Racist Judge or misunderstood? - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

filtherton · 04-06-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I am not and I have never said IGNORE.... I said learn from the past and stop making the same mistakes, going to extremes and promoting hatred in ANYWAY.

From what I gather, your solutions to racial problems can be summed up by saying that you think that no one ever anywhere should ever acknowledge any difference between races with respect to anything. How is this different than ignoring the problem?

I can imagine your diatribes about King opting to work on behalf of an all black sanitation worker's union. "What about all the blue collar white workers getting screwed? Why is he ignoring them? Because they're white? Why, that Martin Luther King is nothing but a hatred spewing racist."

Quote:

Giving a black judge a pass and then stating you would condemn a white judge is just as racist and wrong as as allowing a white judge to do it and not the black judge.

No, it's not. Racial equality doesn't just refer to equal treatment, it also refers to equality with respect to other measures as well. The fact that young black males are more likely to be criminals, regardless of their treatment by the justice system, is a sign that inequality still exists, regardless of who is to blame for it. The fact that you can't seem to fathom the role a successful black man might have in convincing a group of young black males who've already started on the wrong path to turn change their lives around is immaterial. Could the judge have spoken to these young men in front of everyone else? Yes. Would his lecture have necessarily had the same effect if it was in front of the general public? Maybe, maybe not. None of us were there, we don't know.

You can sit back an call it racist, but that doesn't matter, you're opinion is irrelevant to any of the folks actually involved. I don't think your definition of racism is useful in any sense, because apparently anyone who does anything proactive concerning racial inequality is racist.

How about this: You, Pan, are a racist, hate filled bigot for even acknowledging that the judge was black. Clearly, in the world that is MLK's dream we don't even have words for race, because it doesn't exist in any relevant way-- color of skin << content of character, all that. Since you claim to be an adherent to the goals of MLK, the fact that you even recognize that other people are black makes to a racist, hate spewing bigot.

Does that last paragraph seem reasonable? Not to me. Maybe it does to you.

host · 04-06-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If a white judge had done this, what do you think the outcry would have been?

If a black mob of 3000 had done this to 2 white couples, what do you think the outcry would have been? Would the murders go unsolved for 62 years, pan?

Pan, would you have authored this thread on the 40th anniversary of King's shooting if you knew that, in 1946, with the police standing just 50 yards down the road, a white mob dragged Dorothy Malcolm, and three other black people out of the back of a car, and as she pleaded for the life of her unborn baby, they lined her and the three others up, shot them down, loaded twice more, and shot them all again and again, and then one of the mob pulled out a knife and cut her unborn baby out of her womb and waved it's body in front of the mob?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/26/moores.ford/index.html

Then, pan, a leading investigator said that "the best people in town wouldn't talk". They wouldn't cooperate with investigators of the murders.

How 'bout a thread appealing to these still living white people who know who did the killing, but who have remained silent, to finally clear their consciences, pan? Wouldn't that be a more productive use of your time and your indignation? This isn't a thread about racism pan, is it? Isn't it a thread about your indignation, about a double standard? Here's a double standard, pan. Do you think whites in Walton Cty, GA would be sitting still and calling for justice against a black murdering mob, for 52 years, without resorting to violence or a corruption of the apparatus of state to attempt to satisfy their indignation?

Blacks have mostly lived with their indignation, pan. Whites haven't....and it's about scale, pan. Compared to the still silent white crackers in Walton Cty, GA, <h3>your indignation is akin to a man getting riled up because somebody stepped on a gumdrop, and it looked like he did it on purpose! </h3>

Quote:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8GVBR0G0.shtml
AP: FBI Reviews 1946 Public Lynching Case

ATLANTA, Apr. 13, 2006
(AP)
<img src="http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/04/13/imageNYET11104132104.jpg"><br>
<img src="http://asapblogs.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/15/lynching.jpg">

(AP) Nearly 60 years after a white mob lynched two black couples on a summer afternoon <h3>and got away with it</h3>, the FBI is taking another look at the case.

FBI agent Stephen Emmett said the case is being reviewed "to insure that any recent technology or techniques could be used to enhance the prior investigation." He would not elaborate and said a decision on whether to actually reopen the investigation has not yet been made.

The bureau refused to say why it had taken a renewed interest in the 1946 case.

Civil rights activists have pressed witnesses to come forward and break the silence, which they say is the nation's last unsolved public lynching.....

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5579862
FBI Re-Examines 1946 Lynching Case

by Kathy Lohr

Listen Now [5 min 42 sec] add to playlist

Howard says one part of the mob had blocked the road, while others dragged Roger and George out of the car to beat them. Women usually were not lynched. But when the women recognized one of the cotton farmers, they too were taken down to the river.

"The leader of the Klan had them line up, counted 'one, two, three,' and everybody fired," Howard says.

"He went through that scenario three times. During that process, some of those people shot up in the trees," Howard says. "That's where the FBI dug out a lot of bullets."

Many have speculated about the incidents leading up to the crime. They think white townsfolk may have considered George Dorsey "uppity" since returning from service in WWII. George was also accused by townspeople of carousing with white women.

White landowner Loy Harrison, who employed George Dorsey and Roger Malcom, was driving the car when the four people were dragged out and killed. Harrison had paid $600 to bail Roger Malcom out of jail when, days earlier, he had stabbed a white farmer during a fight.

It is still unknown why Harrison bailed Roger Malcom out. Was he was responding to the pleas of Roger's loved ones, or, as a Klansman himself, was he part of a lynching plot?

Near the bridge, the FBI recovered bullets from shotguns and pistols of various calibers. The lynching took place in broad daylight, and the gunmen were not masked. Many knew who committed the crime, says Howard, but the tight-knit people of Walton County created a perfect cover-up.

According to Howard, after the lynching, white people formed a code of silence, and black people, expecting violent repercussions if they spoke up, were scared into silence. Even local law enforcement officers were tight-lipped.

Many in the area thought that President Truman sent the FBI to investigate the lynching because George Dorsey had served in WWII, and had only been home ten months before he was murdered in the Georgia woods.

"It's a little hard", says Penny Young, whose half-brother is the son of Roger Malcom, "because I have a brother living and breathing that was a man's son, so it's very real."

Young says the fact that no one was ever tried for the crime is still difficult for the family.

"I want to see the remaining ones [lynchers] that are living brought to justice … somebody needs to be held accountable for that," Young says.

Many of the suspects are dead, but civil-rights activists say that two or three are still alive. They say they're more optimistic now than ever about seeing a case go to trial, partly because of the prosecutions of other old civil-rights cases in the South.

The FBI is investigating the Moore's Ford lynching again, and.....

pan, do you think your public effort to express indignation over, what is in context, akin to a man intentionally stepping on a gum drop on the sidewalk, compared to the black historical experience in America, an influence that will help persuade whites in Walton County, GA to finally do the right thing...tell the police what they know about the 1946 lynching of two black couples, or do you think what you are expressing in this thread will be more of an ecouragement for them to dig in...to take their knowledge to the grave?

Isn't that what this really comes down to? It's about you, pan....are you helping or hurting the quest for justice, for healing? I took offense because you chose to express your indignation on the 40th anniversary of King's assassination. Innocently, or not, can you not see that your intention could be perceived as a message from you that King's death didn't take away enough, from the hopes, dreams, and pride of black americans...... that your indignation required your reaction about the "black judge: video, too?

Here's the problem pan....we had a holocaust of our own in this country, and as in the aftermath of other holocausts, you've decided, as a non-victim of the experience, that it's time to move on....

Quote:

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/fea...1/29/lynching/

......Jan 29, 2003 | The grotesque image of a black human figure suspended from a tree might be matched in its horror and inhumanity by only one other vestige of American memory: a horde of ecstatic white faces, usually set against the black of night, gathered beneath the body.

Ordinary folks traveled miles to witness a lynching, sometimes posing for keepsake photographs that they might turn into postcards to send to friends. But pictures were the gentlest of souvenirs. Often men, women and children, businessmen, farmers and policemen scrambled for the victim's carved-off genitals or for an ear or a finger. If they'd arrived too late for body parts, some settled for the bough of the lynching tree or a bit of bloodstained rope.

