The Seventh Sense

Foxx's Latest Stupid Statements

During a debate on the House floor today over designating 21 miles of the Molalla River as "wild and scenic," Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), who opposes the legislation, tried to claim a progressive environmental record for her party. "Actually, the GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental programs in this country," said Foxx.

She didn't say what those environmental programs were, tellingly.

But then she went into loony-land territory.   Foxx extended her claims of the GOP's progressive history to the issue of civil rights. "Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the '60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle," said Foxx. "They love to engage in revisionist history."

Fortunately, Foxx was slapped down by Dennis Cardoza (D-CA):

CARDOZA: Today, what I'm hearing on the floor really takes the cake. The gentlelady from North Carolina, in her statement just now, indicated that the Republican GOP had passed the Civil Rights Act legislation with almost no help from the Democrats. I can't believe my ears. It was the Kennedy and Johnson administration where we passed that Great Society legislation. It was over the objections of people like Jesse Helms from the gentlewoman's state that we passed that civil rights legislation. John Lewis...

FOXX: Would, would the gentleman yield?

CARDOZA: No, I will not yield. John Lewis, a member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed. Tell John Lewis that he wasn't part of getting that legislation passed.

****

The truth of the matter is that it is a bit more complicated.  Of course, there were Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who opposed civil rights legislation.  But as Think Progress points out:

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a "higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill." But this ignores the "distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians" on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that "in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans."

Steve Benen also provides this refresher:

This comes up from time to time, and since some confused people like Virginia Foxx have trouble remembering the details, it's worth the occasional refresher.

The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies -- southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and white progressives and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with an inclusive, liberal agenda.

As the party shifted, the Democratic mainstream embraced its new role. Republicans, meanwhile, also changed. In the wake of LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party welcomed the racists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party. Indeed, in 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater boasted of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and made it part of his platform. It was right around this time when figures like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond made the transition -- leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP.

In the ensuing years, Democrats embraced its role as the party of diversity, inclusion, and civil rights. Republicans became the party of the "Southern Strategy," opposition to affirmative action, campaigns based on race-baiting, vote-caging, discriminatory voter-ID laws, and politicians like Helms, Thurmond, Pat Buchanan, and Virginia Foxx.

Finally, it's all very nice to talk about Republican's civil rights initiatives of the past (after all, President Lincoln -- a Republican -- freed the slaves, yes?), but even assuming there is cause for the GOP to crow, that's what we call "resting on one's laurels".  Where is the Republican party today on issues like gay marriage or immigration?

Racist Much, CNBC?

Hard to believe they allowed this to be published:

Marathon's Headline Win Is Empty

By: Darren Rovell
CNBC Sports Business Reporter

It's a stunning headline: American Wins Men's NYC Marathon For First Time Since '82.

Unfortunately, it's not as good as it sounds.

Meb Keflezighi, who won yesterday in New York, is technically American by virtue of him becoming a citizen in 1998, but the fact that he's not American-born takes away from the magnitude of the achievement the headline implies.

Nationality in running counts. It's why many identify Kenya as the land of the long distance champions.

As for the United States? Not so much.

It has been well-documented that since the mid-80's, Americans haven't had much success in the marathon. Many cite lack of motivation as the root of our troubles, as in our best athletes devote their lives to sports where they can make big money instead of collecting the relatively small paychecks that professional running offers. That, of course, is not the case with African runners, who see in the same winner's check a lifetime full of riches.

Given our disappointing results, embracing Keflezighi is understandable. But Keflezighi's country of origin is Eritrea, a small country in Africa. He is an American citizen thanks to taking a test and living in our country.

Nothing against Keflezighi, but he's like a ringer who you hire to work a couple hours at your office so that you can win the executive softball league.

The positive sign was that some American-born runners did extremely well in yesterday's men's race.

If any of them stand on the top step of the podium in Central Park one day, that's when I'll break out my red, white and blue.

Got that?  Keflezighi is "technically American", but he's not a real American because he wasn't born here, according to this bozo.  Never mind the fact that he's been living in America since he was 12, after fleeing as a refugee from Eritea.  Went to American high schools, and finally became a U.S. citizen -- he's not a real American.

Fortunately, the commentors over at CNBC are lambasting this guy.

UPDATE:  A weak apology, but an apology nonetheless.

Document Dump

Remember a few months ago when a bunch of black kids from a day camp tried to go swimming in a community pool (permission having been granted by the pool's Board of Driectors), and were then told to leave because some of the pool members (all white) complained?

The Human Relations Committee came out with a damning report this past week.  You can read it here (PDF), but the bottom line is this:

The commission ordered the club to pay a $50,000 civil penalty for the club's discrimation again one child, whose parents filed the complaint with the commission.

The report also orders Valley Club to pay other damages, including reimbursing the parent who filed the complaint for all related expenses. If there is no settlement made between the parent, the club and the commission, either party can request a public hearing before the commission and can after that be challenged in court.

The $50,000 civil penalty is to be paid to state government, under terms of the finding.

Associated Press Analysis: "'Racist' Claims Defuse Once Powerful Word"

Shorter version:

Except that the AP analysis is actually kind of stupid and facile:

Everybody's racist, it seems.

Republican Rep. Joe Wilson? Racist, because he shouted "You lie!" at the first black president. Health care protesters, affirmative action supporters? Racist. And Barack Obama? He's the "Racist in Chief," wrote a leader of the recent conservative protest in Washington.

But if everybody's racist, is anyone?

The word is being sprayed in all directions, creating a hall of mirrors that is draining the scarlet R of its meaning and its power, turning it into more of a spitball than a stigma.

As Digby says, this kind of analysis is very conveeeenient for the actual racists.

Look.  There is quite a difference between seeking diversity in college admissions or in the workplace, and blatently suggesting, as Rush Limbaugh did this week, that we should return to segregated school busses because the black kids beat up the white kids.  The latter is racist; the former is not -- and the fact that some may CALL the former "racism" doesn't make it so.

I don't think we're at the point in this society -- nowhere near -- where privileged white men -- and so far, all the complaints of "black racism" have come from privileged white men -- can complain about being victimized.  Just because we have a black president doesn't mean the "racist" epithet is now fair game for people of all colors.  It just means we've made progress. 

But does anyone think that young black teens are no longer stopped by police for "driving while black"?  Does anyone think that the power structure in D.C. and on Wall Street isn't disproportionately run by white men, and that there isn't a backlash because that is (in some minds) threatened?  Does anyone think that when it comes to hiring and firing in corporate America, such decisions are made in a way that affects all races equally?

Our society is still racist, and that racism is overwhelming slanted against minorities.  In fact, the fact that a minority cannot rise to prominence -- whether it be on the Supreme Court (Sotomayor) or President (Obama) -- without those on the right (and in the South) making some note (if not disparagement) of their race only proves that "racism" is not "equal".

No, there are no white sheets.  But the sentiment is there, strong as ever.  In fact, it's being emboldened and, as Carter says, bubbling to the surface.

Tearing The Country Apart

Van Jones, ACORN, and now the video of the school bus brawl.

Anyone notice a pattern of the right-wing targets?

There seems to be a racial pattern to the target-du-jour of the right wing.

The school bus brawl incident is especially noteworthy, because it is clearly race-baiting.  I mean, some kids beat on another kid on a school bus.  Worthy of a national story?  Nope.  But when the kids doing the beating are black, well then.... we're off to the races.

Rush Limbaugh decided President Obama is somehow responsible for this.

"It's Obama's America, is it not? Obama's America, white kids getting beat up on school buses now. You put your kids on a school bus, you expect safety, but in Obama's America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on,' and, of course, everybody says the white kid deserved it, he was born a racist, he's white."

And it's not just Limbaugh. It's also Malkin, and Gateway Pundit, and Drudge, and Tom Maguire.

Was the attack bad?  Of course.  Was it racially motivated?  There's no evidence -- absolutely none -- of that.  In fact, it appears to be about a bunch of bullies (who happen to be black) trying to dictate who sits where on the bus.

But that doesn't stop the right from engaging in some good ol' race-baiting that would do George Wallace proud.  The message?  "See what happens now that we've elected a black person?  Those uppity n****ers think they own America now.  And they're coming after us white people."

Which is just the sort of message to fire up the racist base of the GOP.  Why else would Limbaugh et al say such a thing?

Andrew Sullivan is right on the money:

The story was a classic schoolbus bully incident; it could happen anywhere any time and has happened everywhere at all times with kids of all races, backgrounds and religions. To infer both that it was racially motivated and that this is somehow connected to having a black president is repulsive. I know that is almost de trop with Limbaugh, but sometimes you have to regain a little shock. This man is spewing incendiary racial hatred. He is conjuring up images of lonely whites being besieged by angry violent blacks ... based on an incident that had nothing to do with race at all. And why, by the way, does someone immediately go to the racial angle when looking at such a tape?

These people are going off the deep end entirely: open panic at a black president is morphing into the conscious fanning of racial polarization, via Gates or ACORN or Van Jones or a schoolbus in St. Louis. What we're seeing is the Jeremiah Wright moment repeated and repeated. The far right is seizing any racial story to fan white fears of black power in order to destroy Obama. And the far right now controls the entire right.

Do they understand how irresponsible this is? How recklessly dangerous to a society's cohesion and calm?

They don't.  Because at their core, they themselves are themselves racist, or, if not, then they're intentionally catering to racists by stirring up racial resentment. ("race-baiting").

Even one conservative is beginning to have second thoughts:

But that's not why I took down the item and the link to the video. I took it down because now we have Rush Limbaugh blaming Obama for black kids beating up a white kid on a school bus. This is what happens in "Obama's America," he said today on his radio show.

How low will these people go? Look, I think it's important to talk about black male violence, or at least as important as it is to talk about any other important social trend. I don't think we should be squeamish about discussing it in a responsible and fair-minded way, despite what the politically correct say. But good grief, Limbaugh is up to something wicked. He's plainly trying to rally white conservatives into thinking that now that we have a black president, blacks are rising up to attack white kids! Christ have mercy, what is wrong with these people?

I won't have anything to do with it, not even tangentially, which is why I took down the post. I can't see this as anything other than Limbaugh deliberately trying to whip up racial fear and loathing of the president. This goes far, far beyond tough criticism of Obama. Does that man Limbaugh have any idea what rough beast he's calling forth?

***

That world [of racism] seems like a thousand years ago. But it only seems so far away because many people worked too hard -- and some even gave their lives -- to drive those demons out. And now here is Limbaugh, of Palm Beach, and his ilk, calling them back insouciantly, for political advantage. This is evil.

