted in fact or fiction, there’s always a backlash. For instance, Rush Limbaugh is a bigot, period. There is no getting around that. He proves it nearly every day. But almost all his loyal listeners freak out at the notion that their hero is a bigot, because, by extension, that means they’re bigots, too. I’m not excusing the behavior, or the backlash, but to assume that staying poor and uneducated is personal choice that denotes laziness is the implication from the extreme right, and bandying about 70% figures as though the number, in itself, proves anything, is part of that campaign. I won’t deny there’s a problem in the black community, but I do deny tat that 70% number is reflective of the entire story. And when it comes to Native Americans, they have their own lands, their own quasi-nation states – it’s incredibly difficult to make comparisons between Native American culture and any other segment of American society. However, that being said, the middle of the 20th century was extremely unkind to Native Americans, who, by the 80s, had alcoholism and drop-out rates in their communities pushing 80%. IN the 80s, a concerted effort was made within that community to start addressing those problems and find ways to bring resources in without relying on the government. That’s when the tobacco retailing and casinos went up. There story there is very different today because people consciously made the effort, but also, because they had the land! The black community has no such resources to fall back on. It’s not a fair comparison.

theendisfar said:
Yep. It has also been instrumental in causing hiring managers to ask a very important question. Can I fire this person if they fail to perform the duties necessary without paying Holy Hell for it?

Not when I was a hiring manager for three years at a major sports league. No. Nobody ever considers that issue in hiring – and if they do, they’re bigots. Sorry, homey don’t play that one. ;-)

atreyue said:
See my hyperbole comment to you above about your “FACTS”.

I’m sure I deserved that at first. ;-)

But I did correct…

Paul Westlake said:
Paul Westlake said:
and nearly every conservative

That was an unfair description, I meant to say “neo-con” or “reactionary” or “ultra-conservative.” I didn’t mean to imply ALL conservatives are racist. Quick typing and no proofread.

It’s tough to separate the wheat from the chaff sometimes. ;-)

Paul, hand wringing over the reasons is fine, but sometimes, people just need to be told, “Stop that.” If any other group was doing that to themselves, you’d recognize that they were harming themselves. But with blacks, we shouldn’t do that. We should look for underlying reasons. Which is fine. But in the mean time, lots of young black men need to be told “Stop that.”

writer said:
atreyue, I’m merely going by the Census figures. There are many more poor whites than blacks, yet the rate for whites is 25%. The rate for Native Americans is 43%. Economics alone doesn’t explain it. I don’t pretend to know all the reasons, but step back from it for a minute and pretend the 70% rate didn’t apply to blacks. Suppose it was whites, or Asians. Just looking at the numbers, you’d say they were really inflicting damage on themselves by not dealing with that. They should start taking some personal responsibility. But with blacks, suddenly the topic becomes very touchy and we have to tip toe around it. And that tip toeing doesn’t seem to be helping the problem.

There’s no reason why you need to tiptoe around anything. I won’t judge you (much :) for having your own opinoin, and not being Black doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to one or can’t be correct. Obviously, I’m a big fan of personal responsibility. Saying economics isn’t the only factor is well and good, I’m asking what other factors you think there are. For instance, I think if you add a general lack of character in our society and an overwhelmingly christian belief system, it explains why poor whites don’t have the same numbers. Blacks are probably less likely to think an abortion is ok, and more likely to not get married or remarry because of religious reasons as well. I think Paul’s right that it doesn’t affect the higher classes in the Black community at anywhere near the rate, so obviously a large part of it is economic. But if you had comparative rates of divorce and abortion, it would probably shed a lot more light anthropologically about what is responsible for the difference.

Paul Westlake said:
I’m sure I deserved that at first. ;-)

But I did correct…

It’s tough to separate the wheat from the chaff sometimes. ;-)

Yes, you surely did, so I apologize. I definitely need to type faster so I can refresh more often. Or write less…

atreyue said:
I’m not sure you know what a level playing field is. It doesn’t mean everything being exactly equal for everyone. It means there is no rule that gives anyone an advantage or disadvantage.

Of course, but when the field is tilted by non-economic forces – i.e., bigotry – what is the remedy, if not a counterbalance? EEO laws are nowhere near enough – I didn’t have to hire any black people when I had that job, all I had to do was show resumes from black people in my files and that would be enough to prove non-discrimination, even though I may have hired exclusively from a pool of whites. Even when the most academically qualified, even superior black intellect, is denied the opportunity for grown for non-academic, non-economic reasons, what is the viable market remedy? I’m all ears. Seriously.

Professional athletics is a terrible comparison, since it’s one of the only industries in society in which the “workers” make more than the mangers and all of them obtain their positions by almost pure merit (bad GM decisions notwithstanding). ;-)

But look at the people operating the concession stands, and cleaning the ballparks after games – almost uniformly minority, minimum wage workers… very few whites. I worked in baseball stadiums for years. That’s for real.

atreyue said:
Yes, you surely did, so I apologize. I definitely need to type faster so I can refresh more often. Or write less…

I hear that! ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
There story there is very different today because people consciously made the effort, but also, because they had the land! The black community has no such resources to fall back on. It’s not a fair comparison.

I don’t believe that we need the land. We’ve always been much better off than Native Americans. I actually think the whole reservation & casino idea did much more to hurt what was left of the Native American nations than help them. I just want to see what would happen if the Black community would ever dedicate itself to putting in the effort. I’m ashamed of Obama for focusing most of his efforts on turning people out to vote when needed and saying “don’t pay any attention, we’ve got everything covered” the rest of the time. He should be taking the Black community to task for not taking care of itself instead of telling them the government would take care of them and they’re just victims of circumstance.

writer said:
Paul, hand wringing over the reasons is fine, but sometimes, people just need to be told, “Stop that.” If any other group was doing that to themselves, you’d recognize that they were harming themselves. But with blacks, we shouldn’t do that. We should look for underlying reasons. Which is fine. But in the mean time, lots of young black men need to be told “Stop that.”

Yes, but not by white people. WE can’t say anything. It’s the same as an American Christian trying to convince a Muslim extremist about anything – they won’t hear it coming from that source. That’s why Bill Cosby is so important in this discussion. He IS telling them to stop. And he’s one of very few Americans who can actually make the black community listen. And the reason they listen to him and not us is simple – he gets it, we don’t. We never will. No matter how hard we try, no matter how well we’re read, no matter how righteous we ae, we will never get the black condition as white people in America. And I won’t cross that line ever.

Paul Westlake said:
Not when I was a hiring manager for three years at a major sports league.

Was it Hockey? :)

Are you ‘White’ and have you ever had to fire a ‘Black”? It has nothing to do with bigotry (being strongly partial to one’s own race), it has everything to do with keeping your department running smoothly on a tight budget.

Your overused argument has grown old and tiresome. When one is constantly berated unjustly, one becomes quite thick skinned to the injustice falsely in question.

Hiring for ‘failure is not an option’ positions is NEVER about race, it is ALWAYS about getting the job done. You can argue to your heart’s content about who’s right and who’s wrong, Affirmative Action has had and will continue to have severe Unintended Consequences.

Are you completely blind the fact that those who consistently get a free ride are often incapable of walking? If consistently carried across the Finish Line, you will have little memory of where to start or which direction you can expect it.

You’re free to encourage mediocrity if you choose, but I’m confident the Human Race is not divided by color. Those that believe it is are doomed to chasing a Red Herring.

writer said:
Paul, hand wringing over the reasons is fine, but sometimes, people just need to be told, “Stop that.” If any other group was doing that to themselves, you’d recognize that they were harming themselves. But with blacks, we shouldn’t do that. We should look for underlying reasons. Which is fine. But in the mean time, lots of young black men need to be told “Stop that.”

Lack of personal responsibility is an American problem, not a specifically Black one. There are just different symptoms affecting each community. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out a problem, but without diagnosis it looks like you’re trying to find a flaw you don’t share to single someone out, making it racial when, really, nothing should be.

Paul Westlake said:
Yes, but not by white people. WE can’t say anything. It’s the same as an American Christian trying to convince a Muslim extremist about anything – they won’t hear it coming from that source. That’s why Bill Cosby is so important in this discussion. He IS telling them to stop. And he’s one of very few Americans who can actually make the black community listen. And the reason they listen to him and not us is simple – he gets it, we don’t. We never will. No matter how hard we try, no matter how well we’re read, no matter how righteous we ae, we will never get the black condition as white people in America. And I won’t cross that line ever.