The spectacular reality of lynching and the evidence it offered of white Southerners' thirst for murdering their black neighbors were revelations for a young W.E.B. DuBois living in Georgia in 1899. According to Phillip Dray in his magisterial history "At the Hands of Persons Unknown," "Lynching was simply the most sensational manifestation of an animosity for black people that resided at a deeper level among whites than [DuBois] had previously thought, and was ingrained in all of white society." DuBois had just learned that a man's knuckles were for sale in an Atlanta grocer's window. ......

Watch the movie. pan....it's short:
http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/main.html

As I posted to Ustwo, earlier....it isn't up to you to decide when the burning memory is distant enough to have the world become the way you want it to now, pan.

Watch the movie....it isn't a history of "the south", it happened all over the USA. It was as American as apple pie, but it was an atrocity....smiling people posed for pictures with the lynched victim in the background. People brought their kids, and made a picnic of it, pan...they sent postcards to friends that depicted the lynchings, the collected hair samples and other body parts of the victims as momentoes of "the event".

There are white people living in Walton Cty., GA, today pan, who still think the right thing to do is to withhold information about who lynched two black couples there in 1946. Can you agree to stop, at least until everyone who witnessed what happened in Walton Cty., GA in 1946, is dead?

scout · 04-06-2008, 12:39 PM

What a load of crap.

I don't even know where to start. I would probably wind up saying a lot of things I would regret so I am not saying anything other this.

For someone to say "some bad things happened in Georgia 62 years ago so if a judge in another state wants to have a racist moment and toss all the white SoB's out of his courtroom its ok" is one of the biggest loads of shit I've seen dealt out here in a long time.

host · 04-06-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

What a load of crap.

I don't even know where to start. I would probably wind up saying a lot of things I would regret so I am not saying anything other this.

For someone to say "some bad things happened in Georgia 62 years ago so if a judge in another state wants to have a racist moment and toss all the white SoB's out of his courtroom its ok" is one of the biggest loads of shit I've seen dealt out here in a long time.

Okay scout, are you indignant because a black judge stepped on a gum drop, and he might have done it on purpose?

Scout...you, Ustwo, Seaver, and pan, don't get to decide when "things that happened in Georgia 62 years ago", don't matter now. I wish you could accept that.

Quote:

http://www.laurawexler.com/html/questions.html
Q & A with Laura Wexler, author of
Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in Amercia

1. What drew you, a 30-year-old white woman from the North, to write about a quadruple lynching that occurred in 1946?

I was drawn to the story at the outset by the possibility of uncovering information and evidence that would solve the crime. Because there is no statute of limitations on murder, and because I suspected some of the lynchers were still alive, I really believed getting justice was possible....

Why do you think your POV is so different from Laura Wexler's and mine? Why do you think Ronald Reagan chose his first 1980 republican convention campaign stop, after he had been officially nominated as republican candidate for president, to be...of all the places he could have chosen to kick off his campaign as republican nominee...the place where three civil rights workers were murdered, 16 years before?

Why do you think Reagan gave a speech there that included, "I believe in states rights".

Why is it that I think his decision to speak there and to say that, was extremely offensive, but you do not? Isn't it about sensitivity?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/op...13herbert.html
Op-Ed Columnist
Righting Reagan’s Wrongs?

By BOB HERBERT
Published: November 13, 2007

Let’s set the record straight on Ronald Reagan’s campaign kickoff in 1980.

....Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable. Commentators have been trying of late to put this appearance by Reagan into a racially benign context.

That won’t wash. Reagan may have been blessed with a Hollywood smile and an avuncular delivery, but he was elbow deep in the same old race-baiting Southern strategy of Goldwater and Nixon.

Everybody watching the 1980 campaign knew what Reagan was signaling at the fair. Whites and blacks, Democrats and Republicans — they all knew. The news media knew. The race haters and the people appalled by racial hatred knew. And Reagan knew.

He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.

And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.

Congress overrode the veto.

Reagan also vetoed the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa. Congress overrode that veto, too.

Throughout his career, Reagan was wrong, insensitive and mean-spirited on civil rights and other issues important to black people. There is no way for the scribes of today to clean up that dismal record....

Scout, I am thinking that you saw nothing wrong with Reagan's choice of places to appear, or in what he chose to say, and that you see nothing amiss in pan's thread here, correct? You say that 62 years is more than enough time, while Reagan must have thought that 16 years was enough time, so what is all the fuss about, right?

Ustwo · 04-06-2008, 01:34 PM

Hey look its blacks beating up a white guy, for being white!

It also has nothing to do with the OP or anything else in the thread.

But yes people were racist, some are racist host, note that most of your pictures are black and white for a reason thats not artistic

Most of todays black criminals were not even born in those times, using it as an excuse for current issues with black youth is somewhat weak, nor is it a cause of a deterioration of the black family which has helped lead us to the current problems.

I think my summery of this is right on point.

Its ok (to the TFP) for a judge to be exclusionary based on race provided its a black judge who wants to talk to black folk about a black issues.

Did I miss something?

Willravel · 04-06-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Its ok (to the TFP) for a judge to be exclusionary based on race provided its a black judge who wants to talk to black folk about a black issues.

Did I miss something?

That's not an unreasonable summation.

BTW, [YOUTUBE]Mw2Xg0DEL["slash"YOUTUBE]

host · 04-06-2008, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

.....Hey look its blacks beating up a white guy, for being white!

It also has nothing to do with the OP or anything else in the thread.

But yes people were racist, some are racist host, note that most of your pictures are black and white for a reason thats not artistic

Most of todays black criminals were not even born in those times, using it as an excuse for current issues with black youth is somewhat weak, nor is it a cause of a deterioration of the black family which has helped lead us to the current problems.

I think my summery of this is right on point.

Its ok (to the TFP) for a judge to be exclusionary based on race provided its a black judge who wants to talk to black folk about a black issues.

Did I miss something?

Yup....you've missed that the USA is still struggling to emerge from it's original period....say....before the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed...when racism was institutionalized, and that you have a special problem. You've supported and you do support the politics that accomplished the "gutting" of votings rights enforcement by the civil rights enforcement section of the US DOJ. I know that, because you've mocked or done a "drive by" on every thread where I have brought up that issue....crime...horror, STEP BACKWARDS.

You're example of the attack on the "white guy", reinforces my impression that you don't understand the difference. The institutionalized racism and exclusion still exists. It's glaringly apparent if you oprn your eyes. There are today, no more than 5 black CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies.

You strike me as an "I got mine", kinda guy. If that's the impression you are happy projecting, then that's that!

Maybe we need to request that all non-white folks "leave" the politics forum for a bit to give us white guys a private moment to discuss the impression you are making of "us white guys", to our entire US society? Are you our "Jeremiah Wright"? I don't want to be linked to you or responsible for what you say and do, since I can't reach you!

ottopilot · 04-06-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The institutionalized racism and exclusion still exists. It's glaringly apparent if you oprn your eyes. There are today, no more than 5 black CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies.

For something to be institutionalized, there has to be a standard and an authority (established policies and laws). Can you provide an example of institutionalized racism? If you could, it would be illegal, against the law, and prosecutable. Is there prejudice? Probably, but if you can prove it, they will be prosecuted. There is no "institutionalized" racism. If there was, the laws are there to handle it. What you speak of is more likely done subtly by individuals outside the rule of law ... but it's not institutionalized.

Should there be affirmative action or a quota system applied to the fortune 500? What percentage of the fortune 500 CEOs are women or minorities?

host · 04-06-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

For something to be institutionalized, there has to be a standard and an authority (established policies and laws). Can you provide an example of institutionalized racism? If you could, it would be illegal, against the law, and prosecutable. Is there prejudice? Probably, but if you can prove it, they will be prosecuted. There is no "institutionalized" racism. If there was, the laws are there to handle it. What you speak of is more likely done subtly by individuals outside the rule of law ... but it's not institutionalized.