It's undeniably true that black males, as a group, are disproportionately responsible for violent crimes today (and blacks are disproportionately victims, too). This is important to talk about. This means something. I hate the kind of political correctness that demands we pretend not to see what we see. But as far as I'm concerned, if the Limbaughs of the world are going to be doing this kind of thing, and trying to blame, with no logical grounds whatsoever, a black president for black-on-white violence, and if they're going to do this in an increasingly hysterical atmosphere of protest against that black president, I don't want to talk about these things at all. Now is not the time. With this kind of inflammatory rhetoric, they are quite simply tearing the country apart.

Where do they think this is going to go?

UPDATE --  I would remiss to not add Will Bunch to the mix:

Look, there's a lot to talk about with a new president such as Obama, who has a lot of policy proposals on complicated issues like health care or climate change, and so there's a lot there for a thoughtful conservative critique. But that's not where the conversation is going right now -- it's all about the shiny black object. Fox News and its out-of-control Howard Beale, the seriously unanchored Glenn Beck, have spent most of the last several weeks focused on two issues: ACORN, and mid-level Obama officials like now-departed so-called "green jobs czar" Van Jones. Jones -- did I mention that he is black -- and ACORN have both shared a common mission, bringing a dose of political power to poor, mostly urban people who have not had power. And make no mistake, what really scares Beck, Fox News and the vast right-wing media is not the petty fraud of some ACORN employees or a few nutty things that Jones said in his more radical past, but the fact that they will succeed in their legitimate mission of empowering American citizens.

 

There's something else that the right wing finds alarming, and that is Obama's relative success in speaking to the American public in a calm and persuasive manner, as he did last week. I think it is this frustration, the worry that while it's mostly a vast work in progress that the president may not be "failing miserably" as Drudge and some Politico op-ed writer allege but showing signs of success, that have led to the new more overtly racial tone, dragging the current discourse to a low level that didn't seem possible. And so -- as Maureen Dowd concluded, also reluctantly -- I can't help but feel there was a racial edge to ex-Strom Thurmond acolyte Joe Wilson and his exasperated "You Lie" at the president. It plays right into the toxic narrative that is building on Drudge and talk radio and Fox like a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Obama's post-racial America? Good grief, were we really that naive, and so recently? I can honestly say that America right now, on the ides of September 2009, feels more racial, at least to me, today than it has any time in a generation, since I was living in New York City in the era of "Do the Right Thing." And the "Racial America" of Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and far too many of their millions of "dittoheads" is going to keep getting even more racial -- if we don't call them out. 

Joe Wilson's "Special Relationship" With The Obamas

Joe Wilson, the "You Lie!" guy, went on Fox News Sunday to tell Chris Wallace that he ain't going to apologize for his outburst again, to anyone.

Wallace asked Wilson about Maureen Dowd's op-ed, in which she alleges that Wilson's disrespect for the president was motivated by racism. Wilson came back with a surprising and absurd defense:

I respect President Obama. Actually, there's a relationship in a way ... his wife, ah, her family's from Georgetown [South Carolina], ah, my family's from next door, in McClellanville, so I, ah, have a great respect for the president.

Uhhhh.....

Yeah, Michelle Obama's great-great-great grandfather lived in Georgetown, SC.... where he was a slave.

So Wilson's best defense to the accusation that his Obama antagonism is motivated by racism... is that Obama's wife's ancestors grew up in slavery and segregation in the county next to Wilson's.

Chris Wallace didn't have follow up question.

Playing The Racist Card

Seems it was only six months ago when conservative columnists and pundits were all predicting the same thing, i.e., "If we start criticizing Obama, we're going to be attacked for being 'racist'.  You just watch.".

Six months later, and who is calling who "racist"?

According to many conservatives, Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, is a "racist".

According to Glenn Beck, Obama himself is a "racist".  (He has a deep-seeded hatred for white people, even though Obama is half-white and was raised by white parents).

Not that liberals don't occasionally play the racist card.  But when they do, it's in response to stuff like this -- which clearly is racist.  But, after noting that Obama was the first African-American president six months ago, liberals had little to say on the subject of race.  It's only injected into matters that clearly involve race (like the Gates arrest in Cambridge).

Objectively, it just seems that conservatives are more obsessed about the subject of race (including thinly masked questions about his Obama's heritage and origins) than liberals.  It doesn't make every rightwinger a racist, but I would say that the vast majority of people attuned to race -- in general -- come from the right.  And that's an indication of something.

FURTHER THOUGHTS:  For what it is worth, I do believe there is an undertone of racism with the birther issue.  Racism today doesn't come in the form that it did 60 years ago where you called people "n*gger".  It doesn't even come in the form that it did 40 years ago when you blather on about "states' rights".  It now comes in a form where you merely attack minorities and people of color indirectly, by imputing their heritage, patriotism, and loyalty.  We're seeing a lot of that these days, especially from the birthers.  In fact, if the whole movement isn't outright about race, then racism certainly fuels it.  After all, there have been 46 (white) presidents prior to Obama.  For how many of them was their birth certificate an issue?

If anti-Obama people can convince themselves that Obama is a legitimate president, then it's like "the first black President" thing never happened.

Shunned Kids From Day Camp Going To Disneyworld

Remember this story from a few weeks ago about the black kids in a Philly day camp who were turned away from using a country club pool because (they were told) it would change the "complexion" of the place?

Well, just an update.

First of all, the story caused nationwide anger the owners are now facing a lawsuit.

Secondly, media mogul Tyler Perry heard about the story and is treating the kids.... to a trip to Disneyworld.

Quote Of The Day

Jeez.  Pat Buchanan isn't even trying to hide his ignorance and bigotry now.  Here he is from last night's Rachel Maddow show, in response to her point that 98% of all U.S. Supreme Court justices have been white men:

"White men were 100% of the people that wrote the Constitution, 100% of the people that signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close to 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country built basically by white folks."

That's an interesting take on history -- let's ignore the contributions of blacks to this country because they were slaves and subjects of discrimination.

Opposing A Marker Acknowledging Slave Labor

The United States Capital Building, its wonderful dome, and the Statue of Freedom that sits atop it, were built by slave labor.

Yeah, I know.  Bit of national shame and embarassment.

Tuesday evening, the U.S. House of Representatives sought to redress that grievance in some small way with a resolution acknowledging the role slaves played in the Capital's construction.  The purpose of the resolution, according to its text, was to direct "the Architect of the Capitol to place a marker in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center which acknowledges the role that slave labor played in the construction of the United States Capitol."

A casual observer of national politics might watch the 24 hour news or read blogs and come away thinking that everything that happens in the halls of Congress turns into a divided partisan bicker.  But in fact, Congress tends to agree a lot on a lot of things, especially relatively minor things like the slave labor resolution.

And indeed, the resolution passed 399-1.

Of course, one wonders what was in the mind of the sole congressman who voted against it.  His name is Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

So why did he do it?

Well, his first explanation was this (I'm paraphrasing): (1) Congress had already changed the name of the Great Hall in the Capital Visitor's Center to Emancipation Hall in honor of all them slaves -- ain't that enough???? and (2)  Congress has been reluctant to plaster "In God We Trust" on every portico, doorknob and urinal in the Capital building.  So his vote was to defend religion.  (His actual words were:

"The architect of the capitol has been for years trying to eradicate any sign of faith or Christianity from the capitol itself and from the historical documents that flow from it," King says. "...I'm out of patience with these kind of maneuverings.")

But in an interview with Radio Iowa yesterday, King, after he established his "I'm no racist no really I'm not" bonafides, offered a new explanation for his vote, complaining that the slave labor resolution wasn’t a “balanced depiction of history”:

KING: I would just add that there were about 645,000 slaves that were brought to the United States. And I’m with Martin Luther King, Jr. on this. His documents, his speeches – I’ve read most of them. And I agree with almost every word that came out of him. Slavery was abhorrent, but it was also a fact of life in those centuries where it existed.

And of the 645,000 Africans that were brought here to be forcibly put into slavery in the United States, there were over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to put an end to slavery. And I don’t see the monument to that in the Congressional Visitor Center, and I think it’s important that we have a balanced depiction of history.

Riiiiight.  A balanced depiction of history.

How many monuments are there in Washington D.C. which acknowledge slavery? ZERO.

How many monuments are there in Washington D.C. which acknowledge the contributions of those who fought in the Civil War?  Enough to fill a book... including the Grant Memorial just outside the Capital Building itself.

But setting that aside, a marker noting that the Capital was actually built by slaves seems highly related to the, uh, Capital Visitor Center -- the place which provides visitor information for people who want to learn about the Capital Building.  On the other hand -- while the deaths of Civil War soldiers bears historical importance, I'm not quite sure what those deaths have to do with the Capital building itself.

And finally, King wants to honor the "over 600,000 people that gave their lives in the Civil War to end slavery".  Someone needs to tell him that about 360,000 of the 618,000 war casualties actually died to end slavery.  The other 258,000 or so died to preserve it.  Just sayin....

Hard To Believe This Is The 21st Century Sometimes

Black kids turned away from a private pool for fear that it would "change the complexion" of the facility:

More than 60 campers from Northeast Philadelphia were turned away from a private swim club and left to wonder if their race was the reason.

"I heard this lady, she was like, 'Uh, what are all these black kids doing here?' She's like, 'I'm scared they might do something to my child,'" said camper Dymire Baylor.

The Creative Steps Day Camp paid more than $1900 to The Valley Swim Club. The Valley Swim Club is a private club that advertises open membership. But the campers' first visit to the pool suggested otherwise.
 
"When the minority children got in the pool all of the Caucasian children immediately exited the pool," Horace Gibson, parent of a day camp child, wrote in an email. "The pool attendants came and told the black children that they did not allow minorities in the club and needed the children to leave immediately."
 
The next day the club told the camp director that the camp's membership was being suspended and their money would be refunded.
 
"I said, 'The parents don't want the refund. They want a place for their children to swim,'" camp director Aetha Wright said.
 
Campers remain unsure why they're no longer welcome.
 
"They just kicked us out. And we were about to go. Had our swim things and everything," said camper Simer Burwell.
 
The explanation they got was either dishearteningly honest or poorly worded.
 
"There was concern that a lot of kids would change the complexion … and the atmosphere of the club," John Duesler, President of The Valley Swim Club said in a statement.

While the parents await an apology, the camp is scrambling to find a new place for the kids to beat the summer heat.