Bill Cosby tells the Black community to stop and it doesn’t listen because all the other very few Americans who could make the Black community listen either denounced him for it or were conspicuously and deliberately silent. Why do I keep on bringing this up? Because these Black “leaders” derive much of their power from a special interest group that wants to assure that Blacks always vote for that special interest group: the Democrats. Most of their organizations were present at the Black Media summit to get their marching orders.

atreyue said:
I actually think the whole reservation & casino idea did much more to hurt what was left of the Native American nations than help them.

Culturally, I would agree. Economically, it’s been a lifesaver. But remember the rampant crime and alcoholism that was the hallmark of life on the res in decades past? That pandemic has abated and fallen to more normal levels, largely as a result of economic factors, but also due to social work. The work is far from complete – there isn’t a uniform experience in Native America and many Reservations are still places of deep poverty and social ills – but the land made a difference that just doesn’t have an equivalent in the black community.

atreyue said:
He should be taking the Black community to task for not taking care of itself instead of telling them the government would take care of them and they’re just victims of circumstance.

I don’t disagree with that in principle, but politically it’s a tightrope. If Obama pushes too hard on the black community, he risks alienating them in a way Cosby never would – because Cosby isn’t the President. But I agree that Obama hasn’t done much of anything on that front and he could do more than just leading by example. He could have stayed out of the Connecticut incident, for instance, and nobody would have cared. But I chalk that up to inexperience with the bully pulpit – he didn’t realize how big a deal that would be – which is dumb, but it seems to be the case. Conversely, now that he knows that power of the bully pulpit, he could certainly use it more in the way you describe. However, as I mentioned in my previous comment, that’s an issue of, by, and for blacks. As a white guy, I know I can’t make much of a difference in that regard. Where I CAN make a difference, is with other white people. And I do so because I think there are just as many misconceptions about the meaning of a black president on the right as their are on the left. Obama is neither the messiah so many lefties hoped he would be, nor the symbol of post-racialism in America, as so many conservatives had hoped would be. And the irony there, is that so many white conservatives portray his election as proof that racism is dead in America, while simultaneously calling him America’s first “Affirmative Action” President. If we’re going to let by-gones be by-gones, including Affirmative Action, then we have to let that mentality die, too. And it’s not just alive right now, the election of Obama seems to have given it new life. As long as that contradiction exists, I think abolishing AA is premature. It WILL end someday, but we’re not there yet.

atreyue said:
Bill Cosby tells the Black community to stop and it doesn’t listen because all the other very few Americans who could make the Black community listen either denounced him for it or were conspicuously and deliberately silent. Why do I keep on bringing this up? Because these Black “leaders” derive much of their power from a special interest group that wants to assure that Blacks always vote for that special interest group: the Democrats. Most of their organizations were present at the Black Media summit to get their marching orders.

I don’t discount the opportunists in the black community, but that same dynamic is playing out right now in Tea Parties across America – opportunists like Dick Armey have hjiacked a movement to obtain wealth and political power, even going so far as to exploit the community center in Manhattan to reach their opportunistic goals. I don’t mind calling it out on my side, as long as we’re calling it out everywhere. And the main difference between the opportunism in the black community and the opportunism in the corridors of power – corporations, political parties, etc, – is the amount of resources. Even if Jesse Jackson is a total shill, opportunist, whack job, he’s earning a hundredth off his malfeasance compared to the money and influence being collected on the other side of this equation. And Jackson is considered kinda nuts even by lefties, whereas the people who are demonstrably nuts, and bigots,from Ann Coulter to Glen Beck, are not just defended, but celebrated on the right. So I don’t really see the equivalency at this point. I won’t deny we have out share of shitheads on the left, but their power, reach, and wealth pales in comparison with the right.

Paul Westlake said:
Of course, but when the field is tilted by non-economic forces – i.e., bigotry – what is the remedy, if not a counterbalance? EEO laws are nowhere near enough – I didn’t have to hire any black people when I had that job, all I had to do was show resumes from black people in my files and that would be enough to prove non-discrimination, even though I may have hired exclusively from a pool of whites. Even when the most academically qualified, even superior black intellect, is denied the opportunity for grown for non-academic, non-economic reasons, what is the viable market remedy? I’m all ears. Seriously.

You make the assumptions that: 1) most Whites who don’t identify themselves they same way you do are racist 2) a racist will always be a racist. I think both of those are false. If the problem is that Blacks are too uneducated, find a way to do a better job of educating them. If whites are too racist, then find a way to teach them tolerance. “Surround them”, as Glenn Beck would say. When there’s actual proven discrimination going on, shine a spotlight on it and see what happens. Shout fire when there is none enough, and no one will believe you when it’s true.

Paul Westlake said:
pales in comparison

Really bad word selection there. ;-)

My mother was famous for making word associations that she discovered only after the fact, so much so that the phenomenon was named after her – “Sandygram.”

That was a Sandygram. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Where I CAN make a difference, is with other white people. And I do so because I think there are just as many misconceptions about the meaning of a black president on the right as their are on the left. Obama is neither the messiah so many lefties hoped he would be, nor the symbol of post-racialism in America, as so many conservatives had hoped would be. And the irony there, is that so many white conservatives portray his election as proof that racism is dead in America, while simultaneously calling him America’s first “Affirmative Action” President. If we’re going to let by-gones be by-gones, including Affirmative Action, then we have to let that mentality die, too. And it’s not just alive right now, the election of Obama seems to have given it new life. As long as that contradiction exists, I think abolishing AA is premature. It WILL end someday, but we’re not there yet.

The contradiction I see is that there’s no possible way to let the Affirmative Action mentality die without getting rid of the cause of it – i.e. Affirmative Action – first. If we’re being honest, lefties thought Obama would be the Messiah because he said he would be, and conservatives hoped he would herald the era of post-racialism in America because he could have if he wanted to. Unfortunately, political expediency required that he play the race card often, just as he so willingly sacrificed post-partisanship and campaign spending limits when it suited him in 2008.

atreyue said:
You make the assumptions that: 1) most Whites who don’t identify themselves they same way you do are racist 2) a racist will always be a racist. I think both of those are false. If the problem is that Blacks are too uneducated, find a way to do a better job of educating them. If whites are too racist, then find a way to teach them tolerance. “Surround them”, as Glenn Beck would say. When there’s actual proven discrimination going on, shine a spotlight on it and see what happens. Shout fire when there is none enough, and no one will believe you when it’s true.

I don’t entirely disagree with your basic sentiment, but as a white guy, I detect the codewords and attitudes faster than blacks sometimes – strange as that may seem. And the phrases are used in a way that precludes any disagreement – like when writer throws 70% around as though the number is proof in itself. I don’t want to accuse writer of bigotry, so much as adopting a casual attitude about causation. There are very legitimate arguments to be made on both sides, and given that race is at the center of the wheel, it’s charged with emotion that can easily trip people up and set the entire debate back in an instant. And to make matters worse, we’re also talking about lifestyle choices, which everyone is defensive about, top to bottom. So, in answer to your assertion, 1) I don’t think I assume ALL whites who disagree with my position are racist, but I’m not ashamed to make them prove it, any day of the week, because that self-check is too often the ingredient that’s missing from these debates, and 2) I don’t think racists will always be racist by nature, but I DO think they will by nurture if we don’t make it uncomfortable for them to continue. The single most effective means of changing destructive behavior is public shame – so that’s my angle. I can’t legislate, I have no bully pulpit, and I’m not the hiring manager at MLB anymore (where I increased minority hiring by more than 500%, btw). ;-)

So my contribution is to make sure that the white people I encounter, who call out blacks, have checked themselves at the door. ;-)

atreyue, if the 70% figure applied to Asians, I’d feel the same way. And since the figure for blacks is almost twice as high as for the next nearest group, I don’t see how you can totally dismiss race from the equation. You don’t deal with a problem by pretending it doesn’t exist, or that the same level of problem exists among every race. It doesn’t.

atreyue said:
If we’re being honest, lefties thought Obama would be the Messiah because he said he would be, and conservatives hoped he would herald the era of post-racialism in America because he could have if he wanted to

I don’t think that’s entirely honest. Obama never called himself the messiah, except to poke fun at the people who did at a WH Correspondents Dinner. It may be the left’s fault, but not Obama’s. And I’m not sure what Obama could really have done, short of signing an executive order abolishing AA, that would have signaled the beginning of a post-racial era in America. And if he HAD done that, it might have made the right wing very happy, but once the results started coming in – black enrollment at colleges down, black hiring down, black graduation rates down – he’d be a pariah on the left and reviled as a BINO. And I have no doubt that rates of black involvement in our economy, academics and society in general, would fall precipitously if AA were abolished today. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. If you think we can live with that, and that there are better solutions for that phenomenon, than I’m really all ears. AA is a terrible solution, but it’s something. What’s the alternative to AA?

