The Senate formally apologized for slavery yesterday, one hundred and forty four years too late, one hundred and forty four years after slavery was abolished.
Do we all feel better now ? A bunch of people who had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery have apologized for it. Now we know that America doesn't condone slavery (and here I thought the Civil War settled that issue). Thank goodness. All those American pro-slavery groups can go pound salt. If there are any, that is, which there aren't (I hope).
But even the Senate's unaminous and meaningless kumbayah vote to apologize for slavery isn't without controversy here in grievance-based America, where it seems everyone feels slighted over something. The Senate's slavery apology contained a disclaimer which stated the apology didn't authorize any reparations claim for the descendants of slaves.
Cue the outrage. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus objected to the reparations disclaimer.
Sigh.
To be clear, I believe reparations for slavery were in order, but they were in order 144 YEARS AGO, not now. They were in order for people who actually WERE slaves. There are no reparations in order for people who are six or seven generations removed from slavery, for people who have the same civil rights as everyone else, for people who even have MORE civil rights than everyone else (affirmative action). I agree with President Obama, who said the best reparations are "good schools in the inner city." Obama embodies the lunacy of the reparations argument. Should we pay reparations to Barack Obama, the most powerful man in the world, just because his skin contains the required amount of melanin ? I don't think so.
As I'm writing this, there are some teevee talking heads arguing about whether or not the coverage of Michael Jackson's death is motivated by race. One talking head is saying it is, that the media is talking about all Jackson's drug use because he is black.
Sigh.
That talking head must not remember the teevee coverage of the deaths of Heath Ledger, Kurt Cobain, Anna Nicole Smith, or Elvis Presley. The media wallowed in all the minutiae of each one's drug use, ad nauseum. It's about celebrity, not race.
Speaking of race-based issues, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court ruling in the Ricci case, and ruled that New Haven discriminated against 19 firefighters (18 white and 1 hispanic) when they threw out the results of a promotion test because no blacks scored high enough to be promoted. New Haven officials were afraid of protests by civil rights groups if no blacks were promoted, so they discriminated against the 19 firefighters and denied them the promotions they earned. As with so many of these types of cases, the Supreme Court vote was split. The 5-4 majority decision was resisted by the Court's four liberal members (who think discrimination is fine and dandy as long as it's done against white people). Of note is the fact that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, was one of those overturned by the Supremes. As one of the appellate court judges, Sotomayor thought discrimination against white people was hunky-dory in the Ricci case too.
Your going to hears lots of grievance-mongering and spin about the Ricci case, but there is no reason for any of it. This country was founded on the notion that all men are created equal, and equal protection under the law is mandated in our Constitution. We have a Civil Rights Act that says you may not discriminate against people based upon race. That goes for ALL races. That's why slavery and Jim Crow laws were wrong. All we should do in this country is give everyone the same opportunity (as in, all the New Haven firefighters had the SAME opportunity for promotion, regardless of race. They all took the same test. That's equality). When we go beyond that to dictate outcomes based solely upon race, we violate our own principles and make a mockery of them.
It's time to get beyond race, as well as all the other false constructs that divide us. I've watched the civil rights movement go from one of righteousness in the 60's to the "gimme" entitlement mindset of today. No. You aren't entitled to anything in this country, except the equal opportunity to achieve or fail. After that, it's up to you, no matter who you are.
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
King, I haven't the time to research it, but could you find out how often Soto has been overturned and how that compares to recent Supreme nominees. I haven't heard anybody on tv talking about this.
Seems to me that if I were interviewing for my boss' job… how often in the past he had said I was wrong would be important.
Oh, and haven't we apologized for slavery in Congress before? I feel like I've heard this a half dozen times in my life already. What does the apology say this time? "No, seriously, we really are sorry about slavery, for realzies this time."
I disagree with the thrust of your post and say why in my post today.
http://www.ohiomm.com/blogs/blog_mass_destruction/2009/06/30/defending-the-beseiged-majority/ID=6594/
However, I want to make mention of another Congressional resolution. The one honoring Michael Jackson. Congress has no shame.