Nobody's Down With The GOP

Ugly numbers from the latest Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll:

REPUBLICAN PARTY

	FAV	UNFAV	NO OPINION
ALL	24	71	5
MEN	32	63	5
WOMEN	16	79	5
DEM	5	94	1
REP	70	22	8
IND	15	78	7
OTH/REF	19	76	5
NON VOTERS	14	81	5
WHITE	31	64	5
BLACK	3	94	3
LATINO	8	86	6
OTHER/REF	9	84	7
18-29	9	87	4
30-44	35	59	6
45-59	21	74	5
60+	23	72	5
NORTHEAST	8	90	2
SOUTH	45	47	8
MIDWEST	18	78	4
WEST	20	76	4

 

Let's put that in graph form, so you can see the breakdown by race:

 

 

Josh Marshall notes that the Republican Party may have structural impediments in place that will make progress with minorities difficult.

The only problem is that the modern Republican party's panic switch, or at least one of them, is rancid jingoism and more or less open anti-Hispanic (though often specifically targeted at Mexicans) prejudice. Or, to put it more bluntly, as with African-Americans, it's tough to be the party of the blacks and the racists at the same time. (Not that the Dems didn't try it for a few decades in the middle of the 20th century -- but it didn't end up panning out.)

One might imagine an alternative universe in which gays were not only an increasingly open and powerful political constituency but also one that was growing rapidly in population terms. And you'd have Republicans wanting to cultivate support among this growing group but also episodically bashing them to consolidate support among base conservative voters.

In other words, it's not a mistake or incompetence or any lack of planning that has Republicans in such a bad position with Hispanics, America's fastest growing ethnic group. It's just that people who are hostile to Hispanic immigration and just Hispanics in general are one of the GOP's key constituencies. That puts some real obstacles in the way of becoming the party of Hispanics.

Rush's Unique Colorblindness

Rush, on Hannity, June 5, 2009, on what makes the GOP so great:

We don't look at a group of people and pick out the number of blacks in it and the number of whites and the number of women.

Colorblind Rush, today, on his show:

Colorblind Rush, also today:

"It is offensive to the sensibilities of millions of people to hear a member of the state-run media refer to a half-black, half-white human being with no experience running anything of substance referred to as a god. He may be president of the United States, but he's not a god."

For someone who claims the GOP is great because it doesn't notice race, Rush sure seems to notice race a lot.

Goldstein's Sotomayor Analysis Complete

I referenced this before:

Over at SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein notes all proverbial ink being spilled over Sotomayor's race, along with the implicit and explicit statements that her supposed bias will prevent her from judicating equally and fairly.

So he decided to do something novel... read her decisions.

Goldstein is done with his analysis, and the results should put to rest any claim that Sotomayor has a race-based approach to the law:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times.  Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred.  (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.)  She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims.  Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

Read the whole thing.

The Pappas case, in which Sotomayor favored the white "bigot" is illuminating:

The plaintiff was a white employee of the New York City Police Department -- working in a clerical position in information management -- when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail.  Pappas admitted doing it, and said he did it to protest the charity requests.  The NYPD fired him for having sent the replies on the ground that it did not want racist employees.  He sued the NYPD, alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated by the firing, because he was clearly fired due to the content of the political views he expressed.

The district court judge dismissed Pappas' case, finding that the NYPD had a legitimate need to exclude racists from its employ, a need which outweighed Pappas' First Amendment rights.  On appeal, two of the three judges on the Second Circuit panel agreed with that ruling and dismissed Pappas' case.  But not Sotomayor.  She wrote a dissent emphasizing the strong First Amendment interests of Pappas' that were being violated -- however contemptible it was, it was pure political expression -- and she argued that it he was entitled to a jury trial to decide if the NYPD, under Supeme Court precedent, had any right to fire him for it. 

This is what Sotomayor wrote:

"In the typical public employee speech case where negative publicity is at issue, the government has reacted to speech -- which others have publicized -- in an effort to diffuse some potential disruption. In this case, whatever disruption occurred was the result of the police department's decision to publicize the results of its investigation, which revealed the source of the anonymous mailings. It was, apparently, the NYPD itself that disclosed this information to the media and the public. Thus it is not empty rhetoric when Pappas argues that he was terminated because of his opinions. Ante, at 147-48.  The majority's decision allows a government employer to launch an investigation, ferret out an employee's views anonymously expressed away from the workplace and unrelated to the employee's job, bring the speech to the attention of the media and the community, hold a public disciplinary hearing, and then terminate the employee because, at that point, the government "reasonably believed that the speech would potentially... disrupt the government's activities." Heil v. Santoro, 147 F.3d 103, 109 (2d Cir.1998). This is a perversion of our "reasonable belief" standard, and does not give due respect to the First Amendment interests at stake."

That's Sonia Sotomayor, one of only four judges supporting the right of a white bigot to speak and not be fired.

Tom Goldstein Reviews Sotomayor's Decisions

Over at SCOTUSblog, Tom Goldstein notes all proverbial ink being spilled over Sotomayor's race, along with the implicit and explicit statements that her supposed bias will prevent her from judicating equally and fairly.

So he decided to do something novel:

It seems to me that there is an infinitely simpler and more accurate way of figuring out whether Judge Sotomayor decides cases involving race fairly and dispassionately - read her decisions. 

Gee, what a concept.

He notes that she has heard over 100 cases dealing with race, covering everything from employment discrimination to bias in jury selection.

After reviewing 50 cases, he offers this interim report:

In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times.  In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee.  In roughly 45, the claim was rejected.  (Two were procedural dispositions.)

On the other hand, she twice was on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions.  Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one.  There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well.  Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented.

It seems to me that these numbers decisive disprove the claim that she decides cases with any sort of racial bias.

Goldstein will update his findings, with numbers, when he is finished.

Conservative Punditry "WTF?" Statement Of The Day

National Review's Mark Krikorian -- who, believe it or not, is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies -- drops in this little gem at the Corner:

During slavery and Jim Crow, a number of blacks moved abroad, to Europe or Africa or the USSR, but again, these movements never gained much traction....

Actually, I think very few slaves got the opportunity to move abroad -- like, about zero.  Because there were, you know, slaves.

And Liberia?  Yeah, that was an African colony formed by ex-slaves, with the encouragement of whites, although typically free blacks didn't elect on their own voliation to emigrate there; rather, the one-way ticket to Liberia was offered to them in exchange for freedom from the bonds of slavery.

But there really really wasn't a significant number of black who moved to Europe during slavery or Jim Crow.  There just wasn't.

Pictured below: A black family contemplates their upcoming move to Paris, hoping to trade their forty acres and a mule for frequent flyer miles

 

UPDATE:  National Review's Mark Krikorian responds in the comments below, providing cites.

From what I gather, Krikorian's assertion that there was black emigration during slavery and Jim Crow eras rests upon the fact that some blacks, after serving in Europe during WWI, decided to stay there, mainly in Paris.  The actual number of black emigres amounted to "several hundred", out of over 200,000 black Americans who served in the Army (according to Krikorian's sources).

Oh, and then there was a handful of prominent black artists -- like James Baldwin and Josephine Baker -- who found havens in various European cities.

Still, to suggest that these rare examples represent a "movement" that "never gained traction" certainly overstates the factual truth.  Rank-and-file African-Americans -- those without benefit of military service or fame -- certainly were not in a financial position to move abroad during the eras of Jim Crow and slavery.  Especially slavery.

New Blood To Lead GOP

The Republican whisper campaign to remove its own leader gets louder:

Steele May Face No Confidence Vote

Republican insiders tell Political Wire that a no confidence vote on RNC Chairman Michael Steele is likely to be called after the NY-20 special election on March 31 -- regardless of whether Republicans win the seat or not.

Katon Dawson, who came in second in the January RNC vote, is said to be quietly organizing a vote and is getting the support of several state party chairmen who want to dump Steele.

Now, Steele really is muffing things up, starting with the fact that he appears to more interested in doing TV appearances than hiring staff.

But the bigger picture is this: The Republican party is setting to dump its first African-American leader mere weeks into his tenure in favor of Katon Dawson, a member of an all-white country club.

Says a lot, doesn't it?

Hitler Youth

Me head esplode:

The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.

You name your child after the world's most, uh, intolerant (to say the least) man in history, and then ask for tolerance?

I.  Don't.  Think.  So.

Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.

Here comes the irony quote of the day.....

"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past," Heath Campbell said Tuesday in an interview conducted in Easton, on the other side of the Delaware River from where the family lives in Hunterdon County, N.J.

He defends his decision to name his child Adolf Hitler this way:

"They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did."

It's true:  Adolf Hitler is a name, and a name is a name.  You know what else is a name?  Frank.  George.  Mike.  Steve.  There's literally thousands of names.  Let's not pretend that the selection of "Adolf Hitler" was mere happenstance, okay, buddy?

And yes, it's true that the kid probably isn't going to grow up and do what Hitler did.  Instead, the kid is going to grow up getting his ass kicked.  And not finding employment.

And speaking of names, Adolf Hitler Campbell has a sister with the name -- I'm not making this up -- JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell.

Yeah, get over it, people.  "Aryan Nation" is just a name.  Doesn't mean anything.

Say What?

Sentence contained within the Chicago Tribune's article on the increases in hate incidents since Obama's election:

Even some white supremacist leaders who describe themselves as moderates say they are alarmed.

Yes, the moderate supremacist leaders.  Not to be confused with the conservative or liberal white supremacist leaders.

"Secret" White Supremists Not So Secret Anymore

I don't know much about British politics, but apparently the British National Party is a whites-only supremist nationalist facist party there.  They spout Holocaust denial nonsense -- you know the type (hopefully, not well).

Anyway, their rather expansive secret membership list is no longer "secret" having been made available for download here and here. The list includes BNP members who are also parliamentary candidates, and well, everyone apparently.

For amusement, go to this website and watch the membership freak out in the comments; things like: "I can't believe it. I own a PC retail outlet and this could ruin me, It makes me want to puke on my shoe."

 

Pictured above:  World's Smallest Violin

The Cotton Belt

Fun with maps.

The top map shows the 2008 Presidential results.  Blue counties voted for Obama, red ones for McCain (darker hues representing larger majorities).

The bottom map dates from 1860 (i.e. the eve of the Civil War), and indicates where cotton was produced at that time, each dot representing 2,000 bales of the stuff.

Obviously, there's a strong relationship going on.  Clearly, not a mere coincidence.

Let's superimpose the two maps, and you'll see the effect is more startling...

So what's going on?

Well, obviously... this has little to do with cotton, and more to do with the African-American population.  While there has been much migration to the north of the African-American community, large segments of the community have located not far from their cotton-picking slave ancestors in these communities.