Should there be affirmative action or a quota system applied to the fortune 500? What percentage of the fortune 500 CEOs are women or minorities?

Have you been living under a rock this past year, Ottopilot?

Quote:

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0507/420376.html
Story:
Some of the most notorious crimes committed in America – police brutality..cross burnings..violence at abortion clinics..modern day slavery - all federal crimes - are prosecuted by The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

But our investigation has found that the Justice Department is missing a key component in its mission to protect civil rights - DIVERSITY – diversity in the attorney ranks to prosecute cases.

Congressman John Conyers: "They need someone to investigate them."

The I-Team has learned that since 2003...the criminal section within the Civil Rights Division has not hired a single black attorney to replace those who have left. Not one.

(Graphic)

As a result, the current face of civil rights prosecutions looks like this: Out of fifty attorneys in the Criminal Section - only two are black. The same number the criminal section had in 1978 - even though the size of the staff has more than doubled. .....

Quote:

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Rich070322.pdf
March 22, 2007
Joseph D. Rich
Director, Fair Housing Project
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
1401 New York Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20005
jrich@lawyerscommittee.org
My name is Joe Rich. Since May, 2005 I have been Director of the Housing and
Community Development Project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law. Previously I worked for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division for
almost 37 years. The last six years – from 1999-2005 – I was Chief of the Division’s
Voting Section. Prior to that, I served as Deputy Chief of the Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section for twelve years and Deputy Chief for the Education Section for ten
years. During my nearly 37 years in the Division, I served in Republican administrations
for over 24 years and Democratic administrations for slightly over 12 years.

.....During the Bush Administration, dramatic change has taken place. Political
appointees made it quite clear that they did not wish to draw on the expertise and
institutional knowledge of career attorneys. Instead, there appeared to be a conscious
effort to remake the Division’s career staff. Political appointees often assumed an
attitude of hostility toward career staff, exhibited a general distrust for recommendations
made by them, and were very reluctant to meet with them to discuss their
recommendations. The impact of this treatment on staff morale resulted in an alarming
exodus of career attorneys -- the longtime backbone of the Division that had historically
maintained the institutional knowledge of how to enforce our civil rights laws tracing
back to the passage of our modern civil rights statutes.
Compounding this problem was a major change in hiring procedures which
virtually eliminated any career staff input into the hiring of career attorneys. This has led
to the perception and reality of new staff attorneys having little if any experience in, or
commitment to, the enforcement of civil rights laws and, more seriously, injecting
political factors into the hiring of career attorneys. The overall damage caused by losing
a large body of the committed career staff and replacing it with persons with little or no
interest or experience in civil rights enforcement has been severe and will be difficult to
overcome.
In August, 2005, the first article bringing to light the problems in the Civil Rights
Division was written by William Yeomans for Legal Affairs.i Following this, there was a
flurry of articles in many newspapers and broadcasts on NPR over a four month period
revealing not only the change in personnel and hiring policies in the Division, but also,
alarmingly, the crass politicization of decision-making. Constant oversight of the
Division is necessary to address these very serious problems......

......Equally disturbing is the decimation of voting section staff assigned to the
important work required by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Prior to the Bush
Administration, Section 5 staff was uniformly strengthened, and by 2001 – the
year that the new round of redistricting submissions began -- approximately 40%
of Section staff was assigned to this work, including a Deputy Section Chief,
Robert Berman, who oversaw the Section 5 work; 26 civil rights analysts
(including 8 supervisory or senior analysts) responsible for reviewing, gathering
facts, and making recommendations on over 4,000 Section 5 submissions received
every year; and over six attorneys who spent their full-time reviewing the work of
the analysts. Since then, and especially since the transfer of Deputy Chief
Berman from the Section in late 2005, this staff dropped by almost two-thirds.
There are now only ten civil rights analysts (none of whom hold supervisory jobs
and only three of whom are senior) and two full-time attorney reviewers. During
my tenure as Section Chief until 2005, I made several requests to fill civil rights
analyst vacancies, but these requests were always rejected. It is difficult to
understand how this Administration expects to fulfill its Section 5 responsibilities
– especially the coming redistricting cycle – with such a reduced staff.....

Ottopilot, the regime appointed a fucking race relations "challenged" partisan hack to run voting rights enforcement:

Quote:

http://speaker.house.gov/blog/?p=893
Judiciary Hearing on DOJ Voting Rights Section
October 30th, 2007 by Jesse Lee
The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is currently holding a hearing, “Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.” John K. Tanner, Chief of the Voting Right Section, will testify, as will Toby Moore, a redistricting expert with the division’s voting section until the spring of 2006....

....Subcommitee Chairman Jerry Nadler questions Tanner on a Georgia Voting ID Law on which Tanner overruled the recommendations of his staff that it was discriminatory:

Nadler: “But in making that decision you differed from the 4 of the 5 attorneys… permanent staff who recommended a contrary decision, is that correct?”
Tanner: “I’m in an awkward position in that we are not allowed and it is inappropriate for department personnel to discuss internal deliberations and the confidences of our clients. I’m happy to give you information and explain the basis…”
Nadler: “Mr. Tanner, I believe that is public information. That that has been testified to before, I think, the Senate. Is that not correct, that this is public? That the 5 individuals who reviewed this, who did the staff work, 4 of them recommended disapproving and one differed from that? That is all public information.”

Full Committee Chairman John Conyers expresses shock at Tanner’s claims that the section is operating smoothly:

Chairman Conyers: “I hope that you will take what is directed at you as constructive, because the one thing I am concerned about is that we stop having happen what has happened since the 2000 elections. And then you come here to stagger our imagination by telling us that ‘it’s never been better,’ its never been worse!”

Rep. Artur Davis (AL-07) questions Tanner on a series of controversial remarks he made:

Extended transcript of above exchange:

<h3>Rep. Davis: “You also make the comment, by the way, that blacks are more likely to go to check cashing at some point in Georgia. Did you make that observation?”
Tanner: “In addressing the Georgia…”
Davis: “Don’t give me a long answer because I don’t have the time. Did you make the comment or did you not make it?”
Tanner: “I made a comment about that…”</h3>
Davis: “OK, now this is the point, Mr. Tanner, that I think we want to drive home. Do you have any statistics about how many blacks visit check cashing business versus the number of whites who do?”
Tanner: “I do not have any with me, I believe that statistics about the number of un-banked persons here in the United States, by race, would be available through the office of the comptroller…”
Davis: “Do you know those numbers?”
Tanner: “I do not know those numbers.”
Davis: “Well this is the problem. Once again you engaged in an analysis without knowing the numbers. And the point, Mr. Tanner, you’re a policy maker, sir. You are encharged with enforcing the voting rights laws in the country. And if you are not fully informed about things that you are talking about and pontificating about, if you’re basing your conclusions on stereotypes and generalizations that raises a question in the mind of some of us whether or not you are the person best positioned to be making these choices. You said that minorities don’t become elderly the way white people do, that they die first. And you say ‘well that was a horrible generalization on my part,’ <h3>you say you don’t know how many elderly minorities vote versus the number of whites who vote who are elderly. You make observations about people going to check cashing places and you suggest that ‘well, because blacks go to check cashing places they surely must have photo ID’ and then I ask you if there is a statistical basis for that and you say you don’t know it. If you are basing your conclusions on stereotypes rather than facts, then it suggests to some of us that someone else can do this job better than you can.”</h3>....

Quote:

http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/p...B-9605BA16FF0D
Statement By Senator Edward M. Kennedy Committee Statement on U.S. Attorney Firings
(As Prepared for Delivery)
March 22, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

....The Civil Rights Division virtually stopped enforcing the Voting Rights Act on behalf of African Americans. Instead, it sued African American officials in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters.

The new regime began to simply ignore the recommendations of career attorneys. Political appointees approved the Texas redistricting law that was later struck down by the Supreme Court. Political appointees approved a Georgia photo ID law for voting that was subsequently struck down by a federal court as a poll tax.