Good post King.
pdt – it seems like every president apologizes for slavery. This time they apologized just in time to vote on the Cap and Trade Bill, hoping that it's vote would go un-noticed.
pdt, I have heard on Fox from most of their talking heads that the 66% overturn rate of Sotomayor isn't really bad. What the hey, the only cases they take are appeals from lower courts that somebody wants them to overturn or they wouldn't waste the time and money on a Supreme Court appeal. That makes a lot of sense to me, I don't know about you.
Now with that said, let me say that I am against her because of her obviously racist-feminist comments. The problem is that we know that much about her and we know that Obama isn't going to appoint anyone less liberal so there isn't really much to throw her out on. She will be approved but Republicans can score some points to collect on the next appointment, which there surely will be at least one of.
King, I am very tired of all the racism that hangs around especially with all the people who consider me racist for some things I say that can easily be construed as racist. My trouble comes from speaking my mind instead of pussyfooting around where race is concerned. I agree with you 100% about the Jackson thing and really agree about all the apologies for slavery. I never owned a slave and don't think I ever would have but I wasn't around i the Ante-Bellum South, either. Anyway, I don't owe an apology or anything in the way of reparations. I think that all the former slaves have finally passed on so there aren't any of them to apologize to.
The specific case of reverse racism was so sad but what else has been going on in this country since we went to affirmative action? I have seen too much of that stuff over the last 30 years. It is time for us to start behaving like small children and not noticing differences in skin color, or religion, or any of the other things we are all at least a little bit prejudiced about. I used to have a female doctor who was a Hindu, and of course darker skinned than most of the people I associated with. Female, race, religion were all against her but I was sure able to trust her because of what she knew and did for me. I was always appalled at people who were against her for any of her possible prejudice reasons. She was a great woman and physician and that was always enough for me.
I would like to take this opportuntiy as a white,christian, male to apoligize to everyone that is not part of the above group for all of the wrongs committed by mankind. Without my group the world would have always been and would always reamain a place of milk and honey.
Rather than commit suicide I pledge to commit every waking moment to remaining quilt ridden, supporting every positon the progressives tell me to support and rationalise why I am responsbile for all past , present and future evils.
Hypothetical question for the field… if the city of New Haven ended up winning the Ricci case what was going to happen next? The city still needs Lieutenants for the fire department, right?
The original test they used was developed by an independent 3rd party who specialized in race-neutral tests and the boards used for oral exams were comprised of Whites, African Americans and Hispanics. Would the city keep testing over and over until they got the right mix? Would they just draw names out of a hat until they got who they wanted?
While I agree with the judgment (and can’t understand how anyone couldn’t based on the fact the test was engineered to be neutral), it would have been a fascinating experiment to see what the city would have done next if they had won.
In fact, I kind of wish the city did win. Because of the notoriety of the case, people would have continued to follow this issue and we could all watch this play out to its inevitable ridiculous conclusion. Then we could finally have a REAL discussion about discrimination, affirmative action and race.
Last thought… isn’t a written test discriminatory to the dyslexic firefighter?
dd20,
I like your line of thinking but a REAL discussion is not possible as long as the liberal assumption that all white males are racist is part of the equation. The minute you disagree with the liberal take on racism and discrmination your views are nulll and void because your answers which differ from theirs is because you are demonstarting your racist mindset.
It is like a liberal having a debate about the virtues of vegetarianism with a shark. The shark is programmed to eat meat and any answer the shark might give is a product of not intellect but his very being, which as welll all know is prehistoric and EVIL.
pdt1420,
I think Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supremes six times (maybe it's seven now with the Ricci case). That 66% number Roy cited is the percentage of her cases heard by the Supremes that were overturned.
Her number of overturns is not that high when you consider all the cases she has ruled on. I read somewhere that the Supreme Court overturns about 75% of the cases it hears.
angryc,
It's good to see you have adopted the correct (progressive) attitude for a white male to have
dd20 asks "isn’t a written test discriminatory to the dyslexic firefighter?"