And these communities voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

One interesting outlier was in southern Tennessee in Lawrence County.  I'm sure there's an explanation.  Perhaps a significant proportion of the black community migrated to nearby Nashville.

That Was Then....

WorldNutDaily informs us:

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

The book is by David Barton, who is, shall we say, not the most reliable of historians.

But on this particular thesis, Barton is right -- a lot of racism from decates ago came from Republicans.  But that was then, as Matt Yglesius explains:

Decades ago, the Democratic Party was, among other things, the political home of white supremacy in the United States. In the 1960s, the party's leadership decisively broke with that record. At around the same time, part of the rise of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party was the growing prominence of folks like Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who found in his 1964 campaign that the main electoral constituency for his brand of conservatism was . . . white supremacists. Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant) like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms moved into the GOP column. And of course while explicit advocacy of segregation has long since vanished from the top ranks of the Republican Party, major conservative leaders have been heard in recent years issuing paens to the work of Thurmond and Helms, with key legislative leaders specifically regretting that Thurmond's 1948 white supremacist presidential campaign failed, and pointing to Helms as exemplifying what conservatism is all about.

But, yes, decades ago things were different.

Indeed, they were.  In the 1960's, Kennedy and Johnson moved on civil rights.  And southern racist politicians moved from the Democratic Party to the GOP:

It's about the political choices Republicans made in the 1960's to ''go hunting where the ducks are'' -- code language for winning over white segregationists who abandoned the Democratic Party in the South. It's about continuing to benefit from racial prejudice through subtle and not-so-subtle sound bites that play to the Republican Party's far-right base. It's about the choice today to deny that the party is as much the party of Thurmond as it is the party of Lincoln.

Unforuntately, that kind of, well, truth is lost on certain people who read WND, and go "a-HA!  Democrats are racist!  So now I can vote against Obama with a clear conscience!"

Oy Vey, Maria

Oh, Marie Jon Apostrophe.  You're so self-parodying, it's not even fun anymore:

Hope and change worth having without an Obama racial test

Ok.  So I'm going to gather from Marie's awkwardly worded headline, that she is in favor of hope and change.  Not in favor of Obama's racial test (I guess we'll have to wait and see what that means), but nevertheless, Marie is happily in favor of "hope" and "change".

Let us be extremely wary when we ask for "change."

Ok, maybe not so happily.

The Democrat Party is guilty of injecting race into the presidential campaign.

Oh, are we now?  Let's take a look at some of Marie's columns from the last few months....

• Looking at Obama and black liberation theology

  Marie Jon'

  February 19, 2008
• Inside militant black churches

  Marie Jon'

  February 25, 2008
• We need to take a closer look at liberal Barack Hussein Obama

  Marie Jon'

  March 1, 2008

And those are just the headlines.  Why it seems that almost every week in her column, Marie wants to remind her readers that Obama is, you know, black.  BLACK, I tells ya!  But of course, it's the Democratic Party that is injecting race into the presidential campaign (presumably by running a candidate who has a different race than everybody else).

America is no longer a racist country, and Americans are deeply offended when it is portrayed as such.

Yes, I never see or hear about racism in this country.  Why, it's totally unheard of.  It just doesn't happen.

Seriously, that's a bizarre statement to say, Marie, given how Jesse Helms just died and the right wingosphere is falling all over themselves to sing his praises.

These accusations and the apprehension tied to them have been insidiously worked into our collective subconscious. Keep that in mind when you're feeling guilty for something in which you most likely took no part. The days of slavery and segregation are gone.

Oh, I see.  Unless you're actually whipping the coloreds in the cotton fields, or preventing from drinking from white drinking fountains, then it can't be called "racism".  Good to know.

It is not anyone's imagination that voices of dissent have been heard throughout our land ever since Obama became a lightning rod for Rev. Jeremiah Wright's bigoted inflammatory words: "God Damn America."

Actually, Wright's words were not inspired by Obama.  Had nothing to do with Obama.  They came from Wright's experiences with racism, which, as Marie insists, does not exist.

Something very evil has been purposefully created. Many Americans know and feel this. Some can't quite put their finger on it, but they can sense trouble. If we are not wise and prudent, our country will move into a very dangerous area.

Translation: "I don't know what it is about Barry Hussein Obama, the first black presidential candidate ever, but it's something.  Something I can't quite put my white finger on...."

This is not the time for problems caused by manipulative racial divisiveness.

Especially the kind of deviseness caused by Barry Hussein Obama, who, we want to stress, is the first black presidential candidate ever.  I mean, seriously.  The dude is black.

It has been noted that, in his world, it is perfectly acceptable for Barack Obama to play the race card.

Noted by....?

He will undoubtedly continue to do so if and when he sits in the Oval Office.

Undoubtedly.

Obama is not a uniter; he only sounds like one.

As opposed to McCain, who doesn't sound like a uniter.  Oh, wait.  That's not good.

What legislator will dare question President Obama with the spectre of being branded a racist looming before them?

Poor Marie.  She just wonders why, oh why, can't we live in a world where Obama's race can't be pointed out with nearly every breath without being called a "racist".

It was no coincidence that the woman who sang at the Denver State of The City Address was inspired to change the words of our National Anthem. She did so because Obama is the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democrat Party. The lyrics to "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" were intermingled with the melody of The Star Spangled Banner.

A mashup?  Cool.

The Black National Anthem was used to create hostility and division where none should exist.

I guess that's why the crowd applauded and cheered.  Hostility.

When interviewed, Rena Marie said she would do it over again. She recanted her apologies later on...

Neat trick.  Recanting apologies that were never made.

...and appeared to be not only disrespectful, but antagonistic.

Appeared that way to whom?  The same nameless people who note that Obama plays the race card?

And she was "antagonistic"?  Yeah, well -- death threats will do that to you, I guess.

As the campaign clock ticks on, more unpleasant tactics will be employed. When it becomes excruciatingly obvious, it will be too late to retreat from a very disingenuous dialogue about race.

Apparently so, Marie.  Apparently so.

Black activism and activist churches are dividing America.

Because now we have to see them and hear about them in the news.

The sanctuaries of these churches contain political pulpits.

This used to be a good thing for Marie.  Not so much anymore.

There is far too much harsh rhetoric spoken openly during a time that God intended for worship and reflection upon His word.

His Republican word, people!

It is taking its toll upon our society, because what is spoken inside of a church has repercussions on the outside.

Because what happens in vespers, stays in vespers.

Spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not of the uppermost importance to the pastors therein. Let it be understood that what is being taught in these militant denominations is called the "Social Gospel." Scripture is set aside and replaced with man-made theology.

Not like white people's churches, where they talk about things mentioned specifically in the Scripture, like abortion and school vouchers.

So far, religion has been a big part of this election. In March, Obama gave a speech about race to cover up for his former pastor. Dr.James Dobson accused Obama of distorting the Bible. Obama has never made a clear statement about his present attitude towards Rev. Wright, Rev.Otis Moss III or Father Michael Pfleger.

Pssst, Marie.  Only one of the people you mentioned isn't a pastor or have a theology degree....

If he is elected, it is more than likely that they will be allowed back into his good graces once again.

Apparently, Obama must have made a clear statement about his attitude toward Wright et al.  How else could Marie know that they are not in "his good graces"?

Hold on America. Seems like there may be more ranting and scolding in store for us...

Oh, good.  Is this the part where you explain what you meant by Obama's "racial test"?

It is not by chance that Obama is proposing a government-funded faith based program.

Honestly?  I didn't think it was by chance.

Church-affiliated programs where the Bible is not taught in a traditional manner will benefit from Sen. Obama's plan. While there will probably be some that reject the plan to maintain their religious liberty, organizations such as Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition will have its coffers filled to overflowing. The devil is in the details.

So we should have government only fund faith-based programs for churches where the Bible is "traditionally" taught?  And who decides which churches will those be?  Interesting how Marie always seem to focus on black churches and organizations exclusively as those undeserving of respect or, indeed, government assistance.  Yeah, Marie.  No racism in America.

The United Church of Christ as well as those which belong to the Council of Churches are made up of far Left constituents. Their biblical teachings are progressive. They have no problem updating God's immutable word to meet the needs of the immorality that they embrace. A big government-funded faith-based program will not bother them in the least.

Among others who belong to the lefty Council of Churches: The United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, U.S.A., Inc., The Episcopal Church, and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). 

Bunch of commies.

The plain truth needs to be understood. A black Republican presidential candidate would not have brought with him the racial rumblings being heard today.

I guess we'll have to take your word on that Marie, seeing as how the pool of black Republicans is the size of a the puddle on my sidewalk.

Oh, wait.  Alan Keyes.  (Hahahahahahaha!)  (Interestingly, when Obama was running against Keyes for the Illinois Senate, it was Keyes who asserted that Obama possessed insufficient "negritude", because Obama was not a descendent of slaves.)

The party of Abraham Lincoln is not invested in the color of a person's skin; only the Democrat Party takes an unhealthy interest in color.

So sayeth Marie Jon Apostrophe, in her tenth column this year dwelling on Obama's race.

Anyone can be a success story in America; the opportunities are there for the taking.

Which is, of course, WHY you see so many black Republicans running for president.

Obama is a questionable man. He obviously cares little for the issue of the company he has kept, then thrown under the bus on his way to the White House.

So he's a racist if he stands by Wright's statements, and uncaring if he disavows them?

Terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the New Black Panther Party are cheering for an Obama presidency.  Various radical groups and people gravitate toward him. That alone should trouble all Americans.

Actually, the leader of Hamas said Obama was preferable to McCain because, like JFK, Obama "has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance".  Any problem with that, Marie?

This upcoming election is being viewed by some as a test.

Oh, I get it now.  It's not "Obama's racial test".  It's a "test" by people who don't like Obama.  Not that their making race and issue or anything.

America has shown a willingness to vote a black president into office and lead our nation, but what we need at this crucial hour is an experienced leader. This fact is race-neutral. Hope and change that is worth having should not bring with it an Obama candidacy racial test. America simply cannot afford such disunity.

It's simply fascinating how Marie and her ilk can invoke Oabama's race with almost every utterance while trying to make the point that this election has nothing to do with race.  It's the blogpsphere equivalent of "Racist?  Me?  Why, some of my best friends...."

Methinks they doth protest too much....

UPDATE:  Okay, and now she's spamming me to death....

Jesse's Grill

You might wonder why I havent opined on the passing of Jesse Helms and his bigoted foul legacy.

It's because I was taught not to speak ill of the dead.

Besides, we all know he's in hell.