Approval of the Georgia photo ID law was driven by the same partisan motivations that produced the current U.S. Attorney scandal. Georgia’s Republican-dominated state legislature said it was enacting the law to respond to allegations of voter fraud. But there was no evidence of such fraud. The ID law was passed anyway, with full awareness that it would disproportionately prevent minorities from voting.

Not only did political appointees reject the career attorneys’ recommendation to block the law, but they transferred Robert Berman -- the leader of the career team that reviewed the Georgia law and a 28-year veteran of the Civil Rights Division -- out of his job as a Deputy Chief of the Voting Section and into a dead-end job. The conclusion is inescapable that the Department of Justice ended Mr. Berman’s long and distinguished career as a Voting Section attorney because he applied the law faithfully and well, and refused to serve the partisan interests of his political superiors.

Incredibly, Bradley Schlozman, the inexperienced political appointee who oversaw approval of the Georgia ID law and the retaliation against the career staff, was rewarded with an appointment as interim U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. He has served in that capacity for a year without Senate confirmation.

Mr. Schlozman is a good example of the new regime at our Justice Department. His professional resume is a short one. He practiced law for about one a year at a large firm before joining the Bush Administration in a series of political jobs at the Department of Justice. He had no experience prosecuting cases. But he was a loyal Bush supporter who was willing to use the power of federal law enforcement to benefit the Republican Party.

While supervising the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, he presided over the Texas redistricting and Georgia photo ID fiascos. He failed to authorize the filing of a single affirmative voting rights case on behalf of African American voters, but he jumped at the chance to sue African American officials in Mississippi for discriminating against white voters. On the eve of the 2004 election, he orchestrated the filing of two extraordinary amicus briefs – one in Florida and the other in Ohio – that argued that individuals could not go to court to enforce the Help America Vote Act. The briefs argued that only the government could enforce the act and that individuals who wanted to get their provisional ballots counted were simply out of luck. This extraordinary partisan intervention by the Civil Rights Division weeks before a national election in battleground states to suppress the votes of predominantly Democratic voters was unprecedented.

Mr. Schlozman also led the charge in punishing other dedicated career attorneys who were insufficiently partisan. For example, he transferred at least two longtime career attorneys out of the Division’s Appellate Section and told several others that they could no longer work on civil rights cases, but would have to stomach a full docket defending deportation orders. He changed performance evaluations to punish career attorneys. He was a key participant in a politicized hiring regime that – as the Boston Globe reported – started looking to partisan credentials and membership in the Federalist Society and de-emphasized academic qualifications and any experience in enforcing the civil rights laws.

For this disgraceful record, Mr. Schlozman was rewarded with a U.S. Attorney position for which he would never have to face Senate confirmation.....

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...92899591_x.htm
Voting rights chief reassigned

By Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department's voting rights chief, who said voter ID laws aren't a problem for blacks because they often die before old age, has been transferred to a new job, officials said Friday.
John Tanner, a longtime attorney in the department's Civil Rights division, requested the move from the division's voting rights office, Justice spokesman Peter Carr said. Tanner now works in the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, Carr said.

"Mr. Tanner made the decision to pursue this opportunity on his own accord," Carr said in a statement.

Tanner, who worked for the voting section since 1976 and served as its chief for the last two years, came under fire in October for remarks that were criticized as racially insensitive.

In an Oct. 4 speech to the NAACP in Georgia, Tanner said minorities are "slightly more likely" than non-minorities to have a photo ID. He suggested that was due to vestiges of racism still at work in the United States.

No, Ottopilot, there's nothing to see here, is there?

Quote:

http://epluribusmedia.net/archives/f...under_bus.html

Civil Rights Division to “Throw Tanner Under the Bus” to save Hans von Spakovsky’s FEC nomination
Publius Revolts
October 10, 2007
ePluribus Media has learned that the leadership of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division has reversed its July decision and is now signaling its willingness to permit Voting Rights Section Chief John Tanner to testify before Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)’s House Judiciary Committee. Although a Judiciary Committee spokesperson has confirmed the reversal, the final date and time for the testimony have not been finalized. There’s speculation that Tanner in his testimony will assume responsibility for the Georgia Voter ID controversy, leaving Hans von Spakovsky, currently up for confirmation to the Federal Elections Commission, a cleaner resume.

Tanner gained notoriety as the Section Chief who overruled career Justice Department staffers and permitted the State of Georgia to implement a law that requires all Georgia voters to show photo identification despite the fact that the career lawyers believed the new law discriminated against minorities in violation of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Tanner returned to the national spotlight when he made controversial remarks defending his Georgia decision. Last Friday, he stated, in remarks videotaped by Alan Breslauer of BradBlog, that “minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first.” Earlier in the week, at a Georgia NAACP conference, Tanner remarked that:
You think you get asked for ID more than I do? I've never heard anyone talk about driving while white. When someone goes to a check cashing business God help them if they don't have a photo ID. People who are poor are poor. They're not stupid. They're not helpless.
Tanner’s recent comments suggest that whites are disadvantaged by photo ID requirements, an argument that Tanner’s predecessor, Joseph D. Rich, who was forced to retire by the Civil Rights Division front office in which Bradley Schlozman1 and Hans von Spakovsky held sway, called "frankly ludicrous." Supporting this assessment of shoddy logic, former Voting Section political geographer Toby Moore told TPM Muckraker’s Paul Kiel that:
This is the kind of analysis that the voting section has been doing: seat of the pants generalizations and suppositions instead of hard numbers and analysis. . . It's false." Tanner's conclusions, he added, were "always in support of what his Republican appointee bosses wanted him to say, which is why he got to where he is.
Alabama native Tanner came on the scene shortly after Rich’s forced retirement in the aftermath of his resistance to the approval of Rep. Tom DeLay’s mid-decade gerrymander of Texas congressional districts, which career staff also attempted to block. Tanner quickly moved to transform the Voting Rights Section into what has been described by 30-year veteran African-American civil rights analyst Teresa Lynn as a “plantation.” Under Tanner, there has been an unprecedented exodus of professional staff from the Voting Rights Section, including nine of thirteen African-American professional staff members and between one-half and two-thirds of its attorneys. Three out of four Deputy Chiefs left. Bob Kengle, a 20-year veteran of the Civil Rights Division, stated that he left due to “institutional sabotage,” while Robert Berman, a 28-year veteran of the Voting Section, was transferred to what Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) called a ‘dead-end’ training job. Gilda Daniels, who was the Section’s only African-American deputy chief, became a law professor at the University of Baltimore. On Tanner’s watch, two African-American employees filed Equal Opportunity Employment complaints against Tanner and his hand-picked replacement for Berman, Yvette Rivera. A source with ties to the Voting Section told ePluribus Media that Rivera had no supervisory experience in civil rights enforcement at the time she was appointed Acting Deputy Chief. Voting Section staffers also say that Tanner took little action on a complaint of sexual harassment made by a female staffer against three new hires in the Voting Rights Section. During the incident, it is reported that one of the newly-hired lawyers – incredibly, in a section of the Civil Rights Division created to secure the voting rights of African-Americans – accused the staffer of being “too pro-black” and asked why she had not been made to leave like so many other staffers who were dedicated supporters of civil rights and many of whom were themselves black.
Tanner’s apparent concern for “white voting rights” is not new. He presided over the first such suit ever brought by the Justice Department in Noxubee County, Mississippi. He also brought about a shift in the direction of the Voting Rights Section’s enforcement efforts that included a failed voter fraud lawsuit against Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan in an attempt to force the state to more aggressively purge voters from its rolls. That effort has continued in recent months, when Tanner sent letters, which, as journalist Steven Rosenfeld states, are an effort to pressure:
10 states to purge voter rolls before the 2008 election based on statistics that former Voting Section attorneys and other experts say are flawed and do not confirm that those states have more voter registrations than eligible voters, as the department alleges[.]
Curiously, Tanner appears eager to take responsibility for what many consider to be the Bush Civil Rights Division’s worst transgression, the preclearance, (the equivalent of pre-check that a law complies with the Voting Rights Act) of the Georgia photo identification law. At last Friday’s meeting Tanner also claimed the analysis that resulted in the Georgia preclearance as his own: “my analysis that was not affected by any other person” (see first video at 2:40). This statement goes against the widespread belief in the voting rights community that the Georgia approval was the work of Hans von Spakovsky. It was von Spakovsky, after all, who, as “Publius,” wrote a law review article defending photo identification requirements at the same time that the Georgia law was under review by the Justice Department. von Spakovsky has deep Georgia roots, having served as chair of the Republican Party in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta.
Is Tanner willing to take the fall for von Spakovsky, whose nomination to the Federal Election Commission was unprecedentedly reported out of the Senate Rules Committee without recommendation and then blocked by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Barack Obama (D-IL)?2 Sources close to the Voting Section tell ePluribus Media that Tanner has told some colleagues that he plans to retire by next September, conveniently before the 2008 elections. Is Tanner serving the interests of the Bush administration because he desires a better retirement package? Unlike line attorneys and even deputy chiefs, the Voting Section Chief is a member of the Senior Executive Service, an appointment that carries a higher salary. Federal retiree benefits for an employee such as Tanner, who entered federal service in 1976, are based on a retiree's highest three years of pay (PDF – see p. 7). Or are Monica Goodling’s infamous “loyal Bushies” holding something more sinister over Tanner’s head? According to Joe Rich, following the Georgia ID incident, the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility opened an investigation into the handling of the matter. The Office has the power to refer matters for criminal prosecution if it feels it is warranted. The investigation into the Georgia ID approval was mysteriously left hanging.
At this point, we can only speculate on Tanner’s motives. There is, however, an emerging consensus among the Section’s staff as to why the Civil Rights Division leadership would reverse itself and permit the Voting Section chief to testify. Sources described the consensus to ePluribus Media as “throwing [Tanner] under the bus.” Tanner became Section Chief in 2005. It remains to be seen whether, after his testimony, he will be able to hold out until he can retire with a Senior Executive Service retirement package, or whether he will join von Spakovsky, Schlozman, former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Wan Kim, and Alberto Gonzales in the ranks of disgraced former Justice Department employees.
Footnotes
1 Schlozman, who served briefly as Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and then was appointed Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales after his predecessor, Todd Graves, was fired as part of the U.S. Attorney purges, has recently taken to practicing tax law at a small firm in Wichita.
2 Sources in the voting rights community have also reported that Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) were influential in blocking the Von Spakovsky nomination