It would have to be. I didn't think about it before, but that means Ricci was discriminated against twice – first for being dyslexic and having to take a written promotion test, and second by New Haven for having the test results thrown out. No wonder the guy went to court.
King sez…….."I think Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supremes six times (maybe it's seven now with the Ricci case)."
from CNN……
Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) — decision pending as of 5/26/2009
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
Sotomayor has been on the bench since 1998. If she has heard 232 cases in that 10 years and 5 have been reversed…..that's 2.5%
Some say that Alito's reversal rate with the SC was 100%…..I can't find anything to back that up tho.
dd20 lays down some interesting what-ifs.
The question could be this…..if you are New Haven and the test you gave obviously demonstrates a disparate outcome along racial lines, and you are bound by Title VII law to deal with that disparity….AND both sides are threatening to sue you…..what would YOU do?
Thanks for fleshing out that info, walter.
dd20 sez……."While I agree with the judgment (and can’t understand how anyone couldn’t based on the fact the test was engineered to be neutral),…."
The first thing I would think is the engineered test was somehow screwed up.
King, I got the link to CNN from MediaMatters
Thank MediaMatters
You mean thanks CNN.
Still claiming to be a conservative, walt ?
no, I mean thank MediaMatters.
I'm a conservative……just not a republican mis-informer like you. Sotomayor was reversed 5 times, not the 6 or 7 you said.
walter, you're becoming increasingly lame. I said I THOUGHT Sotomayor had been reversed six or seven times. That indicated I didn't have the exact number off the top of my head. And I was off by what, one or two ? Big deal. I didn't misinform anyone.
And how is it that an alleged conservative like yourself spends all his time arguing against a Libertarian/fiscal conservative like myself ? That seems pretty strange. You seem to be for cap-and-trade, for Obama's health care plan, for racial quotas, you defend Sotomayor's racial statements, etc. Please regale me with tales of these conservative principles of yours. I can't wait to hear them.
Do we have any examples of what the allegedly racially disparative test questions would look like?
I'm trying to think of how I'd frame a test question regarding fire fighting that could only be correctly answered by whites and latinos… and all I can come up with are questions that would be absurdly stereotypical.
And walter isn't a conservative
Rev – good question “both sides are threatening to sue you…..what would YOU do?” which I’ll answer.
The right thing to do is award the promotions as the test says, because I (the city) tried my hardest and went above and beyond to create a neutral playing field. I proved by my actions, beyond a reasonable doubt that my sole intent was to create a neutral test. With those facts on my side, I would confidently take my chances in front of a jury.
However, if I wasn’t me and I was the Democratic mayor of New Haven and 40% of my constituents were African American, I’d throw out the test because I’m pretty confident no court would rule in favor of a bunch of white guys when race involved. The mayor was proven absolutely correct until it got to the Supreme Court.
Either the firefighters were denied promotions because of their race or they were denied for political reasons. Either reason makes me sick.
The city created an equal opportunity for all regardless of race. The outcome didn’t follow demographics. This issue gets at the heart of a major cultural / political divide. Equal Opportunity vs. Equal Outcome.
pdt1420, when the subject of biased test questions first came up I immediately thought of a situation my greatest teacher (television) taught me from a “very special” episode of Diff’ren’t Strokes.
You see Mr Drummond tried to enroll Arnold and Willis at his old prep school Digby. But there was a racist old coot as the headmaster and he devised an entrance exam which the boys flunked.
It was revealed the exam was biased towards subjects the boys could never answer. One such question was something along the lines of how many people can sleep in a house with 3 queen beds. Arnold answered 12 (three in each bed, two on the couch and one in the bathtub).
I would imagine a racist firefighters test would look something as ridiculous as that.
dd…
"However, if I wasn’t me and I was the Democratic mayor of New Haven and 40% of my constituents were African American, I’d throw out the test because I’m pretty confident no court would rule in favor of a bunch of white guys when race involved. The mayor was proven absolutely correct until it got to the Supreme Court."