UPDATE:  But here's a column from David Broder written in 2001 (when Helms was still alive), which pretty much sums it up with these words:

The New York Times described him as "a conservative stalwart for nearly 30 years," the Boston Globe as "an unyielding icon of conservatives and an archenemy of liberals." The Washington Post identified Helms as "one of the most powerful conservatives on Capitol Hill for three decades."

Those were accurate descriptions. But they skirted the point. There are plenty of powerful conservatives in government. A few, such as Don Rumsfeld and Henry Hyde, have been around as long as Helms and have their own significant roles in 20th century political history. What really sets Jesse Helms apart is that he is the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country -- a title that one hopes will now be permanently retired. A few editorials and columns came close to saying that. But the squeamishness of much of the press in characterizing Helms for what he is suggests an unwillingness to confront the reality of race in our national life.

Rush's Not-So-Subtle Racism

Here's the big fat one, on his radio show, talking about the recent floods:

Limbaugh: I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois—I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans. I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property…I don’t see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don’t see a bunch of people running shooting cops. I don’t see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don’t see a bunch of people doing everything they can…whining and moaning—where’s FEMA, where’s BUSH. I see the heartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America.

Well, I don't know where Rush got his info about Katrina and New Orleans.  I mean, how do you go about "raping people on the street" when the street is submerged under 6 feet of water?

Of course, Rush ignnores the fact that the Katrina disaster was a disaster on an unheard-of scale.  I say that not to belittle what has been going on in the Midwest, but the two are hardly comparable.  The death toll in the Midwest stands at 24;   The immediate death toll from Katrina was roughly 1,800 (the exact number isn't known, and the toll continues to rise from long-term deaths).

But Rush makes the comparison anyway.

But we all know what Rush is saying.  It was the black people in New Orleans who were doing all the raping and pillaging and "whining", as they watched their friends, family, and neighbors drown.  But the good ol' white people of middle America?  They're not doing that.  And why?  Because they are the backbone of America.

Of course, the people in middle America aren't complaining about the lack of FEMA, because (unlike Katrina), FEMA is there.

It's sad when disasters expose the worst side of our nation's inherent racism.  Remember this from the Katrina coverage?

Yes, the young (black) man "loots" soda from a local grocery store, while the upscale (white) residents "find" soda within a local grocery store.  Got that?

Rush would probably look at the second photo and proclaim the two people to be self-motivated can-doers who embody the spirit of America, even in the face of terrible tragedy.  And he would probably look at the first photo and proclaim the black guy is a common street thug, taking advantage of tragedy to rip of whitie.

Can't believe that guy still has a radio show.....

The Michelle Tape -- Trouble for Obama?

Apparently, Michelle Obama was at a forum where she made a reference to "whitey".  Apparently, there is video, but it's not been broadcast --

Let's assume that the tape exists.  Moreover, let's assume that Michelle used the word "whitey".  Does it matter what context?  Was she being facitious?

UPDATE:  Booman Tribune (who hasn't seen the tape) has an interesting theory: that Michelle said "Why'd he..." instead of "Whitey":

From what I understand, it is a tape of Michelle Obama criticizing the Bush administration.

How you'd write it:

Why did Bush cut folks off medicaid?
Why did Bush let New Orleans drown?
Why did Bush do nothing about Jena?
Why did Bush put us in Iraq for no reason?

How you'd say it:

Why'd he cut folks off medicaid?
Why'd he let New Orleans drown?
Why'd he do nothing about Jena?
Why'd he put us in Iraq for no reason?

How Larry Johnson wants you to hear it:

Whitie cut folks off medicaid?
Whitie let New Orleans drown?
Whitie do nothing about Jena?
Whitie put us in Iraq for no reason?

Funny....

And moreover, does anyone thing that this has any bearing on Barack Obama's views?  The man is, after all, half-whitey himself.

More to come... I'm sure.

MLK Assassination: 40 Years Ago

Here's part of the prescient speech he gave in Memphis the night before he was killed:

He seemed to know, huh?

Lou Dobbs Steps In It

Lou Dobbs explains how he's sick of "cotton pickin'" black leaders telling him how he can and can't talk about race (he catches himself at the last minute -- sorta) ...

UPDATE:  The folks at CNN threw Dobbs a bone.  The CNN transcript cut the work "cotton"

Ingrates

In a recent column, right-wing pundit Pat Buchanan attempted to argue that blacks benefited from slavery because they “grew into a community of 40 million” in the United States:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

It's hard to know how to process that kind of thinking.

In his first paragraph, Pat seems to gloss over the timeline.  America started importing slaves from Africa about 350 years ago.  Yet blacks didn't get their full panoply of rights until about 40 years ago, despite a war for their "freedom" fought 120 years ago.  So while I don't agree with everything that Wright has said, I can certainly understand why people like Wright can't look back on history and NOT get down on his knees and "thank God he is an American".

In his second paragraph, Pat lists several social programs on the assumption that those social programs were geared toward blacks, rather than toward poor and impoverished people.  Of course, the fact that he recognizes that those programs tend to "lift up blacks" is a tacit admission that blacks need lifting up.  And why?  Largely because of the discrimination they have faced over the years.  It's kind of like a wife-beater who says his wife should be grateful because he provides good health insurance.

Why, you're welcome, Pat!

UPDATE:  Dave Neiwert --

But really, the richest line in Buchanan's column -- the one that no doubt resonates most with black voters -- was this one:

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Damn, I'm sure most black people forgot to be grateful for segregation, the lynching era, sundown towns, and the continuing discrimination they face both in employment and in residence. Because the institutional conditions created by those decades of bigotry have in fact gone largely unchanged, though to white guys like Buchanan, that simply isn't a factor:

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America's fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

Well, I'm sure black voters are convinced by that argument. After all, it's obvious that the matter of continuing discrimination is just an illusion in their heads.

Not Your Grandma's Cracker

A member of the Alabama KKK -- a guy named Ken Mier -- has sent me an email regarding an earlier post from October of last year. 

He would like y'all to know that the Klan -- at least the Alabama chapter -- have set their goals toward "acceptance and humility".

Uh ...good to know.

P.S.  Apparently, many in the Alabama KKK aren't fans of Ken.

The Best MLK Day Photo Ever

Bush and two kids:

Her eyes say it all: "What's the matter there, Mr. President?  Afraid to have your exposed skin touch me?"

Lincoln Freed The Slaves...

...but some of them "didn't get the memo".  Or more accurately, some of them were never told about the memo.

I wasn't aware of this, but in the deepest regions of the South, African-Americans were kept as slaves until as late as -- wait for it -- 1961.

More here

Klan vs. Klan

Why oh why can't white supremists just get along?:

CULLMAN, Ala. (AP) — Members of one Ku Klux Klan organization say they will assemble at the courthouse Nov. 10 to show their opposition to another Klan group that plans an anti-immigration rally there that day.

Ken Mier, who described himself as an investigator for the Alabama Ku Klux Klan and the national office of the Ku Klux Klan LLC, said in an e-mail to The Cullman Times that his group is against the tactics of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, which held an anti-immigration protest last month in Athens.

“We are opposed to the ignorance and stupidity as displayed by the individuals that thumbed their nose at the area churches by continuing to use racial slurs, threats and avoided Christian deportment,” he said.

Now, that's a new one: Klan members protesting the ignorance and bigotry of rival Klan members. 

I say we give them all fully-loaded rifles, put them all in a huge warehouse, and close the doors.

Michael Medved: "Six Inconvenient Truths About The U.S. And Slavery"

Michael Medved thinks that America's involvement with slavery is hyped.  Seriously.  And he's here to set us straight with an offensive little bit of revisionist history.

He lists "six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery" in attempt to convince you, the reader, that -- "Hey! Slavery was no biggie!"

In his preface, he opens with this:

Those who want to discredit the United States and to deny our role as history’s most powerful and pre-eminent force for freedom, goodness and human dignity invariably focus on America’s bloody past as a slave-holding nation. Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimes—and an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

It is an obvious rebuttal.  We enslaved literally millions of Africans.  You just said so.  That alone makes it a black mark on this country's history.

But Medved is going to -- uh -- whitewash -- the significance of slavery:

An honest and balanced understanding of the position of slavery in the American experience requires a serious attempt to place the institution in historical context and to clear-away some of the common myths and distortions.

Yes, Michael.  Let's see your "honest" understanding.

1. SLAVERY WAS AN ANCIENT AND UNIVERSAL INSTITUTION, NOT A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN INNOVATION. At the time of the founding of the Republic in 1776, slavery existed literally everywhere on earth and had been an accepted aspect of human history from the very beginning of organized societies...

Actually, this is Medved's best argument.  And even then, it's a little pathetic.

Yes, America didn't invent slavery, although that's largely beside the point, and does nothing to further Michael's thesis.  It's kind of like saying the Holocaust wasn't so bad because the Nazis weren't the first to systemically oppress or annihilate the Jews.

2. SLAVERY EXISTED ONLY BRIEFLY, AND IN LIMITED LOCALES, IN THE HISTORY OF THE REPUBLIC – INVOLVING ONLY A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE ANCESTORS OF TODAY’S AMERICANS. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution put a formal end to the institution of slavery 89 years after the birth of the Republic; 142 years have passed since this welcome emancipation....

Well, having argued in Point #1 that slavery was "universal", Medved now argues that it was "limited".  Bit of a bait-and-switch there.

Of course, in this particular point, Medved's "honest and balanced" understanding of slavery in America completely ignores the fact that slavery existed throughout the New World. 

Furthermore. he arbitrarily sets the start date as 1776, completely ignoring the "inconvenient truths" that the first American colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts (in 1641), the first slave revolt in English colonial territory was in 1712 in New York, and so on.

But besides all that -- well, Sadly No nails this, so I defer to them:

And the ham fisted rhetorical trick of claiming that slavery only existed for 89 years in the United States is beyond horrid. I had a girlfriend once who had lived with a guy who beat her for eight years before she married him. They divorced after two years. If you claimed that “well, she was only married to someone who hit her for two years”, you would be technically correct. You’d also be a pompous, condescending asshole of the first order by minimizing the eight years she spent with him without being married.

Yup.  But believe it or not, it gets worse....

3. THOUGH BRUTAL, SLAVERY WASN’T GENOCIDAL: LIVE SLAVES WERE VALUABLE BUT DEAD CAPTIVES BROUGHT NO PROFIT. Historians agree that hundreds of thousands, and probably millions of slaves perished over the course of 300 years during the rigors of the “Middle Passage” across the Atlantic Ocean.

He's right.  Slavery wasn't a genocide technically speaking, because only millions of slaves died, rather than all of them.  Make sense?