dc_dux · 04-06-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

For something to be institutionalized, there has to be a standard and an authority (established policies and laws). Can you provide an example of institutionalized racism? If you could, it would be illegal, against the law, and prosecutable. Is there prejudice? Probably, but if you can prove it, they will be prosecuted. There is no "institutionalized" racism. If there was, the laws are there to handle it. What you speak of is more likely done subtly by individuals outside the rule of law ... but it's not institutionalized.

otto....I disagree with your interpretation of institutionalized racism.

IMO, institutionalized racism are discriminatory policies and practices that are enabled to exist by or within the law.

A good example is redlining, whch at the very least is a discriminatory policy of banks and lending institutions that disproportionately affect minority communities and neighborhoods.

The government addressed it in the 70s with the Community Reinvestment Act that set strict requirements for lending institutions to provide housing loans, small business loans and other investments in the communities in which they are located.

Bush relaxed these standards several years ago....

see: U.S. Set to Alter Rules for Banks Lending to Poor

....resulting in less investment (of money citizens deposit in their savings account in their neighborhood bank) in their own communities. Discriminatory or racist....small difference in my mind. The result was that these communities were not being served.

Other examples that, at the very least, raise the question of institutional discrimination:

The issue of penalities for distribution of crack vs power coke provided for great disparity in sentencing with a disproportionate adverse affect on minorities.....at least until a Supreme Court ruling last year.
***

Would FEMA have acted more quickly and followed through more thoroughly if the worst impact of Katrina had been in the Garden District of New Orleans rather than the 9th Ward?

Would it have taken as long to get trailers to wealthier white residents. Would they have kept the fact hidden for two years from wealthy white residents that the trailers posed health risks?

CDC Confirms Health Risks to Occupants of Trailers

Federal health officials have confirmed that high levels of formaldehyde gas pose health risks to hurricane victims housed in 38,000 government trailers on the Gulf Coast, and will recommend that occupants be moved before temperatures rise this spring and summer, Bush administration officials disclosed yesterday.

...The findings cap nearly two years of internal government deliberation over the housing of hurricane Katrina and Rita survivors in the trailers, and come 23 months after FEMA first received reports of health problems and test results showing formaldehyde levels at 75 times the U.S.-recommended workplace safety threshold.

Who knows...but I dont think its unreasonable to understand why the citizens of the 9th ward might think so. And yes, I know that there are white citizens in these trailers and many white victims of Katrina...but the vast majority are black and lower income (not a Republican constituency)
***

SAT and other standardized tests....Are these standardized tests culturally biased? Some say yes:

Jay Rosner, executive director of the Princeton Review Foundation, conducted an SAT bias analysis in 2003. He examined answers from 100,000 test takers along with their race, ethnicity and gender.

Rosner's findings, outlined in “On White Preferences,” showed that “every single question carefully preselected to appear on the test favors whites over blacks.”

Rosner said that whites answered 99 percent of the questions correctly at a higher rate than did blacks and Latinos.

“The test developers at ETS don’t intend to produce these results,” Rosner said. “They are choosing questions using a methodology that produces very consistent and predictable results.”

...“There has been a long history of bias in the development of standardized testing,” said Stafford Hood, professor of psychology in education at Arizona State University. “We are better in terms of paying attention to the possibilities of bias in testing than we were before, but has it been fixed yet? Of course not.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/....aspx?id=35935

....others say no. I dont know. But if they are used too heavily as admission standards, the result could be discriminatory or perceived as racist.

**
Conclusion....
And finally.....voter caging...an issue that Ustwo dismisses with a laugh and a shrug but really doesnt want to discuss...is institutional racism.

When I presented some of these earlier, pan's response was that since they impact whites as well, they are not racist.

I would suggest that if the vast majority of those negatively mpacted (by intent or by circumstance) are of one race...it is not a stretch to characterize these policies and practices as examples of institutional racism.

ottopilot · 04-06-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Have you been living under a rock this past year, Ottopilot?

Ottopilot, the regime appointed a fucking race relations "challenged" partisan hack to run voting rights enforcement:

No, Ottopilot, there's nothing to see here, is there?

Show me a law or a corporate standard that mandates racism. You've failed to provide this. We are talking about racism, right. Not social programs based on race like affirmative action are we? We're not talking about any official program, corporation, business, political group, entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American? No ... wait ... all those institutions would be discriminating based on race. I see, yes, there is institutionalized racism. I'm sorry, you are correct.

dc_dux · 04-06-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Show me a law or a corporate standard that mandates racism. You've failed to provide this.

otto..... I guess that means you dont accept my definition of institutional racism:

discriminatory policies and practices, disproportionately and adversly affecting one race, that are enabled to exist by or within the law.

You dont agree that bank laws re:lending practices, standardized tests, voter caging, etc. (the katrina example is probably a stretch) may, and in fact, do disproportionately and adversely affecting one race...and provide a legal cover for those who may have racists intent?

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

From what I gather, your solutions to racial problems can be summed up by saying that you think that no one ever anywhere should ever acknowledge any difference between races with respect to anything. How is this different than ignoring the problem?

I can imagine your diatribes about King opting to work on behalf of an all black sanitation worker's union. "What about all the blue collar white workers getting screwed? Why is he ignoring them? Because they're white? Why, that Martin Luther King is nothing but a hatred spewing racist."

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is there are more positive far far better ways to fight racism than to counter it with racism and hatred.

We need t teach and learn from each other, not have Rev. Sharptons, Louis Farrakhans, and the likes or David Duke's or whomever running around creating more hatred. We need more men like George Foreman, MLK, later Malcolm X, Clarence Thomas', Colin Powells, and so on that get out there and will take up the cause in POSITIVE ways. Not keep reopening wounds, promote hated and preach ignorance so they can stay in power.