Paul Westlake said:
I don’t discount the opportunists in the black community, but that same dynamic is playing out right now in Tea Parties across America – opportunists like Dick Armey have hjiacked a movement to obtain wealth and political power, even going so far as to exploit the community center in Manhattan to reach their opportunistic goals.

There are many opportunists that are TRYING to take over the Tea Parties in America by forcing them into one body and trying to manipulate them. The difference is that the Tea Partiers are a “Fool me one, shame on you” lot right now. How many democrats would have guessed that it was actually Obama who would be another 4 years of Bush wars and policies? I wish they would hold Obama to the same standards they held Bush to. The reality is that if Rand Paul turns out to be just like the person he replaces, he’ll be voted out next election. Then maybe the new person that runs will realize that they’d better run on the platform they actually mean to govern on, or that person will be voted out, too. Dems & Repubs have let themselves be tricked into thinking it’s about “my side vs. yours” or “shitty vs. shittier” and “it’s never going to be anything other than a 2 party system”. At this rate, it won’t be long until most Americans understand it’s not about Party affiliation.

40 years of African Americans in lock step with the democrat party and where has it got them?? Poverty, Fatherless families, Incarceration, School Drop outs, Hero’s that are Rap stars etc…

Black Americans are only 12% of the population and their worst enemy’s are themselves and people like Rev Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Nothing will change until they wake up and see that they have choices…

writer said:
atreyue, if the 70% figure applied to Asians, I’d feel the same way. And since the figure for blacks is almost twice as high as for the next nearest group, I don’t see how you can totally dismiss race from the equation. You don’t deal with a problem by pretending it doesn’t exist, or that the same level of problem exists among every race. It doesn’t.

I don’t think that racial identity is about anything other than social factors. It’s all about nurture instead of nature once you get past physical markers for race. American Blacks are nothing like Africans or European Blacks or Caribbean Blacks, etc. So when you identify a problem, it’s important that you don’t let race (Black) define it, when you really mean poor people raised in (urban) ghettos. If you there are fundamental character differences between different races above and beyond our societal conditions, then I think that would qualify as the definition of racist.

atreyue said:
How many democrats would have guessed that it was actually Obama who would be another 4 years of Bush wars and policies?

I don’t know but I did. ;-)

atreyue said:
I wish they would hold Obama to the same standards they held Bush to. The reality is that if Rand Paul turns out to be just like the person he replaces, he’ll be voted out next election.

BUt Obama is held to a much higher standard than these same people held Bush Jr, AND Bush Sr, AND Reagan. This isn’t a fool-me-once crowd, this is a fool-me-whenever-you-feel-like-it crowd. You want Dems to hold Obama to the same standard? Many of us are, and are apoplectic about Gitmo and Iraq. I have personally sent dozens of letters to my Reps, and the President, on those subjects, AND DADT and gay marriage. There is much to be disappointed with in the Obama administration, but when it comes to those issues closest to our hearts, not getting what we want from the Democratic party doesn’t mean we look for it in the GOP, because they don’t even pay lips service. But the alleged deficit hawks in the TP movement were nowhere to be found when Bush was in office, except in those bursts of jingoistic zeal that shouted down any attempt at rational pre-Iraq War debate, for instance. So, sorry, I’m not buying anything with regard to the Tea Partiers. There is a small minority of true believers and first-time political activists, but the vast majority are simply the re-packaged Christian conservatives with funny hats.

What would really make a difference in this is if a President came along and put together a real commission to look at the effectiveness of AA, and whether it should be repealed, replaced, or reformed. But the emotions surrounding the issue are so charged, it would be very difficult to affect. The best move would be to do something in secret – which negates the whole “transparent government” thing. But a secret panel made of people from all walks, including people many blacks and Dems would consider bigots, to rationally approach AA from the economic perspective – what is the goal of AA? Has it been achieved? Is it achievable with this model? What would be a better model? What economic and academic models could be employed that would negate the necessity of AA? How could it be implemented with a minimum of disruption to the exiting structures of society? Etc, etc. And after several months of deliberation and study, this group could reveal its findings in a town hall setting, allowing the initial burst of emotion to hit all the panelists frontally and transparently, with prominent members of both parties present to absorb the blows and defend their opponents. Yes, their opponents. Only by showing that every group is willing to acknowledge the malefactors within their own ranks, can all parties begin to heal and move on. And as long as the accusations fly, on everything from lifestyle choices to institutional discrimination, that won’t happen. I think we’re much more mature than we once were as a society with regard to race, but we’re not yet adults. I think that’s our biggest problem.

Paul Westlake said:
I don’t think that’s entirely honest. Obama never called himself the messiah, except to poke fun at the people who did at a WH Correspondents Dinner. It may be the left’s fault, but not Obama’s. And I’m not sure what Obama could really have done, short of signing an executive order abolishing AA, that would have signaled the beginning of a post-racial era in America. And if he HAD done that, it might have made the right wing very happy, but once the results started coming in – black enrollment at colleges down, black hiring down, black graduation rates down – he’d be a pariah on the left and reviled as a BINO. And I have no doubt that rates of black involvement in our economy, academics and society in general, would fall precipitously if AA were abolished today. No doubt in my mind whatsoever. If you think we can live with that, and that there are better solutions for that phenomenon, than I’m really all ears. AA is a terrible solution, but it’s something. What’s the alternative to AA?

They thought Obama would be the Messiah because he promised them everything. Obviously, he had not intention of delivering on his campaign promises. Saying he never used the actual word is just splitting hairs.

If Obama really cared about helping the Black community, he would actually diagnose the problems in it and come up with solutions to it. If a solution is terrible, then it’s not really a solution is it? It’s just a failed attempt at a solution. If it stays in place once you’ve identified it’s not working, then it’s a problem. Obviously, the solution is to improve education in the Black community and then enforce the equal protection clause.

You have no doubt of exactly what would happen and how people would react if Affirmative action was removed, but you’ve got nothing at all to base it on. You make sweeping claims of racism and you’ve never experienced it in the workplace or anywhere else. You must be pretty young. Youths always are so darn certain of just how everything is and just how everyone thinks without having enough life experience to provide even a little proof.

Paul Westlake said:
There is much to be disappointed with in the Obama administration, but when it comes to those issues closest to our hearts, not getting what we want from the Democratic party doesn’t mean we look for it in the GOP, because they don’t even pay lips service. But the alleged deficit hawks in the TP movement were nowhere to be found when Bush was in office, except in those bursts of jingoistic zeal that shouted down any attempt at rational pre-Iraq War debate, for instance. So, sorry, I’m not buying anything with regard to the Tea Partiers. There is a small minority of true believers and first-time political activists, but the vast majority are simply the re-packaged Christian conservatives with funny hats.

You have no idea what the makeup of the Tea Party is. You’re just repeating what the talking heads in the Media and Politics say about it. Since only 30% of Americans identify as Democrat, there’s no way that Bush could have had such a low approval rating if there weren’t many Republicans dissatisfied with him as well. And many of those republicans because Independents and even democrats in the last election because they so disagreed with him. I’m sure those same people who woke up under Bush cut Obama no slack either. Democrats, not so much. The same people burning effigies of Bush and protesting the war have all just gone back to business as usual under Obama even as he continues and expands upon those policies and powers that Bush abused.

atreyue said:
I don’t think that racial identity is about anything other than social factors. It’s all about nurture instead of nature once you get past physical markers for race. American Blacks are nothing like Africans or European Blacks or Caribbean Blacks, etc. So when you identify a problem, it’s important that you don’t let race (Black) define it, when you really mean poor people raised in (urban) ghettos. If you there are fundamental character differences between different races above and beyond our societal conditions, then I think that would qualify as the definition of racist.

Very well said.
This is probably the best debate I have seen here.
I has been VERY interesting to see you come at the debate from a position I for one first saw as combative.

atreyue said:
Obviously, the solution is to improve education in the Black community and then enforce the equal protection clause.