You see, in a genocide, the intent is to kill.  And that wasn't our intent.  And why not?  Michael explains:

[N]o slave traders wanted to see this level of deadly suffering: they benefited only from delivering (and selling) live slaves, not from tossing corpses into the ocean...

See?  Since slave traders didn't intend to kill slaves on the way over, because that would eat into their profits, how can they be held morally culpable for slavery?

And you can tell that "no slave traders wanted to see this level of suffering" from the wonderful accomodations that the slaves got on their trip to the New World..

See the great care that slave traders took to make sure their product arrived in America intact?

Medved even has praise for the slave owners: "And as with their horses and cows, slave owners took pride and care in breeding as many new slaves as possible". No, really, he actually wrote that. I am not making it up.  What great guys, those slave owners!

4. IT’S NOT TRUE THAT THE U.S. BECAME A WEALTHY NATION THROUGH THE ABUSE OF SLAVE LABOR: THE MOST PROSPEROUS STATES IN THE COUNTRY WERE THOSE THAT FIRST FREED THEIR SLAVES.

Well, let's assume that is true.  Is it even relevant?  Certainly some people profitted from the abuse of slave labor -- otherwise they wouldn't have done it to begin with.  And of course, others profitted indirectly from slave labor, even if they didn't live in slave-holding states (cotton goods were cheaper, etc.)

I mean, what is Medved saying here?  Slavery isn't a blot on America because not everybody in America profitted directly from it?

WTF?!?

5. WHILE AMERICA DESERVES NO UNIQUE BLAME FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SLAVERY, THE UNITED STATES MERITS SPECIAL CREDIT FOR ITS RAPID ABOLITION. “In the course of scarcely more than a century following the emergence of the American Republic, men of conscience, principle and unflagging energy succeeded in abolishing slavery not just in the New World but in all nations of the West.”

Well, this is just plain bullshit.  We were among the last of the major nations in the world to abolish slavery.

Year the British ended slavery throughout the Empire: 1833. Number of wars it took to do so: 0.

Year the Spanish Empire ended slavery (except in Cuba, where the ban was not enforced by local governors until 1886): 1811. Number of wars to do so: 0.

Year the U.S. ended slavery throughout the country and its territories: 1865. Number of wars it took to do it: 1, the bloodiest one in American history.

In fact, all European powers abolished slavery before the United States did. (for more info, see here). 

So, no, we as a nation don’t deserve "special credit" for a bloody damn thing. We were below average, even by the standards of the day.

And even after slavery was abolished, we still lagged behind most developed nations in the area of civil rights for minorities for many many decades to come.

6. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TODAY’S AFRICAN-AMERICANS WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF THEIR ANCESTORS HAD REMAINED BEHIND IN AFRICA.

Ah, yes.  You just knew this racist chestnut had to come: the not-so-subtle argument that we did those African savages a favor by enslaving them. We brought them civilization, and Christianity!  Without us, they would be running around with bones in their nose and eating each other.  Reparations?  Hell, no.  If anything, they owe us!

Future articles by Michael Medved:

"Six Inconvenient Truths About Rape" [e.g., "Hey, at least women are gettin' some!"]

"Six Inconvenient Truths About The Salem Witch Trials" [e.g., "Well, we did get rid of witches, didn't we?  You see any around you?  No?  Case closed."]

"Six Inconvenient Truths About Auschwitz" [e.g., "The Jews got free room and board"]

"Six Incovenient Truths About Indian Massacres" [e.g., "The Indians that survived learned how to wear clothes.  Oh, and the casinos! 'Nuff said."]

Little Rock -- 50 Years Later

Fascinating article should be read here at Vanity Fair.  It focuses on this famous iconic picture:

The picture was taken on September 4, 1957.

The black girl is Elizabeth Eckard, one of the Little Rock Nine, the group of black students who attempted to go to school in one of the first desegregated high schools in the South. 

Standing behind her, taunting her with insults, was a student at the high school.  Her name is Hazel Bryan.

A painfully shy girl, Elizabeth arrived earlier than the rest of the Nine that day, and was "welcomed" by reporters and a large hostile crowd:

Elizabeth's knees started to shake. She walked toward Central's main entrance and tried a third time; again, the soldiers blocked her way, but this time told her to cross the street. Now the crowd fell in behind her, shouting: "Lynch her! Lynch her!" "No nigger bitch is going to get in our school! Get out of here!" "Go back to where you came from!" Looking for a friendly face, she turned to an old woman, who spat on her. Before long, some 250 whites were at her heels. She knew she couldn't go back the way she'd come. But if she could only get to the bus stop a block ahead, she thought, she would be safe. She wanted to run, but thought she might fall down... "Lynch her!" someone shouted. "Send that nigger back to the jungle!"

One of Elizabeth's tormentors was Hazel Bryan, a junior at the high school:

Hazel, her eyes narrowed, her brow furrowed, her teeth clenched as if about to bite, shrieked: "Go home, nigger! Go back to Africa!" Click.

The pictures show here were taken by an Arkansas Democrat photographer, Will Counts.

Elizabeth made it back to the bus stop and sat on a bench with the angry mob around her.  Reporters on the scene became human beings and protected her by forming a loose cordon around her, and making sure their cameras and microphones were trained on her.

With the help of an elderly (white) woman, Elizabeth got out of that hairy situation. 

But what of Hazel?

As for Hazel, ...she was "rather pleased with herself"—so much so that two days later, she was in front of Central again, telling reporters that no way would she attend an integrated Central High School. "Whites should have rights, too!" she barked at a television camera, as [Hazel's friends] Mary Ann and Sammie Dean looked on with approval. "Nigras aren't the only ones that have a right!" At first, [Central High Vice Principal, Ellizabeth] Huckaby couldn't place the screaming white girl in the picture, but she later remembered her from the previous winter: Hazel had played hooky to be with her boyfriend, and had failed some courses. The school notified her parents; her father said he did not want to beat her, but sometimes couldn't help himself. Hazel subsequently swallowed some poison, and was briefly hospitalized; Mrs. Huckaby sent a teacher to check on her. The story even made the papers.

Now Hazel was in them again, far more prominently, and the irate vice principal hauled her into her office. Hatred destroyed haters, the older woman said. Hazel only shrugged; "breath wasted," Mrs. Huckaby later wrote. And she was right: the following Monday, Hazel was at Central again, telling newsmen that had God really wanted whites and blacks to be together, "he would have made us all the same color." "The boys and girls pictured in the newspapers are hardly typical and certainly not our leading students," Mrs. Huckaby wrote her brother in New York. "The girl (with mouth open) behind the Negro girl is a badly disorganized child, with violence accepted in the home, and with a poor emotional history." Hazel's parents promptly pulled her out of Central and put her in a rural high school closer to her home. America had seen its last of Hazel Bryan for the next 40 years—except, that is, for the picture, which popped up whenever Little Rock in the 1950s, or the civil-rights movement or race hatred, was recalled.

The years passed for both girls.  And then:

Elizabeth, now 21, was visiting Little Rock in the summer of 1963 when she got a most surprising message. Someone had called whom she'd never heard of before. Her name was Hazel Bryan.

At 16, Hazel had married a schoolmate, Antoine Massery, then dropped out. But Hazel, by now the mother of two and living off a gravel road in South Little Rock, had an intellectually curious, independent streak: she chafed at the regimentation and racial intolerance of her church, for instance, and was eventually kicked out of it. Seeing Martin Luther King and the civil-rights protesters on television made her think of Elizabeth, and what she'd done to her six years earlier. Never mentioning it to her husband, she called the first Eckford in the phone book—Elizabeth's grandfather—and left several messages for her. Finally, Elizabeth got back to her. "I just told her who I was—I was the girl in that picture that was yelling at her, that I was sorry, that it was a terrible thing to do and that I didn't want my children to grow up to be like that, and I was crying," Hazel says.

Honestly, Elizabeth wasn't sure just which girl Hazel was. Far from studying the picture, she avoided it; all those white people in it had merged. But she accepted Hazel's apology, because she seemed to be sincere, because her grandfather and father urged her to, and because Hazel so clearly craved forgiveness.

Elizabeth had a hard life.  She never completed college, had a broken engagement, couldn't get a job, and ended up in the Army.  After leaving that, she had two sons by two different man (neither of whom she married), and lived a quiet life of desparation.  Her depression made it impossible for her to keep a job.  This went on for over a decade, until a change in her medication started to turn things around.

In 1996, Oprah Winfrey did a show on the Little Rock Nine.  And Elizabeth was one of the seven who came for the reunion.  Also coming was Hazal Bryan:

Hazel Bryan Massery had three adult children and seven grandchildren. She had grown more prosperous—her husband had gone into antennae and satellite-TV installation—but also more unsettled. She had joined peace groups, done spiritual things, taken up belly dancing and screenwriting and feminism and performing as a clown. Much she did in secret, so that her husband couldn't disapprove. On racial matters, she tried making amends, working with young black mothers-to-be and counseling minority students....

And there was a reunion:

Then, 40 years and a couple of weeks after their first encounter, Elizabeth and Hazel were together again. This time, they talked—about flowers and children and clothes. Hazel apologized to Elizabeth, thanked her for agreeing to meet...

And Will Counts, the photographer who, forty years earlier, had snapped thosee iconic pictures above was there -- to take another picture of the two women in front of Little Rock's Central High School:

Jena Incident Goes On Tour

And it came to High Point:

HIGH POINT -- Scholars call it a symbol that reflects a shameful period in our nation's history. Friday, High Point police removed four nooses hung from different spots around Andrews High School.

The principal of the school, Monique Wallace, sent a letter to parents after the four nooses were discovered.  Via WXII’s web site:

Dear Parents/Guardians:

Unfortunately, this letter is to inform you that today, four nooses were found at Andrews High School. School administrators immediately notified the High Point Police Department; the incident is currently under investigation and additional staff and law enforcement presence will be maintained for a period of time. Guilford County Schools (GCS) is fully cooperating with law enforcement regarding this matter. Those found to be responsible for this criminal act will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

We want to impress upon you that this inappropriate act is not a representation of Andrews’ administration, students or staff. Andrews and GCS will not tolerate behavior that is discriminatory or that disrupts the safe learning environment of our students.

Counseling will be available to students as needed by GCS. Additionally, the City of High Point has worked collaboratively with the school since 2004 through the High Point Human Relations Commission to establish a school-based student commission. These students are trained and ready to assist as needed. Please make sure your children are aware that threatening acts are not acceptable. Should your child observe inappropriate behavior or have any information regarding this incident, please ask him/her to immediately notify a teacher, staff member or our school’s resource officer.