Quote:

No, it's not. Racial equality doesn't just refer to equal treatment, it also refers to equality with respect to other measures as well. The fact that young black males are more likely to be criminals, regardless of their treatment by the justice system, is a sign that inequality still exists, regardless of who is to blame for it. The fact that you can't seem to fathom the role a successful black man might have in convincing a group of young black males who've already started on the wrong path to turn change their lives around is immaterial. Could the judge have spoken to these young men in front of everyone else? Yes. Would his lecture have necessarily had the same effect if it was in front of the general public? Maybe, maybe not. None of us were there, we don't know.

I have stated before, I would feel the same about ANY judge removing all but a certain group out. It's prejudicial and goes against everything I believe a court and a judge should stand for. How are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said? I find it bullshit.

But the worse part, for me is when 1 judge of a certain background can do it but another from a different background can't.

If you are going to argue that it is ok for a judge to do this then you best argue ALL judges can or you are just as prejudiced and hateful as those you supposedly are fighting against.

Quote:

You can sit back an call it racist, but that doesn't matter, you're opinion is irrelevant to any of the folks actually involved. I don't think your definition of racism is useful in any sense, because apparently anyone who does anything proactive concerning racial inequality is racist.

There is a HUGE assed difference between proactive teaching to reject ANY prejudice and teaching hate and prejudice to fight hate and prejudiced.

Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright are positive and teach positive race relations????? Give me a fucking break.

Just as David Duke and whomever else is out there teaches racial peace.

Quote:

How about this: You, Pan, are a racist, hate filled bigot for even acknowledging that the judge was black. Clearly, in the world that is MLK's dream we don't even have words for race, because it doesn't exist in any relevant way-- color of skin << content of character, all that. Since you claim to be an adherent to the goals of MLK, the fact that you even recognize that other people are black makes to a racist, hate spewing bigot.

Does that last paragraph seem reasonable? Not to me. Maybe it does to you.

No, it's not reasonable and someday I would hope color, religion, sex and so on won't matter.

But right now they do. Why? Because again, oce you have people saying one judge can because of a certain background and another can't, PREJUDICE will be the first thing said and rightfully so.

dc_dux · 04-06-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

We're not talking about any official program, corporation, business, political group, entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American? No ... wait ... all those institutions would be discriminating based on race. I see, yes, there is institutionalized racism. I'm sorry, you are correct.

It is utter nonsense like this that makes it so hard to have a rational, constructive discussion on race relations.

Wake me when its over.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's not an unreasonable summation.

It's not an unreasonable summation, Will. And that is the sad part. That is the negative part. THAT more than anything else is the prejudicial part.

dc_dux · 04-06-2008, 09:41 PM

pan....here is the problem I have with your approach to the issue.

You judge blacks you approve of, like George Foreman, Colin Powelll, etc. based on their life's work.

You judge blacks you disapprove of, like the Atlanta judge, Rev Wright, etc. based on a one minute video or only one aspect of their life's work.

And now I am really going to bed.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

We're not talking about any official program, corporation, business, political group, entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American? No ... wait ... all those institutions would be discriminating based on race. I see, yes, there is institutionalized racism. I'm sorry, you are correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

It is utter nonsense like this that makes it so hard to have a rational, constructive discussion on race relations.

Wake me when its over.

This is the problem.

Instead of conversing in positive ways and trying to work on positive solutions, we (and the vast majority does) becomes defensive over their positions and refuses to even listen to the other side and admit maybe, just maybe the other side has some good points and we should work on them TOGETHER.

We are all guilty of it but until we are truly willing to do something about it on all sides, nothing except hate will continue. Not just race relations, but foreign policy, religion, anything that separates us, as a whole.

dc_dux · 04-06-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

This is the problem.

Instead of conversing in positive ways and trying to work on positive solutions, we (and the vast majority does) becomes defensive over their positions and refuses to even listen to the other side and admit maybe, just maybe the other side has some good points and we should work on them TOGETHER.

We are all guilty of it but until we are truly willing to do something about it on all sides, nothing except hate will continue. Not just race relations, but foreign policy, religion, anything that separates us, as a whole.

pan....otto's raising the issue of entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American.....is pure BULLSHIT and unworthy of discussion,

These groups (he forgot to mention Jewish, Italian, Asian. business organizatons, clubs, etc) were formed for two reasons....they were excluded for years from mainstream wasp clubs, pagents, etc. and they are for social networking.

They are a diversion from a serious discussion on race relations.

ANd now I am really really going to bed.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....here is the problem I have with your approach to the issue.

You judge blacks you approve of, like George Foreman, Colin Powelll, etc. based on their life's work.

You judge blacks you disapprove of, like the Atlanta judge, Rev Wright, etc. based on a one minute video or only one aspect of their life's work.

And now I am really going to bed.

NO, I judge Rev Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan on their body of work and their actions.

Wright went to Libya with Farrakhan, Wright and Sharpton preach hatred (his church SELLS the damned videos so obviously he believed heavily in the message he was sending out), the judge abused his power to do something IMHO prejudicial and wrong, so yes he should lose his job and at the very least be investigated to see how his past rulings have been. Did he have harsher sentences for blacks that came before him, lighter sentences..... One has to wonder after this blatant episode of abuse and prejudice.

All this talk of how important the black churches and church leaders are is interesting, when one considers that 70% of the inner city black children grow up without a father, drug abuse, crime, poverty snd so on run rampant in the areas affected by these so called civil rights leading Rev.

I refuse to believe it is the white man, because I have seen and know many black men that refused to buy into that bullshit and become successes.

Again, IMHO the reason why those Rev. teach and preach what they do is for POWER and greed. They lose their power and purpose when their followers stop following and turn to more positive messengers. As long as they allow the crime, the unwed pregnancies, the drugs, the school dropout rates to stagnant or increase and they can sell the people that it is someone else's fault not theirs..... they will always have followers and keep hatred and prejudice alive. And if you can't see that, if you keep allowing it to grow and the hate to evolve.... one day it will explode and then you'll wonder why no one tried to do anything sooner..... or you'll continue to make excuses.

dc_dux · 04-06-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

All this talk of how important the black churches and church leaders are is interesting, when one considers that 70% of the inner city black children grow up without a father, drug abuse, crime, poverty snd so on run rampant in the areas affected by these so called civil rights leading Rev.

I have given you the benefit of doubt....but you've just convinced me you are a racist.

Goodnight!

ottopilot · 04-06-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

otto..... I guess that means you dont accept or agree with definition of institutional racism:

discriminatory policies and practices, disproportionately and adversly affecting one race, that are enabled to exist by or within the law.

Government - the act of governing; exercising authority. the organization that is the governing authority.
Institution - an organization founded and united for a specific purpose
Racism - the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.
Law -legal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity. the collection of rules imposed by authority.
regulation - prescribed by or according to regulation. an authoritative rule.

We can look up definitions all day. What you refer to as "Institutional Racism" is an interpretation of cause and effect. These abuses are perhaps carried out by individuals or groups within an institution where laws or practices are bent for what ever purpose these actions serve. The law or government institution cannot be racist under law. The resulting activity by individuals or groups within the government institution may be interpreted as racism. They should be prosecuted and laws amended with better language to prevent re-occurrence.

I fully understand that racial discrimination sometimes occurs under or within government institutions. A government institution or regulated institution itself is not racist. The individuals or groups responsible for racism within the institution are "responsible". Therefore, the term "institutional racism" is a perception, well-founded or otherwise ... if not taken in the literal sense, the term is little more than an operative buzzword or propaganda.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....otto's raising the issue of entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American.....is pure BULLSHIT and unworthy of discussion,

These groups (he forgot to mention Jewish, Italian, Asian. business organizatons, clubs, etc) were formed for two reasons....they were excluded for years from mainstream wasp clubs, pagents, etc. and they are for social networking.

They are a diversion from a serious discussion on race relations.

ANd now I am really really going to bed.

They were founded for that reason, yes.