Here becomes the real problem.
Everyone I grew up with has attended schools that each of us would consider “normal”.
In recent years I have visited several inner city schools which are geared towards children who come from “ghetto” subsidized housing with broken familys. They are very disgusting places. How can someone learn to be “normal in the US when their school has a handle missing on the front door, paint peeling, cracked gym floor. AA is an easy band-aid. Education is hard, expensive, and quite possibly out of reach in a society which views people as different.

Paul Westlake said:
What would really make a difference in this is if a President came along and put together a real commission to look at the effectiveness of AA, and whether it should be repealed, replaced, or reformed. But the emotions surrounding the issue are so charged, it would be very difficult to affect. The best move would be to do something in secret – which negates the whole “transparent government” thing. But a secret panel made of people from all walks, including people many blacks and Dems would consider bigots, to rationally approach AA from the economic perspective – what is the goal of AA? Has it been achieved? Is it achievable with this model? What would be a better model? What economic and academic models could be employed that would negate the necessity of AA? How could it be implemented with a minimum of disruption to the exiting structures of society? Etc, etc. And after several months of deliberation and study, this group could reveal its findings in a town hall setting, allowing the initial burst of emotion to hit all the panelists frontally and transparently, with prominent members of both parties present to absorb the blows and defend their opponents.

Commissions of “experts” appointed from a corrupt system cannot be trusted. Public debate and transparency is the only way to ensure things are done right & well. Obama knows this. That’s why he crowed so much about transparency and taking on the corrupt system to get elected, then abandoned that promise too.

right-is-wrong said:
Very well said.
This is probably the best debate I have seen here.
I has been VERY interesting to see you come at the debate from a position I for one first saw as combative.

Thank you. It just took me 20 or so warm-up posts to get there.

atreyue said:
So when you identify a problem, it’s important that you don’t let race (Black) define it, when you really mean poor people raised in (urban) ghettos.

There are also factors such as how someone is viewed in general, much like here.
I became friends with someone I worked with. We never discussed race (he was black) until a day when a new employee started who was very dark black. My friend stated that he did not mind being black, just not that black.

What a way to live your life.
How many of us would say I don’t mind being white, just…

atreyue said:
They thought Obama would be the Messiah because he promised them everything. Obviously, he had not intention of delivering on his campaign promises. Saying he never used the actual word is just splitting hairs.

Yeah, but I can make the same argument about GOP candidates who are promising to reduce the deficit by extending the Bush tax cuts. Even if tax cuts did pay for themselves (which these clearly did not), any stimulative effect of “cutting” has already come and gone, since the cuts occurred ten years ago. And the notion that all tax cuts pay for themselves is specious below a certain point. If you cut taxes to zero, you get zero. So the tax cut philosophy isn’t sustainable in the long run, or even in the short run as the evidence has shown.

But when it comes to Gitmo and DADT, you’re right. Major disappointments. However, he DID go for health care reform, which he did run on and which his advisers suggested he abandon. He has kept some of his promises. They may not be ones you wanted him to keep, but he kept some of them. That being said, I’ve have so many bones to pick with him, it’s not funny. Still, there’s nowhere to turn in the GOP. McCain would have expanded the war in Iraq, expanded Gitmo, made Bus’s tax cuts permanent, no stimulus, and so on. We’d be looking at 12% – 15% official unemployment and stealth unemployment over 40% right now, and that’s assuming the auto company bailouts, which wouldn’t have happened, so GM and Chrysler and Ford would be history right now. But Lehman may have survived! ;-)

atreyue said:
If Obama really cared about helping the Black community, he would actually diagnose the problems in it and come up with solutions to it

And that’s the rub. I don’t think Obama is focused on the black community. I think he’s focused on making sure he’s the President of all the people, and I’m not saying that’s good or bad. I think he feels he’s walking a tightrope between his blackness and his office. And I don’t know that any of us would respond all that differently in his shoes. I don’t discount what you’re saying at all, just that it may be a tall order to put on America’s first black president when we only just buried guys like Strom Thurmond. Just saying. ;-)

atreyue said:
You have no doubt of exactly what would happen and how people would react if Affirmative action was removed, but you’ve got nothing at all to base it on.

No, I cited two studies, one on the impact of AA…
- – http://www.dailycal.org/article/17663/affirmative_action_study_generates_controversy

…and one on the impact of cultural differences on earl education…

- http://www.greatschools.org/special-education/support/cultural-differences-student-performance.gs?content=704

I’m sure I can find more but I wasn’t digging too hard and I can’t devote that kind of time to full-bore research right now. But I’m not pulling this stuff out of my ass. Really. ;-)

And the reason I say I have no doubt about how some people would react, is because I know those people. I was raised in close proximity to those people and I have some of those people in my family, all classes. That is based on two things, the results of multiple studies, and my own experiences with the white superiority complex. It’s real and it’s pervasive, across all classes and ideologies. That’s why I’m so aggressive about these issues. I can’t stand to watch people give my race bad name with their overarching self-importance. Nobody’s all that. ;-)

atreyue said:
Commissions of “experts” appointed from a corrupt system cannot be trusted. Public debate and transparency is the only way to ensure things are done right & well. Obama knows this. That’s why he crowed so much about transparency and taking on the corrupt system to get elected, then abandoned that promise too.

That’s why I said the second part is very public and transparent. But to knock some of the most charged underlying issues aside early, would take a degree of study with credibility that can be accepted on all sides. I don’t think anything should implemented in secret. If you read that whole paragraph, I think I made it clear that it would have to culminate in a very public, very transparent process.

atreyue said:
right-is-wrong said:
Very well said.
This is probably the best debate I have seen here.
I has been VERY interesting to see you come at the debate from a position I for one first saw as combative.

Thank you. It just took me 20 or so warm-up posts to get there.

This is one of the best real discussions I’ve had here. I think we’re all being honest and avoiding gotchas. We may not find agreement, but I think we’re all better for the discussion. Thanks for a good debate.

atreyue said:
Thank you. It just took me 20 or so warm-up posts to get there.

I get it now.
In fact I think you and paul are just arguing the same issue, just different mindsets.
If you step back, you both really want to help.

right-is-wrong said:
We may not find agreement,.

Maybe you did, just different approach to solution.

right-is-wrong said:
Here becomes the real problem.
Everyone I grew up with has attended schools that each of us would consider “normal”.
In recent years I have visited several inner city schools which are geared towards children who come from “ghetto” subsidized housing with broken familys. They are very disgusting places. How can someone learn to be “normal in the US when their school has a handle missing on the front door, paint peeling, cracked gym floor. AA is an easy band-aid. Education is hard, expensive, and quite possibly out of reach in a society which views people as different.

Having attended inner city elementary schools, I can tell you that it’s more about cultural and social environment than it is physical. The community needs to actively believe in education and foster a positive learning environment. I don’t know if you know who Ben Carson is, but his mother couldn’t even read and understood and repeatedly stressed the importance of education to him and he grew up to be a famous doctor. All these amazing basketball players come out of New York City every year playing in parks and courts most people living in the neighborhood itself are afraid to be in, playing football and baseball games in concrete lots. They operate at a far higher level than most of their white suburban counterparts who are playing in beautiful facilities. I think this is for one simple reason: urban Blacks have bought into the idea that they can be successful at sports, so they make the most of what they have. They don’t really believe they can make anything of themselves through academics, so no effort is really made to get the most out of their educations or take care of their buildings. This is why increases in funds for schools in these areas don’t make much of an impact.

Paul Westlake said:
We may not find agreement,

oops

Paul Westlake said:
That’s why I said the second part is very public and transparent. But to knock some of the most charged underlying issues aside early, would take a degree of study with credibility that can be accepted on all sides. I don’t think anything should implemented in secret. If you read that whole paragraph, I think I made it clear that it would have to culminate in a very public, very transparent process.

I understood what you were saying. But I think that a degree doesn’t really count toward much in general, and definitely not in social issues. I think that something like this should be in the public forum and openly discussed before any type of legislation, even preliminary, is crafted. I’m assuming you approve of the idea of healthcare reform. I think it would have benefited greatly from public discussion prior to crafting something and then taking that to town halls to sell to the people. I just don’t think your average person is too dumb or too busy to understand. There’s a huge ivory tower elitist mentality in Washington. Both sides spend a lot of time trying to sell the public on the idea that they are everyman. But the reality is that their lifestyles are equally privileged and access to and accessibility to power is equal as well.

atreyue said:
Having attended inner city elementary schools, I can tell you that it’s more about cultural and social environment than it is physical. The community needs to actively believe in education and foster a positive learning environment. I don’t know if you know who Ben Carson is, but his mother couldn’t even read and understood and repeatedly stressed the importance of education to him and he grew up to be a famous doctor. All these amazing basketball players come out of New York City every year playing in parks and courts most people living in the neighborhood itself are afraid to be in, playing football and baseball games in concrete lots. They operate at a far higher level than most of their white suburban counterparts who are playing in beautiful facilities. I think this is for one simple reason: urban Blacks have bought into the idea that they can be successful at sports, so they make the most of what they have. They don’t really believe they can make anything of themselves through academics, so no effort is really made to get the most out of their educations or take care of their buildings. This is why increases in funds for schools in these areas don’t make much of an impact.

No doubt about it. Blacks are conditioned for athletics, whites are conditioned for academics. And AA is a terrible remedy that doesn’t even come close to addressing that. But let me put it to you this way –

I’m the President of Yale, and I’ve just been told that AA is the law of the land. That means my student body is going to diversify, like it or not. If I was interested in making AA go away, I’d do everything in my power to show that blacks can’t cut it up here. I’d accept those blacks that make blacks look bad, are most likely to drop out, etc. And then I’d show people what a terrible idea AA was. If, instead, I was actually interested in helping the black community make the most of this new opportunity, I would immediately deploy to the inner city, create pre-college programs in public schools that identify the best and brightest for college, help straighten the early-learning curve and see to it that my student body always reflected the best America has to offer, regardless of race. Know ing what we both know about the world, which one of those two scenarios do you think is most likely to have played out? Last I checked, Yale had outreach programs with about two dozen secondary schools, none of them in inner-city or black communities.

I just have a hard time caving to people who never had a vested interest in a program’s success in the first place. Anyone who REALLY wants to help make America a better place would take the approach you have – what works? – as opposed to the approach so many reactionaries have – what’s right? If it always boils down to ideological purity – what’s right – then put up your dukes, cause we’re ALL gonna be here a while. ;-)

atreyue said:
I understood what you were saying. But I think that a degree doesn’t really count toward much in general, and definitely not in social issues. I think that something like this should be in the public forum and openly discussed before any type of legislation, even preliminary, is crafted. I’m assuming you approve of the idea of healthcare reform. I think it would have benefited greatly from public discussion prior to crafting something and then taking that to town halls to sell to the people. I just don’t think your average person is too dumb or too busy to understand. There’s a huge ivory tower elitist mentality in Washington. Both sides spend a lot of time trying to sell the public on the idea that they are everyman. But the reality is that their lifestyles are equally privileged and access to and accessibility to power is equal as well.

I agree on health care, but I think race is so charged and emotional that it too easily and quickly devolves into race-baiting, whether it’s on the right, a la Rush and company, or the left, a la Sharpton and company. I’m not suggesting anyone pull a fast one, just that it might be best to have some of those answers in advance. But, generally, I totally agree with you that the American people are much sophisticated and adult than the pundits and politicians give us credit for – in fact, much more sophistication and maturity than many of the people who make those assumptions. But do you really think we’re there on race? I mean, if it was you and me, setting up a town hall, and I said “let’s commission a study,” and you said, “no, let’s wait until we’ve heard what people have to say.” I’d go along with that… once. And we’d see what happens. You may be 100% right that we’re mature enough to handle it. But I think that first town hall would devolve into shouting and race-baiting pretty quick… at least in this climate. Maybe it would have been easier if Hillary was elected. But then we’d be dealing with a whole different can of worms. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
I agree on health care, but I think race is so charged and emotional that it too easily and quickly devolves into race-baiting, whether it’s on the right, a la Rush and company, or the left, a la Sharpton and company. I’m not suggesting anyone pull a fast one, just that it might be best to have some of those answers in advance. But, generally, I totally agree with you that the American people are much sophisticated and adult than the pundits and politicians give us credit for – in fact, much more sophistication and maturity than many of the people who make those assumptions. But do you really think we’re there on race? I mean, if it was you and me, setting up a town hall, and I said “let’s commission a study,” and you said, “no, let’s wait until we’ve heard what people have to say.” I’d go along with that… once. And we’d see what happens. You may be 100% right that we’re mature enough to handle it. But I think that first town hall would devolve into shouting and race-baiting pretty quick… at least in this climate. Maybe it would have been easier if Hillary was elected. But then we’d be dealing with a whole different can of worms. ;-)

If it did devolve into race-baiting, the people who did that would be exposed pretty quickly. That process is also something that has to be gone through before the country and indivduals can grow. But the race card isn’t played in the public forum to expand debate. It’s what you do when you want to shut people up. This needs to not be a town hall. It needs to be a discussion held over weeks or months where the public can view it and participate in person and through responsible media. Let the Sharptons and Limbaughs expose themselves. When the public begins to calm down and look at it rationally, they’ll remember who was trying to fan the flames of racism and those people will suffer accordingly.

atreyue said:
Let the Sharptons and Limbaughs expose themselves. When the public begins to calm down and look at it rationally, they’ll remember who was trying to fan the flames of racism and those people will suffer accordingly.

I wish I had your optimism (and I don’t mean that in a belittling way… I really do). It’s just Rush and Al have been doing exactly that for a long time now and their constituencies are just devoted as ever. We won’t find any solutions to this problem here today. And I think we agree that there is a lot of work to do. That work is precisely the reason that informs both of our decisions – you from the perspective that AA is an irritant in the healing process, mine from the perspective that it’s the only balance to an otherwise broken system. The sad tragedy is, way may both be right. ;-)

Odd typo!

“The sad tragedy is, WE may both be right. ;-)”

Paul Westlake said:
No doubt about it. Blacks are conditioned for athletics, whites are conditioned for academics. And AA is a terrible remedy that doesn’t even come close to addressing that. But let me put it to you this way –

I’m the President of Yale, and I’ve just been told that AA is the law of the land. That means my student body is going to diversify, like it or not. If I was interested in making AA go away, I’d do everything in my power to show that blacks can’t cut it up here. I’d accept those blacks that make blacks look bad, are most likely to drop out, etc. And then I’d show people what a terrible idea AA was. If, instead, I was actually interested in helping the black community make the most of this new opportunity, I would immediately deploy to the inner city, create pre-college programs in public schools that identify the best and brightest for college, help straighten the early-learning curve and see to it that my student body always reflected the best America has to offer, regardless of race. Know ing what we both know about the world, which one of those two scenarios do you think is most likely to have played out? Last I checked, Yale had outreach programs with about two dozen secondary schools, none of them in inner-city or black communities.

I just have a hard time caving to people who never had a vested interest in a program’s success in the first place. Anyone who REALLY wants to help make America a better place would take the approach you have – what works? – as opposed to the approach so many reactionaries have – what’s right? If it always boils down to ideological purity – what’s right – then put up your dukes, cause we’re ALL gonna be here a while. ;-)

I would probably say that Blacks are conditioned for sports and whites not at all. And if you did those things as the President of Yale for inner city outreach to improves schools and education, the students wouldn’t need the “new opportunity” represented by Affirmative Action, especially if Yale isn’t racist. 50 years ago, maybe it was. Now? I highly doubt it. Now, since you are the President of Yale, I should point out that your description of what you would do if you didn’t believe in AA is that of someone who is racist or cares more about making a point than educating children. If you are curious as to how Yale believes it should help, check out:
http://teachers.yale.edu/about/index.php?skin=h
The Yale National Initiate actually does much of the stuff you talk about by train teachers to make the best impact they can, and have worked hand-in-hand with New Haven (where Yale is located) doing this exact thing. You may not have know this, but New Haven IS the inner city everywhere that’s not Yale. It’s the one thing Harvard with Cambridge definitely has over Yale. There are also multiple outreach programs that work with students of all ages that are run by students with faculty oversight during the school year and summer. My wife and I both participated in different ones when we were students there. Two very famous non-Yale related ones that you may have heard of are Prep for Prep and ABC, which both take gifted inner city students and place them in private schools, Prep is based in NYC and has an amazing success rate. The trick is to decide what’s right and then figure a way to make what’s right work. I just think that equality for all is what’s right, so any system designed to create inequality will not get my support. The people who came up with affirmative action were trying to create balance through unbalancing things. that can’t work. The dumbest thing George Bush ever said was that he abandoned free market principles to save the free market. It’s just nonsense and such an obvious contradiction.

Paul Westlake said:
I wish I had your optimism (and I don’t mean that in a belittling way… I really do). It’s just Rush and Al have been doing exactly that for a long time now and their constituencies are just devoted as ever. We won’t find any solutions to this problem here today. And I think we agree that there is a lot of work to do. That work is precisely the reason that informs both of our decisions – you from the perspective that AA is an irritant in the healing process, mine from the perspective that it’s the only balance to an otherwise broken system. The sad tragedy is, way may both be right. ;-)

I blame the media. It’s caused so much skepticism by trying to make the news instead of just reporting it. Hopefully CSPAN will be the wave of the future. Let people get their news devoid of color commentary and editing from someone with an agenda, which is how it is now on EVERY other station that does anything with the news, including comedy central.

theendisfar said:
Are you ‘White’ and have you ever had to fire a ‘Black”?

Yes, and yes. And they went quietly. When you run a fair department, that’s what happens.

The rest of your diatribe was opinion based on nothing, which is probably why I missed it the first time around.

And no, it wasn’t hockey.

atreyue said:
50 years ago, maybe it was. Now? I highly doubt it.

That’s how it was ten and twenty years ago, even. But I give credit to Yale for doing a better job in the past decade. It may not be to you, but it is ironic to me that “no child left behind” might have actually inspired some good, despite it’s ham-handedness. I still think there are more white collar criminals coming out of the Ivy League than anything else, but they’re the gold standard and they should at least be making the effort to produce crooks from every background. ;-)

atreyue said:
I blame the media. It’s caused so much skepticism by trying to make the news instead of just reporting it. Hopefully CSPAN will be the wave of the future. Let people get their news devoid of color commentary and editing from someone with an agenda, which is how it is now on EVERY other station that does anything with the news, including comedy central.

Couldn’t agree more, but the problem with C-Span is the boredom factor. Plus, the crazy, which comes out on both sides. Obviously, I’m a fan of NPR and BBC, at least for the reduced level of bombast. I mentioned twice before on Mediaite that I have a survey up online about this very thing, based on a commercial-free, subscription TV news model. It would help a lot if you did the survey and left some comments – http://broadcastnewspoll.blogspot.com/

Seven quick questions, no ads or gimmicks – minute or two tops. See the “about” page for my spiel, “Who Broke Broadcast News?” It’s fairly neutral, and if you think it isn’t, please say so. I’m working on what I hope can become the next generation of broadcast journalism and every bit of input helps. And the more diverse the political backgrounds in the survey, the better. So, if you can spare a couple minutes and believe as strongly as I do about the deterioration of American journalism, then please take a moment to drop by.

Paul Westlake said:
If it always boils down to ideological purity – what’s right – then put up your dukes, cause we’re ALL gonna be here a while.

It comes down to Local Governance. People closest to the problem have the highest stake and are the best equipped to handle the problem. One might argue that some communities do not have the best and brightest to resolve the local issues, and while that may be the case, that is an opportunity for the Central Planning Do Gooders to put their ideas and money to work.

Education is the only avenue to equality and there will always be those that consistently strive to be better. Human evolution has created a life where we begin dependent, become Independent, and ultimately Interdependent.

Affirmative Action leads to Codependency, not Interdependence.

I still have trouble buying the economic excuse. There are more poor whites than blacks. Native Americans are some of the poorest people in the country. Many Hispanics are poor, and their illegitimacy rate is barely above that of whites. If the numbers were even close, the economic argument would have more validity.

It’s all about nurture instead of nature.

And that’s exactly my point. For whatever reason, if the guy takes off, there’s no nurture. Or at least not the amount there should be. And if it were only due to economics, every race would have similar illegitimacy rates. I don’t pretend to know all the reasons why the rates for blacks are so much higher than for any other group. I just know that when any group has a 70% rate of single parent households, it’s destroying itself.

theendisfar said:
It comes down to Local Governance. People closest to the problem have the highest stake and are the best equipped to handle the problem. One might argue that some communities do not have the best and brightest to resolve the local issues, and while that may be the case, that is an opportunity for the Central Planning Do Gooders to put their ideas and money to work.

Education is the only avenue to equality and there will always be those that consistently strive to be better. Human evolution has created a life where we begin dependent, become Independent, and ultimately Interdependent.

Affirmative Action leads to Codependency, not Interdependence.

You’ve said it better than I think I could have

theendisfar said:
It comes down to Local Governance. People closest to the problem have the highest stake and are the best equipped to handle the problem.

Yes and no. Corporations, think tanks, and political advocacy groups also believe they have a large stake in these affairs, and project their power from afar. And many of those groups have far more power than any local community can ever muster. Ergo, the need for Uncle Sam to step in and end segregation by force. Slavery was an unnatural market force to begin with, and it’s legacy cannot be corrected in any reasonable amount of time (meaning less than several centuries) with market forces alone. It’s just absurd to assume otherwise.

theendisfar said:
One might argue that some communities do not have the best and brightest to resolve the local issues, and while that may be the case, that is an opportunity for the Central Planning Do Gooders to put their ideas and money to work.

This is just re-packaged anti-elitism. Yes, sometimes really smart people have been gifted with the skills and the opportunity to examine societal issues in a depth and detail than most local communities cannot produce on their own, and there’s no reason outside of provincialism to ignore them.

theendisfar said:
Education is the only avenue to equality and there will always be those that consistently strive to be better.

Again, yes and no. If the only people who can achieve equality must first obtain an education, why do we call it equality? Do we not recognize by the nature of the free market itself that not all people are born or can obtain the same capacities? And if, by nature, some people will never be able to obtain the highest levels of education, irrespective of access, is it not just another form of elitism to suggest that those people will never achieve the same level of “equality?” I never brought equality into this discussion, just access. If it’s equality you seek, I agree that AA is a terrible vehicle. But if we’re trying to establish a more equitable distribution of access, that’s a different story – because market forces alone cannot persuade the ideologically pure to relent in their self-defeating economics, provided the economics are minimally sustainable.

theendisfar said:
Human evolution has created a life where we begin dependent, become Independent, and ultimately Interdependent.

Affirmative Action leads to Codependency, not Interdependence.

No, all life is interdependence, like it or not. Even from birth, sure the babe itself is wholly dependent, but mother and father are interdependent with society, and therefore, it’s that interdependence that satisfies the needs of the baby. Independence is the illusion of youth. And it mostly inhabits the minds of men between puberty and midlife. Women are less likely to ignore their lifelong interdependence on society, because they have more obviously tangible examples of that interdependency in their lives than men. But there is no moment in human existence, beyond the totally self-sufficient hermit, that is not marked by interdependence. It’s why the social contract is so important, and it’s also the legitimate justification for a progressive tax policy – those at the top are JUST as interdependent as those on the bottom, but the top gets and outsize benefit from that interdependence, and therefore, should pay an equivalently outsize proportion back into the system. I can go on and no about this one if we want to shift gears into the fallacy of the rugged individualism espoused by libertarians. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
because market forces alone cannot persuade the ideologically pure to relent in their self-defeating economics, provided the economics are minimally sustainable.

…or to put it the way the Founders did…

“all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I think this sentiment applies to the slave, and the slavemaster alike – the ruled, and the ruler. As long as the form is minimally sustainable, market forces alone will not make it budge.

writer said:
I still have trouble buying the economic excuse. There are more poor whites than blacks. Native Americans are some of the poorest people in the country. Many Hispanics are poor, and their illegitimacy rate is barely above that of whites. If the numbers were even close, the economic argument would have more validity.

Since Blacks make up only 12% of the country, it’s not surprising that there are more poor whites than Blacks. I guess the question would be what the percentages of each are. And I don’t think it just has to do with economics, either. There are a lot of different factors that go into a cultural makeup.

writer said:
It’s all about nurture instead of nature.

And that’s exactly my point. For whatever reason, if the guy takes off, there’s no nurture. Or at least not the amount there should be. And if it were only due to economics, every race would have similar illegitimacy rates. I don’t pretend to know all the reasons why the rates for blacks are so much higher than for any other group. I just know that when any group has a 70% rate of single parent households, it’s destroying itself.

Then I guess what you’re really trying to get at is why do so many Black men not raise their children in the family unit? Or are you trying to say that Blacks are holding themselves back, not the racists or the history of racism? Like I said, every culture and subculture has its own issues. Alcoholism is far more prevalent in the Native American community than any other in America, I’m sure. Similar negative statements can be made for every subculture in America.

Okay, I’ll tell you my theory on the main reason black illegitimacy rates are so high, but Paul isn’t going to like it. It’s the left. Back during the fifties, when discrimination was much worse, blacks had lower illegitimacy rates than any other group. Then came the rise of the professional leftist. White liberals, and black ‘leaders’ such as Al Sharpton, started preaching that blacks were in a constant state of victimhood. No matter what they did, it was almost pointless, because the white man was just going to hold them back anyway. Unfortunately, many bought into that. So now, a preponderance of young black men figure “It doesn’t matter what I do. I’m a victim.” And the left just keeps preaching it, then wondering why things don’t get better.

I’m much more interested in what atreyue has to say about that than anything I can respond with. ;-)

writer said:
Okay, I’ll tell you my theory on the main reason black illegitimacy rates are so high, but Paul isn’t going to like it. It’s the left. Back during the fifties, when discrimination was much worse, blacks had lower illegitimacy rates than any other group. Then came the rise of the professional leftist. White liberals, and black ‘leaders’ such as Al Sharpton, started preaching that blacks were in a constant state of victimhood. No matter what they did, it was almost pointless, because the white man was just going to hold them back anyway. Unfortunately, many bought into that. So now, a preponderance of young black men figure “It doesn’t matter what I do. I’m a victim.” And the left just keeps preaching it, then wondering why things don’t get better.

I don’t think that you’re wrong about the general idea of victimhood being very present in the Black community, especially in the older Jacskon/Sharpton generation in their 50′s and 60′s. “The Man” was certainly my bogeyman growing up. But that might be more of a over-simplification than the economic factor. The minister/pastor who sleeps around on his wife and may have outside children is practically a Black meme, and you’ll find countless examples of this that predate the Civil Rights Act, most notably MLK himself. That’s not to say that other communities don’t also face this problem, but prevalent is definitely a word that Black would use amongst themselves to describe the phenomenon. Behaviors that are indulged in by the leaders of the community are often taught as acceptable behaviors to the next generation. Prior to the Civil Rights movement, Black men were already a limited resource in the community because White men kept on killing them or putting them in jail for crimes they didn’t commit because they were intimidated (and have been for centuries and continue to be now, to an extent) by the Black Man’s assumed physical and sexual prowess. History remembers MLK’s death as an assassination, but the fact is that it was business as usual. Gay bashing doesn’t have anything on Black bashing, and that’s only taking the 20th century into account, forget all the slavery stuff. At least gays could pretend to be straight. Blacks didn’t have the luxury of being in the closet and getting to lead a double life. Maybe that and having to deal with actually being oppressed and not just poor made Black women be less likely to hold their men accountable. I really don’t know, I’m sure it would be a very interesting sociology paper. Also, living in a perpetual state of oppression and poverty that was inescapable for 99% of Blacks meant that the Black community had to stick together and be much more tightly knit that other American communities. The group had to work together to make it, it really did take a village. When you add victimhood to that as well as the fact that the Civil Rights Movement made race relations worse for Blacks due to the resentment from the many many people unhappy with desegregation, it really soured a lot of people in the Black community on the world outside and their chances in it, especially the men. If this were the 80′s, I’d probably agree wholeheartedly with everything Paul is saying on the prevalence of racism. Then crack hit the Black community harder than any other in the 70′s and 80′s, leading to a whole generation that it sometimes seems was raised by their grandparents. Oh and inordinately high amounts of black men sent to jail for whatever reason. What you’re left with is a culture that, from the inception of the U.S. has been built around the idea that the family unit can and will be broken up at any time, and a system was put in place to allow single parent households to continue to function. It’s no surprise that it would become the norm over time, is it? That Black subculture would cast a different role for the man more in keeping with what could actually be expected? Most of these baby daddies are present in the lives of their kids and see them just as much or more than the average divorced White dad sees his kids. But the statistic you point to doesn’t take that into account because it’s so narrow in scope. If I were to determine that in order to not be a single parent, you need to raising your child with their other biological parent, the 50% divorce rate would probably see to it that White numbers were a lot higher.

Of course, none of that is to say that Blacks shouldn’t take personal responsibility for their issues. Every individual would. It’s just to say that you shouldn’t let yourself get sidetracked on the issue of race, because if you really believe in personal responsibility, then race can never be an issue. When you get sucked in by the people that use race as an excuse, you end up arguing on a level you don’t want to be on and defending the race-based positions they are trying to cast you in with their rhetoric.

Paul Westlake said:
Couldn’t agree more, but the problem with C-Span is the boredom factor. Plus, the crazy, which comes out on both sides. Obviously, I’m a fan of NPR and BBC, at least for the reduced level of bombast. I mentioned twice before on Mediaite that I have a survey up online about this very thing, based on a commercial-free, subscription TV news model. It would help a lot if you did the survey and left some comments – http://broadcastnewspoll.blogspot.com/

Seven quick questions, no ads or gimmicks – minute or two tops. See the “about” page for my spiel, “Who Broke Broadcast News?” It’s fairly neutral, and if you think it isn’t, please say so. I’m working on what I hope can become the next generation of broadcast journalism and every bit of input helps. And the more diverse the political backgrounds in the survey, the better. So, if you can spare a couple minutes and believe as strongly as I do about the deterioration of American journalism, then please take a moment to drop by.

Done, thanks.

With what the left is constantly preaching to blacks, it would be like a football coach telling his team: “I think you guys can win. Just remember that the other team is bigger and stronger and faster, has never lost a game, and will probably beat the hell out of you.” I think blacks might be better off without the left’s pep talks.

atreyue said:
Of course, none of that is to say that Blacks shouldn’t take personal responsibility for their issues. Every individual would. It’s just to say that you shouldn’t let yourself get sidetracked on the issue of race, because if you really believe in personal responsibility, then race can never be an issue. When you get sucked in by the people that use race as an excuse, you end up arguing on a level you don’t want to be on and defending the race-based positions they are trying to cast you in with their rhetoric.

And precisely the reason I’m willing to argue these issues right up until we start assigning blame along racial lines. There is no uniformity of human experience but there is certainly a much more uniform impact on the black community as a direct result of racism, but being an outsider to the community, I can only offer my two cents on those aspects that have a discernable impact on society as a whole. And why I turn to Bill Cosby when the “personal responsibility” mantra arises – because it’s not totally absent from the black community as is often the suggestion when statistics are used.

You gave a detailed and eloquent comment that I can’t really add to beyond that, except in one way. I agree with you that the 70s and 80s were MUCH worse – especially the “crack” down that led to a doubling of the overall prison population, which became even more disproportionately black. But here in NYC, we still have nightly sweeps in neighborhoods like Brownsville, where crime rates are high, to be sure, but also where law-abiding citizens are routinely stopped and frisked by cops due to their addresses and the color of their skin. I would venture to say it’s way better than things were a few decades ago, but targeting the “criminal black man” (for all the same reasons you mentioned) hasn’t exactly disappeared. You know, there are still plenty of people who say the most common crime on the New Jersey turnpike is “driving while black.” So, you’re right, to be sure, that there has been an improvement, but I’m interested to hear from you how much of an improvement you think has been made, relative to how far we still have to go, just in the past thirty years or so. I think your perspective would be very helpful there.

atreyue said:
Done, thanks.

Thank you! Very much appreciated. Any comments you have on the survey or the spiel (if you get around to reading it), please send my way, here or there. The more input, the better.

Writer, drop by if you can take a minute. ;-)

writer said:
With what the left is constantly preaching to blacks, it would be like a football coach telling his team: “I think you guys can win. Just remember that the other team is bigger and stronger and faster, has never lost a game, and will probably beat the hell out of you.” I think blacks might be better off without the left’s pep talks.

I wouldn’t say those “pep talks” are coming uniformly from the left. I don’t disagree that some opportunists use the “black condition” to advance personal goals, but I don’t believe it’s fair to indict “liberalism” in the process. Liberals are the one who freaked out when Rand Paul brushed up against the Civil Rights Amendments, not conservatives. So you can say our policies don’t work, but you can’t say we’re out to harm the black community, or any minority for that matter. The proper criticism for liberals has been “the road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and I don’t entirely disagree with that, but at least we HAVE good intentions. Far too many of the arguments from the right smack of selfishness and libertarian go-it-alone ideology that would automatically put minority groups at a disadvantage if implemented on a grand scale. Philosophically, it may be totally right, and even moral, but practically, it hurts everyone, and the practical has to trump the ideal at some point. That’s why I always turn to Ben Franklin, whose whole philosophy was about practical idealism – aim high, and take practical steps to get there. Perhaps AA has become impractical (and maybe it was never as practical as hoped), but I don’t see the condition it was trying to correct as solved and I don’t see an alternative if it was repealed. So that’s really my only question in all this – if AA is repealed, and black enrollment, black access, and overall black education declines precipitously, what is the next remedy after that? What will we use to step into the breach and prevent an entire generation from being lost? What’s the backup plan? That’s all I need to know. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
You gave a detailed and eloquent comment that I can’t really add to beyond that, except in one way. I agree with you that the 70s and 80s were MUCH worse – especially the “crack” down that led to a doubling of the overall prison population, which became even more disproportionately black. But here in NYC, we still have nightly sweeps in neighborhoods like Brownsville, where crime rates are high, to be sure, but also where law-abiding citizens are routinely stopped and frisked by cops due to their addresses and the color of their skin. I would venture to say it’s way better than things were a few decades ago, but targeting the “criminal black man” (for all the same reasons you mentioned) hasn’t exactly disappeared. You know, there are still plenty of people who say the most common crime on the New Jersey turnpike is “driving while black.” So, you’re right, to be sure, that there has been an improvement, but I’m interested to hear from you how much of an improvement you think has been made, relative to how far we still have to go, just in the past thirty years or so. I think your perspective would be very helpful there.

Typically in the past, cops would avoid places like Brownsville altogether unless they absolutely had to go there. I don’t think that the behavior you described is the right thing to do at all though. I think that we’ve honestly reached the point where society as a whole has gone as far as it can be reasonably expected to go on it’s own without any effort being made by the Black community to improve by cleaning up it’s image. The whole BET rough & tough, demand respect without giving any attitude that has been the claimed identity of the Black community needs to change. Black people need to closely examine what measurements they use to identify themselves as Black. there are surely many stereotypes that Blacks gladly embrace and even perpetuate. Many of them aren’t positive and have led to the stagnation of the community. When that stagnation is blamed on people who didn’t cause it and are not maintaining it, those people rightfully become angry and resentful. There’s nothing in the past that should prevent Blacks from holding themselves to higher standards, and until they do that, race relations aren’t going to improve, because the Black community is no longer working to earn the respect it demands and feels entitled to. The last couple of generations have made a living coasting on the achievements and hard work of the Civil Rights and prior generations. I think that relations will improve greatly once Blacks make it obvious that the stereotypes applied to them are wrong.

I think you’re right about the symptom and mixed on the causes. There is no doubt that a self-perpetuating behavior and image has taken root in the lower working and poor classes, but I think the NBA phenomenon is actually stronger in the mass media, like BET, Fuse, VH1, etc. I’ve seen some surveys that indicate nearly 40% of all high school kids says they’re number one career goal is to be rich and famous, full stop. It affects kids and cultures from all walks of society, but the biggest lure that perpetuates the destructive self-image in the black community, in my opinion, is corporate money. These media empires suck kids with a two-bit talent and a million-dollar smile off the sidewalks of the inner-city, blow their minds with a lifestyle beyond their wildest dreams, and then push them out on stage, pumped up on vicadin, to sing “street-inspired” lyrics, edited by a Freudian PhD, while doing pelvic thrusts in the faces of 16-year old dancers in bikinis. If the culture war is being waged in our kids bedrooms, corporate America isn’t just winning, it’s obliterating the family in their trenches. And when the few “responsible” traditional parents have to spend 60 to 80 hours away at work, each, every week, it’s easy to see why children are so easily influenced. It’s simply irresponsible to create an economy that forces both parents to leave the kids in the care of others and then blame the parents for being irresponsible with the upbringing of their children. And if raising a responsible child means staying at home and collecting welfare, then I’m with mom. It’s worth every penny of that taxpayer money to help mothers on welfare keep their kids from becoming victims of criminal gangs and corporate sleaze alike, in fact, a bargain from my perspective.

Oboma has NOT brought CHANGE, In fact ~~  THE ONLY real THING needing CHANGE !

                                       Was Barack Hussein Obama II.

Barack Hussein Obama II ( Who hates American Values )

Who who is A ” SELF PROCLAIMED Enemy ” ~ of responsible, Morally Conscious HARD WORKING Americans.

oBOMAS supporters KNOW~  that Barack Hussein Obama II,  WILL FORCE YOU to paY THEM, out of your PockeT ….

This UN~CHANGABLE fraud, has done His VERY BEST to Inspire VIOLENCE.
THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. saying “Bring it on”   To his supporters.

Oboma ~ Demands Saying  “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans”
– Obama has ALSO DECLARED to his  Supporters

“I want all Americans to get in each others faces!–
Obama demands  !

“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama Cant wait to get everybody involved in some kind OF CONFRONTATION of some sort….

THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS..    

Obama has ALSO DECLARED “Republicans are our enemies”-

 ** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
ANGER VIOLENCE and more taxes…..  THIS  IS OBAMAS Change for america
                                  /“Hit Back Twice As Hard”. He commands !
                                                     THESE ARE OBAMAS  Very  OWN WORDS..

*Obama on the private sector: ~~    “We talk to these folks…~ /  so I know whose ass to KICK.“                                          OBOMA wants to KICK your ass /

  Shouting   THAT    Republican victory would mean ~ “hand to hand combat” 
                HE IS EXPECTING people to kill & BE VIOLENT / for their  immoral  CAUSES
                                              THIS IS WHAT HE LIVES FOR
                                              THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS..                                  * Obama Tells democrats: “ I’m itching for a fight.” !

PLEASE go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ !   Oboma *(  Just like Adolf Hitler~~ In that oBOMA~~~  Demands   ! –   [   THE FINAL SOLUTION -                                For Un~Wanted Children

Barak Obama A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE
    http://obomanationinfanticide.sharepoint.com/Pages/default.aspx

supports TAKING a little NEW BORN innocent child.. / BORN. ALIVE ~ sTabing it iN  the head & SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.

He also demands, that a Child SURVIVING a FAILED ABORTION, Has no RIGHT to Life or medical care.

Oboma has NOT brought CHANGE, In fact ~~  THE ONLY real THING needing CHANGE !
                                       Was Barack Hussein Obama II.
Barack Hussein Obama II ( Who hates American Values )
Who who is A ” SELF PROCLAIMED Enemy ” ~ of responsible, Morally Conscious HARD WORKING Americans.
oBOMAS supporters KNOW~  that Barack Hussein Obama II,  WILL FORCE YOU to paY THEM, out of your PockeT ….
This UN~CHANGABLE fraud, has done His VERY BEST to Inspire VIOLENCE.
THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS.. saying “Bring it on”   To his supporters.
Oboma ~ Demands Saying  “Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans”
– Obama has ALSO DECLARED to his  Supporters
“I want all Americans to get in each others faces!–
Obama demands  !
“You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama Cant wait to get everybody involved in some kind OF CONFRONTATION of some sort….
THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS..    
Obama has ALSO DECLARED “Republicans are our enemies”-
 ** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
ANGER VIOLENCE and more taxes…..  THIS  IS OBAMAS Change for america
                                  /“Hit Back Twice As Hard”. He commands !
                                                     THESE ARE OBAMAS  Very  OWN WORDS..
*Obama on the private sector: ~~    “We talk to these folks…~ /  so I know whose ass to KICK.“                                          OBOMA wants to KICK your ass /
  Shouting   THAT    Republican victory would mean ~ “hand to hand combat” 
                HE IS EXPECTING people to kill & BE VIOLENT / for their  immoral  CAUSES
                                              THIS IS WHAT HE LIVES FOR                                              THESE ARE OBAMAS OWN WORDS..                                  * Obama Tells democrats: “ I’m itching for a fight.” !
PLEASE go to reXes NEW WebsiTe ~ !   Oboma *(  Just like Adolf Hitler~~ In that oBOMA~~~  Demands   ! –   [   THE FINAL SOLUTION -                                               ~                                                 For Un~Wanted Children
Barak Obama A MURDERER .~Torturing UNWANTED babys on DEATH ROE
               http://obomanationinfanticide.sharepoint.com/Pages/default.aspxOBAMA supports TAKING a little NEW BORN innocent child.. / BORN. ALIVE ~ 
OBAMA supports TAKING a little NEW BORN innocent child.. / BORN. ALIVE ~ 
sTabing it iN  the head & SUCKs ITS BRAINS OUT.
He also demands, that a Child SURVIVING a FAILED ABORTION, Has no RIGHT to Life or medical care.