Andrews High School has proven to be a school accepting of all races, cultures, religions and backgrounds. We will continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that all students feel welcomed and safe in our school. If you have questions, please contact me at 819-2800.

Sincerely,

Monique Wallace
Principal

"I Don't Subscribe To The Slogan 'Free The Jena 6'"

I don't subscribe to that slogan either.  From all appearances, the 6 black kids commited a crime, but as this commenter points out (at Michelle Malkin's site, after Malkin tries to pooh-pooh the story), that is not the issue:

Ms. Malkin, I don’t think that this should be classified as a “race hustler” story. Although many will argue that this is a race issue, there are facts about the case that need to be heard.

I read an excellent commentary on CNN about the march:

Much of the reporting and commentary on this has been shallow, choosing to see it as a black-white issue, as opposed to the various views of how do you define equal justice in America.

Let’s try this exercise for a moment. We can remove all racial tags and ask ourselves some critical questions.

If you heard that six teens had beaten up another teen leaving him unconscious, would you think that those accused deserved to be tried as adults and face upwards of 80 years in jail?

If a group of teens hung a noose on a tree, and the principal recommended to expel them, and then the school board overruled them, what would you say about that?

Prior to Justin Barker being beaten, another teen (who was black) was beaten, and no charges were filed against the (white) students in that case, would you question the district attorney’s action in Barker’s case?

Lady Justice in America is supposed to be blind. We all want to have confidence in our legal system so that when someone is prosecuted, it is fair and just. But so many people know that is not the case.

Look at O.J. Simpson. Thirteen years later, people are still mad that he got off.

Fine. So if you’re mad about O.J., are you equally offended about Jena?”

Ms. Malkin, are you not outraged that the hanging of nooses is not classified as a hate crime?

From the New York Times:
(quoting marcher Latese Brown)

If you can figure out how to make a schoolyard fight into an attempted murder charge, I’m sure you can figure out how to make stringing nooses a hate crime.

I, for one, do not subscribe to the slogan “Free the Jena 6″ because I think that they should be punished for beating another student up. They aren’t angels. Your point is valid.

But I think that there are people who think that justice is not always allocated fairly. Surely you can see that because you attack sanctuary cities and illegal aliens all the time.

This country has some serious conversations that it has to be having right now. “Race Hustlers”, “Race Card”, “racial demagoguery” and other buzzword catchphrases distract from the fact that for once, people are willing to get out and march and protest for what they feel is an injustice. Just like you encourage people march for the GOE and other causes, people are calling attention to what they perceive to be a serious, serious problem.

If justice is applied fairly to all parties involved regardless of race, as a result of this march… I say more power to them.

The Jena 6

Bacgkround of the situation so far in this an excellent summary from the L.A. Times:

In December, six black boys jumped a white boy at the high school here and beat him while he lay unconscious.

The victim was taken to the hospital, but he was not gravely hurt. He attended a class ring ceremony later that evening.

The black boys were charged with attempted murder, which threatened to put them in prison for most of their lives. The district attorney alleged they’d used a deadly weapon: their sneakers.

The case of the so-called Jena Six has elicited outrage around the world — not only because of the stiff charges brought against the black teenagers, but because of the stark contrast between the way black boys and white boys in the same town were treated.

The assault was the culmination of months of racial unrest in Jena (pronounced JEE-nuh), a former sawmill town of about 3,000 people in the backwoods of central Louisiana. It started at the beginning of the last school year, when a black freshman at Jena High School asked the vice principal during a school assembly whether he could sit under the “white tree,” a gnarled oak on campus where white students gathered to escape the stifling Southern heat. He was told to sit wherever he wanted.

The following day last September, three hangman’s nooses were dangling from the oak’s branches. Two months later, the school was set on fire.

The three white boys who hung the nooses were identified but not expelled or charged with a hate crime; they were suspended for three days. No one has been charged in the arson.

The charges of attempted murder were later reduced, and the first of the black kids to go to trial was found guilty of aggrivated second-degree battery by an all-white jury (one of whom was a friend of the victim's father).  That crime would have carried a sentence of up to 22 years.  However, that conviction was recently overturned, in part because the kid was wrongly tried as an adult.

Today there is a massive rally for the Jena 6; the Southern Porverty Law Center warns about expected white supremacist activity there.

One particular web posting, on the white supremacist message board Stormfront.org, came from former Baton Rouge neo-Nazi leader Robert Moore. In the posting, Moore wrote about police security arrangements in Jena and whether weapons would be allowed in certain areas. "Remember, Louisiana is an open-carry state, and your vehicle is an extention [sic] of your home," he wrote. "We also have the right to defend ourselves if attacked.". 

David Bowie has contributed $10,000 for their defense.

And it's getting political:

* Jesse Jackson criticized Barack Obama for not speaking out more forcefully on the Jena 6:

"If I were a candidate, I'd be all over Jena," Jackson was quoted as saying. "Jena is a defining moment, just like Selma was a defining moment." By not seizing on the issue more, Obama was "acting like he's white," the paper quoted Jackson as saying. Jackson, who endorsed Obama in March, today denied making that last comment, while The State stood by its reporting. Obama's campaign, meanwhile, noted that he had made a strong statement on the matter last week, when he called for the district attorney to drop the charges and said, "When nooses are being hung in high schools in the 21st century, it's a tragedy. It shows that we still have a lot of work to do as a nation to heal our racial tensions."

* Hillary is calling the Jena 6 controversy "a teachable moment"

* Jesse Jackson is attacking Obama for not being vocal enough on the Jena 6, saying that Obama is "acting like he's white".  Personally, I don't think that's a good tack, Jesse.  Maybe that's why he "backpeddled".

* Edwards calls for "racial justice" for the Jena 6:

"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel a special responsibility to speak out on racial intolerance.  To measure our progress in the fight against racism, today our nation looks to Jena, Louisiana.  Americans of all races are traveling to Jena because they believe that how we respond to the racial tensions in Jena says everything about who we are as a nation."

I find this all slightly ironic, considering that this took place 50 years ago next Tuesday:

That's the National Guard escorting nine black kids into Little Rock Central High School (September 25, 1957)

The Klan Is Making A Comeback

Great </sarcasm>:

The Ku Klux Klan has rebounded by exploiting current hot-button issues, especially immigration, according to a new report released by the Anti-Defamation League.

The Klan, and other white supremacist groups like skinheads and neo-Nazis, grew significantly more active in the past year, holding more rallies, distributing leaflets and increasing their presence on the Internet -- much of it focused on stirring anti-immigrant sentiment, according to the report.

"Extremist groups are good at seizing on whatever the hot button is of the day and twisting the message to get new members," Deborah M. Lauter, ADL Civil Rights director, said Monday. "This one seems to be taking hold with more of mainstream America than we'd like to see."

The ADL Report on this notes some troubling trends:

• Longstanding groups have increased their activity and experienced a rapid expansion in size.
• New groups have appeared, causing racial tensions in communities previously untroubled by racial issues. They hold anti-immigration rallies and recruitment drives and distribute racist literature with a new emphasis on the immigration issue, and Hispanics.
• Klan groups have become more active in parts of the country that had not seen much activity in recent years, including the Great Plains States such as Iowa and Nebraska, and Mid-Atlantic states such as Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The report includes a state-by-state listing of active Klan groups.
• Klan groups increasingly are cooperating with neo-Nazi groups.
• The Klan has adopted new publicity tricks and has embraced the Internet as a means to spread anti-Semitism and racism.

R2D2's Head Up For Sale At eBay

Bidding starts at $100,000.

Didn't We Resolve This, Like, 50 Years Ago?

Oy:

COUSHATTA -- Nine black children attending Red River Elementary School were directed last week to the back of the school bus by a white driver who designated the front seats for white children.

The situation has outraged relatives of the black children who have filed a complaint with school officials.

Rosa Parks Pardoned

Took them long enough:

BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (Reuters) - More than half a century after U.S. civil rights icon Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man, the Alabama legislature on Tuesday voted to pardon her and others convicted for breaking segregation-era race laws.

The "Rosa Parks Act," approved unanimously by the state House of Representatives but opposed by three senators in the Senate, also clears the way for hundreds of other activists to wipe out their arrest records for acts of civil disobedience in the struggle for black civil rights.

Three senators opposed?  Jeez.

Staging The News?

Michelle Malkin is up in arms because (according to her sources) NBC's Dateline is looking for Muslim men to show up at public events with hidden cameras.  It's all for a story about anti-Muslim sentiments in America.

Michelle writes:

The apparent "sting" involves targeting Nascar and other sporting events. 'Cause that's presumably where the fair and balanced NBC news staff thinks all the bigots are.

What is Michelle saying?  What is she worried about?

If they can't find bigots at a NASCAR event, then NBC has no story, right?  And if these men experience bigotry, then -- wouldn't she have to agree -- that there is a story?

Besides, Michelle is going beyond the ceiling of unhinged hypocrisy, seeing is how she's been trying to get the mainsteam media to publish the Muhammad cartoons.

UPDATE:  When I say "Michelle Malkin", I mean "Michelle Malkin and/or her ghostwriter".

UPDATE 2:  Hmmmm.  Apparently, Michelle's readers have devised a plan to foil NBC's Dateline -- a plan which includes acting nice to any Muslims they see at NASCAR events lest they be exposed as bigots.  Not to be normal, but to act nice.  Kind of speaks for itself.  For people who claim to have nothing to worry about, they certainly are cicling the wagons.  Ironically, I think the thesis of the dateline piece is already being demonstrated by these right wing buffoons.

Disrespectful Blacks Should Be Grateful About Slavery And Flock To The GOP

That's what Adele Ferguson, a columnist at the Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal thinks:

Remember Ronald Reagan’s story about the kid who had to shovel a huge pile of manure? He went about it with such joy he was asked why and said, “With all that manure, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”

The pony hidden in slavery is the fact that it was the ticket to America for black people. I have long urged blacks to consider their presence here as the work of God, who wanted to bring them to this raw, new country and used slavery to achieve it.

Wait... is she fucking kidding me?  Setting aside the invalid metaphor about ponies buried in their own shit, is she really saying that, uh, slavery was God's way of bringing blacks to America? 

And what were those slave auction blocks all about?  God's way of introducing blacks to the free market system, I suppose, right?

The whippings and beatings subjected on slaves?  God's physical education system.

And let's not forget the rape of slavewomen by their slaveholding tyrants.  What was God trying to achieve with that?

Never mind.   I don't want to know.