But the days of their exclusions are over. Why continue to have your own exclusionary events and organizations now?

Perhaps, you still feel you need them. But, if you look deep inside you'll see you don't.

We have come a long fucking way in 145 years, and more in the last 50..... we have a long way to go still, but promoting prejudices, hatred, and so on from the other side now... isn't going to make things better or any more equal. Negativity only begets more negativity.

Now is the time to look how far we have come and how we ALL can move forward together and let the wounds of the past heal and stop picking at them.

It's like having I cut your leg.... you had me thrown in prison (rightfully so).... but then instead of letting that wound heal and learning to find a positive future, you kept picking at the wound for a year, 2 years, not letting it heal..... picking at it, blaming me.... picking at it, cursing me.... then it's infected..... you go to the doctor you say "look what fucking Pan did." Doctor says. "very nasty infection."

Meanwhile, in prison, I start sending you letters telling how deeply sorry I am and how when I get out I will try to correct things and beg your forgiveness.

You go to the parole board on my 2 year review.. you show your leg and how the doctor said it hasn't healed right. You don't mention or even acknowledge my letters. I point them out, but I also state I accept responsibility for my actions and I accept any punishment. The prison psychologist and chaplain say I have grown in very positive ways but not enough. I even agree with them. The parole board makes me serve my full 5 year sentence.

But you keep picking at it and not letting it heal. You don't take the antibiotics .... and the whole time you seethe with anger at what I did. Your wife and family leave you, you lose your job, your house, everything you valued, because the hate of my action has now consumed you. Then the infection gets really bad and your leg gets cut off. You really hate me now because it was all my fault. You lost everything because I did this to you.

I come out of prison, reformed, in the past 3 years I have paid all doctor bills regarding the cut. I made as much restitution I felt I possibly could, I plan to meet you and see if I can do more.

As I walk off the prison grounds, you come to me and start yelling how I crippled you and ruined your life.... then instead of telling me how I can further help.... you kill me for ruining your life.

I know bad analogy..... how can I compare a cut on the leg to slavery and segregation? I just will never understand.

ottopilot · 04-06-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....otto's raising the issue of entertainment network , or beauty pageant with the name "Black" , "Negro", or "African American" in it's title? Or an organization's membership requirements being based on being an African American.....is pure BULLSHIT and unworthy of discussion,

No, you don't get it. I brought all this up just to point out how absurd the argument is. To bring up one side an not acknowledge the other is complete bullshit. This biased approach has become a bad cliche of a liberal high-school sociology lecture rather than a discussion. I'm playing devils advocate because I can't ignore the hypocrisies or liberties taken in your views.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have given you the benefit of doubt....but you've just convinced me you are a racist.

Goodnight!

If you want to believe that.... ok. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Even though you only took out part of what was said in that post and to me it looks like you were looking for a reason to call me a racist.

Your entitled to your opinion.

ottopilot · 04-06-2008, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If you want to believe that.... ok. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Even though you only took out part of what was said in that post and to me it looks like you were looking for a reason to call me a racist.

Your entitled to your opinion.

Pan ... It's disappointing how quickly and frequently some of the most self-righteous here revert to name calling ... especially something as divisive as "racist". Calling someone a racist in this discussion is unreasonable if not deplorable.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Pan ... It's disappointing how quickly and frequently some of the most self-righteous here revert to name calling ... especially something as divisive as "racist". Calling someone a racist in this discussion is unreasonable if not deplorable.

Well, like I said instead of using the whole post he took out what best suited his need so he could justify his belief.

It is actions and beliefs like his that are a reason why race relations are still a problem. It's easier to call those you don't want to hear divisive and hateful names so that you can walk away and keep hate alive instead of sitting down and finding a positive solution.

Then again, as Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, David Duke, Hagge, and all the other racist leaders know, it keeps the easy money and the power coming in. The last thing they want is a solution.... then they lose all that power and money.

silent_jay · 04-06-2008, 10:50 PM

And we're back to pan the martyr.........in 5 more pages of another thread..........sleepy time......'good night and good luck'..............

ottopilot · 04-06-2008, 10:59 PM

And we're back to dc_dux calling someone a racist ... directly or indirectly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

And we're back to pan the martyr.........in 5 more pages of another thread..........

I guess if Pan were a troll, he might want to do nothing but chime in with unsubstantiated drive-by commentary. But at least he tries to contribute with an honest and constructed point of view. Try it some time.

silent_jay · 04-06-2008, 11:06 PM

I gave my point of view 5 pages ago, try reading the thread mine was the first response, and if I were a troll, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have, then again you haven't been around that long so you may not have noticed trolls don't survive very long in these parts, and that is my last post in this train wreck of a thread, so respond as you will with whatever witty response you may brew up.

pan6467 · 04-06-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

And we're back to dc_dux calling someone a racist ... directly or indirectly.

I guess if Pan were a troll, he might want to do nothing but chime in with unsubstantiated drive-by commentary. But at least he tries to contribute with an honest and constructed point of view. Try it some time.

Wow, he must truly have it in for me.... this makes like 5 posts where he just comes in takes a cheap shot and leaves.

All well.... again, it's easier to hate, throw blame and be negative then it is to sit down, talk and find common ground so that positive things can happen.

Keep hate alive, baby.

dc_dux · 04-07-2008, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Even though you only took out part of what was said in that post and to me it looks like you were looking for a reason to call me a racist.

Your entitled to your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Well, like I said instead of using the whole post he took out what best suited his need so he could justify his belief.

It is actions and beliefs like his that are a reason why race relations are still a problem. It's easier to call those you don't want to hear divisive and hateful names so that you can walk away and keep hate alive instead of sitting down and finding a positive solution.

You are absolutely right. I took only part of what you said (in this and other threads)......just as you only take part of what Judge Arrington or Reverend Wright have said (or have done) that best suit your need so you could justify your belief.

I thought I would play by your rules. (and in your fave color)

I still dont think you get it.

edit:
My apologies to the rest of the TFP community who are wading through this crap.

ratbastid · 04-07-2008, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

All well.... again, it's easier to hate, throw blame and be negative then it is to sit down, talk and find common ground so that positive things can happen.

Keep hate alive, baby.

Quoted for Irony.

Posting at this point in this thread is like wading into a pool of alligators, so I'm not going to be too substantial here. Suffice to say, pan, when you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

NO, I judge Rev Wright, Sharpton and Farrakhan on their body of work and their actions.

... and then IMMEDIATELY follow it with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Wright went to Libya with Farrakhan, Wright and Sharpton preach hatred (his church SELLS the damned videos so obviously he believed heavily in the message he was sending out), the judge abused his power to do something IMHO prejudicial and wrong, so yes he should lose his job and at the very least be investigated to see how his past rulings have been. Did he have harsher sentences for blacks that came before him, lighter sentences..... One has to wonder after this blatant episode of abuse and prejudice.

...and NOT see that you just made a lie out of the first sentence... Well, it's just impossible to have a rational discussion with when you're operating with that degree of self-opacity.

filtherton · 04-07-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is there are more positive far far better ways to fight racism than to counter it with racism and hatred.

Okay, but it's a stretch to call anything this judge did racist or hateful. You, as someone who seems to constantly lament being called a racist, should understand this.

Quote:

We need t teach and learn from each other, not have Rev. Sharptons, Louis Farrakhans, and the likes or David Duke's or whomever running around creating more hatred. We need more men like George Foreman, MLK, later Malcolm X, Clarence Thomas', Colin Powells, and so on that get out there and will take up the cause in POSITIVE ways. Not keep reopening wounds, promote hated and preach ignorance so they can stay in power.

I agree that we need people who don't promote hatred. I think you have an overly broad definition of promoting hatred.

Quote:

I have stated before, I would feel the same about ANY judge removing all but a certain group out. It's prejudicial and goes against everything I believe a court and a judge should stand for. How are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said? I find it bullshit.

I know you find it bullshit. I think you're over reacting. I mean shit, why stop at not throwing everybody just the nonblacks out of the courtroom. Why didn't the judge take out an ad on one of his local radio stations, or better yet, why didn't he write a book? Like you said, how are we, or this judge to know that others would not benefit from what he said?