That's the problem. You, and others, believe you can plumb the depths of New Haven's motivation in discarding the test results. Why couldn't it be that New Haven was attempting to follow the dictates of Title VII?
Title VII isn't primarily about equal opportunity. It's about discriminatory practices.
Lol, thanks dd.
I imagine difficult moral decisions, such as who gets responded to first: a fire at Beyonce's or a fire at Jolie's.
And, lest I be called a racist, I imagine a discriminating test against white guys would feature the same moral decision between Jolie's house and a Mayo Factory… with no "c" option for breaking down and crying because one of the above would be lost at the end of the day.
Has anybody here seen Ann Coulter's article about the old Jewess making better decisions than the not so old Latina? It is so funny and she obviously thought a bit about how the sitting Jewish woman must have reasoned as compared to how the only appointed, but not sitting Latina, did her reasoning.
I have now done my racial bit for the day and will leave the discussion to less racial thinkers than Coulter and I. LOL
Rev says, "Title VII isn't primarily about equal opportunity. It's about discriminatory practices"
The elephant in the room is – there were no discriminatory practices in the New Haven firefighter testing.
King,
Rev and walter believe the elephant is invisible but still there. Can you point to the discriminatory questions? Can you show the parts of the test that made black people fail?
No?
Well, it's still there… and if you don't believe that you're a racist too!
ptd sez….."And walter isn't a conservative"
what's more improbable……a person who calls themselves a conservative that pushes back against republican propaganda and dis-information or a person who calls themselves a libertarian who day in and day out regurgitates that same republican propaganda and dis-information?
Should I make that multiple choice?
ptd…..the test was engineered…….speaking of engineering…….how's your Corvair running?
walter, I guess it's improbable that you would spell my name correctly, or take the time to type out "says"… are you texting your comments in?
And exactly what conservative principles do you hold?
Lastly, Corvair??
spell it? I can't even pronounce it.
And exactly what conservative principles do you hold?
Lastly, Corvair??
King while I too believe there were no discriminatory practices in the New Haven firefighter testing. That issue has to be "proven" in court.
The logical next step is the alleged discriminated firefighters who didn’t score high enough on the test should file their disparate impact suit. (As I've said, I don’t think the suit would float as I have read the distribution of the test results was within the guidelines of the law – thus proving no disparate impact.)
However, it would be fascinating if the test was proven to be in violation of Title VII. The city would be found to have broken Title VII law twice for the same action of trying to promote firefighters. Once against whites and then against blacks.
Regardless there was going to be a lawsuit (athough even that's debatable; I didn't hear official threats of suit from the african american firefighters).
ptsd……if you don't believe that I am a conservative now there is absolutely nothing I could say to change your mind….so why should I even try
King states…
"The elephant in the room is – there were no discriminatory practices in the New Haven firefighter testing."
That is an assertion….and that's fine.
At the same time, the Title VII law under which New Haven felt bound to obey clearly states that disparate outcomes along racial lines are a red flag to be taken seriously.
There's no question, and Justice Kennedy agreed, that the test results demonstrated a clear diaparate impact along racial lines. Can we at least agree on that fact?
The difficult question New Haven faced….was what to do about it.
For the five arch conservatives on the Supremes bench to interpret New Haven's difficult decision as motivated by blatant racism against whites is not only factually incorrect but also smells of bias.
Conservatives argue incessantly that activist judges are those who legislate from the bench. Turning the EEOC's Title VII section on it's head and making new requirements for employers not in the original law…..is the very definition of an activist court.
Many folks don't like the idea of affirmative action remedies. They see them as unfair. What's missing from today's discussion is the unfairness experienced for centuries by American blacks. An unfairness that left blacks, as a group, significantly behind in economic opportunities and wealth creation. While blacks have made progress…..fair minded folks, I don't think, would say that blacks have reached full equality.
walter, I feel your last post is enough proof to everyone that you are in no way a conservative, as you can't even list a few personal conservative ideals.
Maybe you don't get it. The Rev and I vehemently disagree, but at least I know he's not blatantly lying. Nobody likes a petulant liar, walter.
Rev,
The only thing I can agree with you about is that I'm against unfairness to blacks.
Where we diverge is, I'm against unfairness to everyone else too. You want to institutionalize unfairness because of past slights. That is the wrong path to go down, it is unconstitutional, and it never ends. By your grievance standards, we should also institute firefighter hiring quotas for Native Americans, women, illegal immigrants, Jews, Irish, Japanese, Chinese, Mexicans, gays, the disabled, the illiterate, fat people, short people, people from broken homes, Muslims, Mormons, atheists, ugly people, stupid people, or anyone else who can come up with a claim that they have been treated unfairly in America. There'd be so much disparate impact that we'd never be able to sort it all out.
Or we can stop the Tower of Babel insanity and all adhere to the same set of standards.
pdt,
walter is one of those newfangled conservatives who supports the left on every issue (at least every one that's been raised so far on this blog). There's even a word that describes those walter-type conservatives…they call them "liberals."
"You want to institutionalize unfairness because of past slights."
I'm gonna say this kindly, cause you're my budd…..
Civil rights legislation, if I use your argument, institutionalized unfairness because of past slights.
And…."slights" is a weak-tea word to describe brutality, hateful violence and slavery.
In a perfect world, your argument would be reasonable. Sadly, it's imperfect and America has done some pretty bad stuff to many groups of people. Setting aside American Indians….our treatment of blacks was straight out of the depths of hell* and the sulphur smell still lingers.
*Figuratively speaking, you understand.
walter,
Hang in there, bro. I've followed politics for over forty years. I was a Goldwater conservative and still consider myself conservative but not in the way of what passes for conservatism today. Conservatives used to treasure the Constitution. Our last president, a self proclaimed conservative, called it "just a goddam piece of paper". He then proceeded to violate that Constitution and his oath of office numerous times and in so many ways that erased individual freedom in favor of increased government power that Goldwater must be spinning in his grave.
To be fair, people described as liberals violate the principals of liberalism almost as frequently as the conservatives betray the principals of conservatism.
Governments are formed to use the power of the many to ensure the freedom of the individual. Where conservatives err, IMHO, is that they tend to think that these threats only come from outside our borders. As I see it, the major threats come from within our borders as people cede more power to the government to provide them with the illusion of safety.
Rev says, "Civil rights legislation, if I use your argument, institutionalized unfairness because of past slights."
No, most of it institutionalized equality and was just. Title VII, on the other hand, per your interpretation of the Ricci case, makes race the most important factor in hiring, elevated above all other considerations, even when it's shown that no discriminatory practices were being used. There's no way I can agree with that. Discriminating against one group of people to benefit another group of people is always wrong.
Richard Cranium 1420 aka ptd sez on the Cap and Trade thread……."Act like your boy Obama…….."
Cranium…..you're a racist
King doesn't like conservatives who push back against republican propagandists but racists don't seem to bother him…..
just saying
I can't believe you'd be calling anyone a racist after the filth you wrote about Mexicans last week, walter.
Still waiting to hear about those conservative principles of yours, walter. Why do you keep avoiding that discussion ?
"Richard Cranium" – I get the impression that walt hasn't quite reached maturity.
But he did revert to that old liberal standby by calling everyone a racist when he can't muster a rational argument, so the libs are teaching him well. Indoctrination proceeding.
frank's a conservative now, too, King. He, walter and paine ought to form a group.
larry d sez….."I can't believe you'd be calling anyone a racist after the filth you wrote about Mexicans last week, walter."
just what filfth did I write about Mexicans last week larry?
I would never repeat that garbage, walter, and I see that you've had the Reverend or someone delete it but I'll never forget what you wrote.
larry, let's ask rev redpants…….Reverend…..have you deleted any of my posts?
King….no comment on Cranium's racist statement? Why am I NOT surprised.
LOL