Adele's point (other than the one at the top of her white hood) is that she is mystified why blacks aren't flocking to the Republican Party.   I think she needs to look into the mirror for those answers.

But before she gets to that, she compares the experience of slaves to other immigrants who came to America.  Those other immigrants, you see...

...suffered hardships and indignations as indentured servants. Their descendants rose above it. You don’t hear them bemoaning their forebears’ life the way some blacks can’t rise above the fact theirs were slaves.

Well, Adele, that's because other immigrants, for all their hardships and indiginations, were never actually SLAVES.  They came here of their own free will, and once here, they were never, according to the founding documents of this country, three-fifths of a person.

Besides freedom, a job and a roof over their heads, they all sought respect. But even after all these years, too many have yet to realize that to get respect, you have to give it.

The treatment given President Bush at Coretta King’s funeral was shameful. And these weren’t poor, uneducated black people who “dissed” him. They were among the country’s top-drawer blacks, there to bury black royalty. While Bush got the cold shoulder, former President Clinton was welcomed as if he still held the office.

It mystifies me why the black population remains in thrall to the Democratic party.

Let's see, Adele.  You just told blacks that slavery was a gift from God, and then you chastize blacks for not showing due respect for President Bush, a man whose policies have a greater comparative negative impact on blacks than for people colored like you.

And you're mystified why blacks don't jump on to (the back of) your bus?

Jesus’ General responded to Adele, in an open letter on his blog:

I think you answered your own question about why black people aren’t flocking to the Republican Party. If, as you point out, slavery was a godsend to them, then surely, they’re still angry at Lincoln, the first Republican president, for freeing them. If it wasn’t for him, they’d still be enjoying all of the fruits slavery had to offer, things like: hand-me-downs from the big house; forced breeding; free scarification; the joy that comes from seeing your children selected for housework or sold to a master who doesn’t beat them during rape; and the comfort that comes from knowing one’s place in the world.

Heh.

For those of you who want to respond to Adele Ferguson, but don't feel like blogging about it, you can let her know your views by writing her at  P.O. Box 69, Hansville, Wa., 98340.

Digitial "Black Like Me"

Erika Thereian is blonde and sports a California tan.  When playing online in Second Life, her avatar is a Pamela Anderson look-alike.

But for a lark, she recently remodelled her skin so that she looked more like Serena Williams, and spent three months in the digital world that way:

Some of her friends shied away, she believes. Then there were the "guys that thought I was an easy lay, for lack of a better term. It scared me honestly, some of the assumptions made. ...I lost a couple of what I thought were good friends [who] stopped IMing and chatting. They were polite to a fault when I showed up, but [it] was weird.

Full story here.

Racism 2006

In his post about the thinly-veiled racism underyling the conservative outrage about the King funeral, Digby channels the right wing (slightly editted for clarity sake):

Fuck the blacks. They don't vote for us anyway.

But then, there's always some good reason to fuck the blacks isn't there?

Hiring minorities is a problem because:

1955 - They are an inferior race
1965 - They aren't good workers
1975 - They make old white customers uncomfortable
1985 - Affirmative action means their diplomas are bogus
1995 - They are a litigation risk for discrimination

[And now....]

2006: They don't know how to behave in public.

UPDATE:  Could the embarassment of Bush at the King funeral have led to this?:

Claude A. Allen, the president’s domestic policy adviser, turned in his letter of resignation today at the White House, the Bush administration acknowledged tonight.

This may have been an inauspicious week for the highest-ranking African-American staffer in the White House to call it quits - the day after the president appeared at the memorial service for Coretta Scott King, and at a time when Bush is attempting to improve his administration’s relations with the black community.

MORE:  From a commenter at FireDogLake:

Is there a hotline for black people to call to get eulogy approval? Or approval on how to behave during a hurricane? Or for approval on how many kids we have? Or for what we name our kids? That would make my life so much easier, even though I don't work, but I still have kids and they don't have fathers, but I digress.

As an uneducated black woman, and by uneducated I mean that I want to learn how not offend the likes of Kate O'Beirne, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Don Imus, Matt Drudge and any other offendables, even if they themselves have made racist comments or done things to hurt the world. Oooops, I should remember my place. Sorry about that last dig. I did not mean it.

Coretta Scott King Funeral Fallout

Wingnuts are indignant at the fact that the funeral for Coretta Scott King was "marred" by politics, virtually ignoring the fact that King herself (even after her husband's death) was an outspoken leader on political and social issues, including her opposition to the Iraq War.

The photo at the right is when Rev. Lowry talks about poverty and finding no "weapons of mass destruction".  Laura Bush is not amused.

The Talent Show says it precisely:

Face it conservatives, Coretta Scott King was a liberal. While civil rights heroes like the Kings were leading a non-violent struggle for equality, your political heroes were finding new ways to court southern racists away from the Democratic party. The Republican journey to victory was fueled by the votes of bigots, so it's a little late in the game to start acting like you have the right to speak for the leaders of a movement you fought against.

Pam Spaulding points out the wingnuts' hypocrisy, seeing as how politics were injected into the funeral of Ronald Reagan by Thatcher:

And surely it is hard to deny that Ronald Reagan's life was providential, when we look at what he achieved in the eight years that followed.

Others prophesied the decline of the West; he inspired America and its allies with renewed faith in their mission of freedom.

Others saw only limits to growth; he transformed a stagnant economy into an engine of opportunity.

Others hoped, at best, for an uneasy cohabitation with the Soviet Union; he won the Cold War - not only without firing a shot, but also by inviting enemies out of their fortress and turning them into friends.

UPDATE:  The Carpetbagger makes an excellant point, namely, why is the right so offended by what was said at the King funeral?

For example, Carter talked about the "color of the faces" of the Katrina victims.  He received a standing ovation from the crowd, including Bush himself.  How could that be a swipe at Bush?

Carter also talked about how MLK and Coretta were electronically surveilled illegally:

Why, exactly, was this over the top? The King family was the target of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance. It was not only an example of government abuse, it was also no doubt a strain on the family and was yet another hurdle for the Kings to overcome.

As I see it, if the conservative critics are going to complain, they should elaborate on why they were offended. It's not as if they agree with the secret surveillance of the King family, right? Why, then, should they be so defensive about Carter's criticisms of secret government wiretapping? Is there a certain legally-dubious surveillance program they're defensive about?

He adds:

Several speakers honored King, celebrated her life, and honored the values and principles to which she dedicated her life. The fact that those values and principles happen to be diametrically in opposition to Bush and his conservative agenda was an inconvenient coincidence for a clearly-uncomfortable president, but the point of the eulogies wasn't to attack Bush; it was to pay tribute to King and her beliefs.

ANOTHER UPDATE:  For all the wingnuts who think they know how a proper funeral for a civil rights leader should be, perhaps they ought to listen to the words of Dr. King himself, on the subject of what he would like said at his own funeral:

I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness.

Yup.  Even the dead sometimes what their eulogies to be about political and social issues.

In any event, the idea that white conservatives should tell black civil rights leaders how to behave at funerals is offensive.  I guess Reverand Lowry strayed from the plantation.

FINAL WORD:  Blogometer has a nice round-up of the blogosphere's sharp exchange on the King funeral, and tries to explain how "the right" and "the left" view the King legacy:

But the fight goes deeper than the usual partisan divide, and is more specific than overall racial differences. It's not black and white per se; it's about the very nature of Dr. King's legacy and how the right and left understand it.

For the right, non-violence was King's effective means to the worthy end of achieving racial equality; to the left, non-violence and racial equality are integral to one another. Just as conservatives understand King's legacy to be about the civil rights movement, liberals understand his legacy to be about peace more broadly. No conservative considers him or herself heir to the legacy of Bull Connor and George Wallace, but a significant percentage of liberal bloggers do. The right feel they too are the heirs of King's legacy; conservatives often hold up his famous declaration that people should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" as an argument against racial quotas, even though King had expressed support for affirmative action policies.

What's The World Coming To?

Don't ask me to explain, but it seems fitting that Corretta Scott King should die on the day Alito's nomination is confirmed by the Senate (58-42)

Don't Raise Your Kids In Kansas

That's my advice.  First of all, you've got this whole "intelligent design" thing that they're trying to foist into the school curriculum.

Now there's this, a kid gets suspended from school for speaking Spanish:

Kansas City, Kan., resident Lorenzo Rubio is upset that his son, Zach, was suspended from the Turner School District's Endeaver School for two days.

He is even more upset that the reason Zach was suspended was not for fighting or causing trouble, but for speaking Spanish at lunchtime with his friends.

"My son called me on Monday and said he had been suspended for speaking Spanish," Rubio said. "I could not believe it. I went to the school and spoke to Mrs. (Jennifer) Watts and asked her if this was school policy. She told me, 'no,' but said 'We are not in Mexico, we are not in Germany.'"

Watts refused to comment to The Kansan.

However, Bart Swartz, executive director of certified personnel for Turner, said Superintendent Bobby Allen was apprised of the situation immediately and met with Rubio.

"As soon as the superintendent found out the student was suspended, the superintendent notified the student that he could come back to school," Swartz said. "We do not stand behind suspending students for speaking foreign languages."

Zach and a friend were told not to speak Spanish in the lunch area on Monday. As he left to go to his class, he started speaking Spanish again to his friend and was told again not to speak Spanish on the way to class. About 45 minutes later, he was sent back to the office by his teacher for speaking Spanish to a classmate in a classroom. Zach was then told to call his father because he was suspended from school for the rest of the day and on Tuesday for non-compliance. A "reasonable" request to not speak Spanish at school, signed by Jennifer Watts, the principal of the school, was written on a disciplinary referral dated Monday.

In addition to the reason for suspension, Watts also wrote, "This is not the first time we have asked Zach and others to not speak Spanish at school."

Zach, a junior at the Endeaver school, an alternative school in the district, is American born and proficient in English and Spanish. He said he often speaks Spanish to his friends, in his home when they come over to play video games, at the mall, and places outside of school.

Allen said he was told by Watts that Zach was being disruptive and it is important that the teachers be able to communicate and know what the students are saying. He said there are programs in place for staff at Turner that focus on cultural and ethnic sensitivities and he has spoken to staff about what is acceptable conduct at the school. He did not say why Watts has not complied.

Foreign languages is a required course at the school, Swartz said. In fact, the school offers French and Spanish to its students.

Red State News In Brief

Tennessee: Ex-preacher forces his wife into prostitution so they can have Christmas money.

Arkansas: Baptist minister's wife, a schoolteacher, tells the black children in her class that they are descended from the devil.  But she's not racist, she says.

But all kidding aside, this is one of the saddest news stories I've ever read.