I know you're a parent, so you should be aware of the differences, psychologically speaking, between lecturing someone in front of strangers and lecturing them in front of just their peers. Perhaps the judge felt that lecturing these young men in front of the rest of the court wouldn't have the desired effect. Do we even know what he said, specifically? If not, why are you making such a big fuss about it? It's quite possible that had he said whatever he said in front of everybody it would have been of little benefit to anybody else with respect to the lessening effect it might have had on the people for whom it was intended.

Quote:

But the worse part, for me is when 1 judge of a certain background can do it but another from a different background can't.

If you are going to argue that it is ok for a judge to do this then you best argue ALL judges can or you are just as prejudiced and hateful as those you supposedly are fighting against.

I think you are too quick to use the word hate, and it causes you problems when communicating with other people. Prejudice and hate are two different things and they don't necessarily always overlap. Accusing this judge, or anyone who supports him, or racial hatred is ridiculous. It is difficult to take one who makes such accusations seriously, especially when it is possible, given that little that we actually know about this judge, that the judge in question has done more to further race relations than you could ever hope to.

Quote:

There is a HUGE assed difference between proactive teaching to reject ANY prejudice and teaching hate and prejudice to fight hate and prejudiced.

Sharpton, Farrakhan and Wright are positive and teach positive race relations????? Give me a fucking break.

Who cares about them?

Quote:

No, it's not reasonable and someday I would hope color, religion, sex and so on won't matter.

But it is reasonable. Someone who wasn't racist and discriminatory, full of hate you might say, wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of race.

Quote:

But right now they do. Why? Because again, oce you have people saying one judge can because of a certain background and another can't, PREJUDICE will be the first thing said and rightfully so.

So is your problem with what the judge did, or that you perceive some sort of double standard exists with respect to which judges can do it?

percy · 04-07-2008, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

All well.... again, it's easier to hate, throw blame and be negative then it is to sit down, talk and find common ground so that positive things can happen.

Keep hate alive, baby.

I 've read this entire thread(I dont know why I wasted the time) and pan you say you want to find common ground but you don't. All you are trying to do is beat your opinion into other people's heads and come to the consensus you are correct.

I think you said (may have been someone else) that if any other judges did this it still is as prejudicial as this one in this context. I just don't agree with your reasoning. I see this judge trying to instill some pride and responsibility into people of his race to do better.

What if he singled them out. Would you be arguing the opposite had he done the same in front of a packed court room, potentially embarrassing and humiliating them in front of other races, perhaps giving the impression they were inferior? I understand your point, that being if he had a message, he should have said it to everyone regardless of race. But you are not understanding his point, that being his feeling that there are problems in the black community and people need to step up.

This guy should be commended for being a role model, not admonished for trying to create positive change in his people.

Why you are arguing this ad nauseum is beyond me. Honestly for most people this is a no brainer. Try to see this from the opposite point of view, honestly, then see how your reasoning stacks up.

Martian · 04-07-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

...We need more men like George Foreman, MLK, later Malcolm X, Clarence Thomas', Colin Powells, and so on that get out there and will take up the cause in POSITIVE ways. Not keep reopening wounds, promote hated and preach ignorance so they can stay in power.

Hold on, Malcolm X? As in this Malcolm X?

Malcolm X, the militant radical who said things like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm X

You can't have capitalism without racism....
...Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm X

If you're afraid of black nationalism, you're afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm X

This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master...
...You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America, this good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.

All quotes sourced from late 1964 or 1965, within months of his death.

I'm not going to argue your other examples, but is this really a man you want to hold up as an example of peace and racial tolerance?

Compare this to Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his most famous speech said things like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther King

...I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
...I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character...
...I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will they be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood...
...We can not walk alone...

Do you see the contrast here?

ottopilot · 04-07-2008, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Hold on, Malcolm X? As in this Malcolm X?
I'm not going to argue your other examples, but is this really a man you want to hold up as an example of peace and racial tolerance?

Excellent point Martian. We should keep an appreciation for the historical context of events. But if we are truly wanting to pursue solutions, we should not continue honoring or condoning racial prejudice or militancy by anyone for any reason.

mixedmedia · 04-07-2008, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

Hold on, Malcolm X? As in this Malcolm X?

Malcolm X, the militant radical who said things like:

All quotes sourced from late 1964 or 1965, within months of his death.

I'm not going to argue your other examples, but is this really a man you want to hold up as an example of peace and racial tolerance?

Compare this to Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his most famous speech said things like:

Do you see the contrast here?

Compare these quotes with the sentiment of our founding fathers under British colonial rule.

Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965.

Context is everything.

dc_dux · 04-07-2008, 06:29 AM

(This was a list of banned books by and about African-Americans.......moved to new thread for separate discussion).

mixedmedia · 04-07-2008, 06:32 AM

Good lord. That is insane.

Everybody on the planet should be made read The Bluest Eye.

roachboy · 04-07-2008, 06:32 AM

do you really think this thread is a good place to debate the relevance of martin luther king as over against malcolm x?

there is a potentially interesting debate to be had about that--but the chances of it happening in this thread are close to nil--and that because it reintroduces the problem of how one thinks about racism and its history and the relation of that history to the present in the united states.

this is one of the central disagreements between pan, bringer of Unity Peace Love and Understanding, and the rest of us, all of whom sow hate and negativity and division.

04-06-2008, 01:34 PM	#165 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Mw2Xg0DELc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Mw2Xg0DELc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Hey look its blacks beating up a white guy, for being white! It also has nothing to do with the OP or anything else in the thread. But yes people were racist, some are racist host, note that most of your pictures are black and white for a reason thats not artistic Most of todays black criminals were not even born in those times, using it as an excuse for current issues with black youth is somewhat weak, nor is it a cause of a deterioration of the black family which has helped lead us to the current problems. I think my summery of this is right on point. Its ok (to the TFP) for a judge to be exclusionary based on race provided its a black judge who wants to talk to black folk about a black issues. Did I miss something? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

04-06-2008, 09:41 PM	#176 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	pan....here is the problem I have with your approach to the issue. You judge blacks you approve of, like George Foreman, Colin Powelll, etc. based on their life's work. You judge blacks you disapprove of, like the Atlanta judge, Rev Wright, etc. based on a one minute video or only one aspect of their life's work. And now I am really going to bed. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-06-2008, 10:50 PM	#187 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	And we're back to pan the martyr.........in 5 more pages of another thread..........sleepy time......'good night and good luck'.............. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

04-06-2008, 11:06 PM	#189 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	I gave my point of view 5 pages ago, try reading the thread mine was the first response, and if I were a troll, I wouldn't have lasted here as long as I have, then again you haven't been around that long so you may not have noticed trolls don't survive very long in these parts, and that is my last post in this train wreck of a thread, so respond as you will with whatever witty response you may brew up. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

04-07-2008, 06:29 AM	#198 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	(This was a list of banned books by and about African-Americans.......moved to new thread for separate discussion). __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 04-07-2008 at 06:58 AM..

04-06-2008, 12:39 PM	#163 (permalink)
scout Psycho	What a load of crap. I don't even know where to start. I would probably wind up saying a lot of things I would regret so I am not saying anything other this. For someone to say "some bad things happened in Georgia 62 years ago so if a judge in another state wants to have a racist moment and toss all the white SoB's out of his courtroom its ok" is one of the biggest loads of shit I've seen dealt out here in a long time.

04-07-2008, 06:32 AM	#199 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Good lord. That is insane. Everybody on the planet should be made read The Bluest Eye. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-07-2008, 06:32 AM	#200 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	do you really think this thread is a good place to debate the relevance of martin luther king as over against malcolm x? there is a potentially interesting debate to be had about that--but the chances of it happening in this thread are close to nil--and that because it reintroduces the problem of how one thinks about racism and its history and the relation of that history to the present in the united states. this is one of the central disagreements between pan, bringer of Unity Peace Love and Understanding, and the rest of us, all of whom sow hate and negativity and division. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite