Since blogging about Ann Coulter seems to generate so much traffic, links from liberals and comments (see this post), I’ve decided to do it again!
Without further ado, I offer an excerpt of Coulter’s latest column:
Still furious about the election, liberals are lashing out at blacks. First it was Condoleezza Rice. But calling a Ph.D. who advised a sitting president during war “Aunt Jemima” apparently hasn’t satiated the Democrats’ rage. Even the racist cartoons didn’t help.So this week, they’ve turned with a vengeance to Clarence Thomas. Only the Democrats would try to distract from their racist attacks on one black Republican by leveling racist attacks against a different black Republican. If Democrats don’t nip this in the bud, soon former Klanner and Democratic Sen. Bob Byrd will be their spokesman.
In the past few weeks, there have been nasty insinuations all around about Condoleezza Rice’s competence for the job.
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel — who demonstrated his own competence running Walter Mondale’s campaign — said of Rice, “I don’t think she’s up to the job.”
Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (so you know they don’t have an agenda or anything), said Rice “doesn’t bring much experience or knowledge of the world to this position.” This was reassuring, inasmuch as that was also liberals’ assessment of the current president before he took office and he, to put it mildly, has been doing rather well.
The Kansas City Star editorialized that Rice “has not demonstrated great competence in the last four years,” which is to say, Dr. Rice failed to be sufficiently clairvoyant to predict the events of Sept. 11, 2001….
Curiously, of all the liberals launching racist attacks on black conservatives I’ve quoted above, only two are themselves black: the two who write for the New York Times. So I guess there are still a couple of blacks taking orders from the Democrats. Isn’t there an expression for that? I think it begins with “Uncle” and ends with “Tom.”
Another good one, Ann! As mentioned in Emboldened White Liberals, which generated 111 comments, it’s open season on non-liberal black people.
Now that I know just how much Ann Coulter irritates liberal bloggers, I’ll be linking to her columns more often. I even lost a feminist blogger’s endorsement for a Weblog Award for writing favorably about Coulter (She endorsed a man instead! Thanks a lot, sister.), a true feminist! You win some, you lose some.
Happy Friday! 
Related links: Ramblings’ Journal
Photo of Ann and Al is from her web site.
Another update: Funny, yet predictable, referral that brought someone to my site: “ann coulter homophobe.”
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 63 comments }
Off the plantation
Ann Coulter’s on the race-traitors again. LaShawn’s helping, as usual.
La Shawn,
I love reading your comments and surf in from time to time to catch the latest.
I like Dr. Rice, and stupid me. I thought Bush hired her because she was competent, qualified and had a personality.
I think this column may be the best one of hers I’ve read to date.
Where’d the pic of her w/Al come from?
I am very grateful for your link to Ann Coulter. It is a disgrace how liberals are attacking conservative African Americans! It is almost beyond description! It shows that MOST of the liberal righteousness is FAKE. Dr. Rice is an outstanding woman. (By the way, where are the righteous white men to speak up?) Congratulations, LaShawn and Ann! Keep it up!
If it wasn’t for Ann Coulter, I would never be able to read Ted Rall. After reading one of his “articles,” I’ll read Ann’s as “antidote.”
It seems to me that liberals use blacks like they do other objects. They go around objectifying the poor, the wealthy, the blacks, and many other “special interest” groups. Then at their discretion pull them off the shelf to shine them up and show them off when it suits their purpose and fill their needs.
Objectification is a tool the liberal of this country have honed to a fine skill.
Dr. Rice and Clarence Thomas are brilliant minds. Case closed.
On our blog, folks are responding away to Ann Coulter’s piece. Plenty of debate. Ann often loses me, either with a jump in logic or her tone. Although I don’t like the last sentence of this piece (where she says black critics of Clarence Thomas are “Uncle Toms”), overall she nails this one. Saw her on TV a couple of days ago too discussing the issues addressed in her piece.
I’ll agree with Molotov on Ann, in that some days she is too bitter a pill to swallow. Like a funny, non-man hating MoDo.
But she’s still got more in the way of a point and credibility than Franken and his Err Amerika crew, even on her most outrageous days.
‘Only the Democrats would try to distract from their racist attacks on one black Republican by leveling racist attacks against a different black Republican.’
are there any unracist critiques of thomas?
Once again we are seeing that most Dems only appreciate the advancement of some African Americans/other minorities and not all. By their logic, President Bush would only be successful reaching out to minorities by appointing people whose ideologies are 180 degrees from his own.
I think Dr. Rice’s work in getting her PhD and since shows she is MORE than qualified for the position.
Good thing Colin Powell retired or they’d be coming after him too, calling him President Bush’s lackey or some other racially insensitive comment that only THEY would be entitled to say, otherwise it be called racist.
Make sure you know I’m referring to THEY as liberal lefties. No sense in tiffing racial sensitivities here.
Based on a certain word in your comment, it got caught in the spam filter. Can you guess which word it was? I don’t allow such language on this blog, but you may re-submit without using it. – Admin
I’ll also drop some stuff I posted at molotov’s:
“The point remains, though: Rice and Thomas and Gonzalez should be subject to criticism. Coulter is trying to bully folks away from that substantive criticism and force liberals to take the defensive, or handle them with kid gloves for fear of being called racists.
The idea that black conservatives can’t take care of themselves without help from the Republican noise machine is, at the very least, paternalistic. Are their accomplishments so feeble that they need to be propped up by has-beens and never-did-nothin’s like Coulter and Hannity?
You’ll note that the noise machine didn’t jump to the defense of Gonzales: could it be that conservatives think that black people need their help to be defended against run-of-the-mill, purely substantive criticism?
Nah. Couldn’t be.”
Profanity is not permitted on this blog. Because of a certain four letter word, your comment was caught in the filter again. I’ll give you one more chance to comment before I ban you. – Admin
“Good thing Colin Powell retired or they’d be coming after him too, calling him President Bush’s lackey or some other racially insensitive comment that only THEY would be entitled to say, otherwise it be called racist.”
Have you seen half the stuff that white conservatives wrote about Powell? They call a four-star general a gutless pansy because of his willingness to work with the UN. Why is questioning Powell’s courage directly not racist, but an implication that Thomas lacks the cognitive capacity to write outstanding Supreme Court decisions racist?
That’s better. – Admin
Sorry, didn’t realize there was no cussing. My bad.
It’s worth noting that of the two liberal writers Coulter accuses of being Uncle Toms, only one is actually black.
This woman is lame, lame, lame.
tvd – It would be helpful for you to read my archives. That’s a lot of stuff, I know, but at the very least, read the front page of this blog. I address several of your points, including the one about Alberto Gonzales. I’m not pleased with Bush’s choice.
Got too used to posting at 4RWW’s, where cussing is the order of the day
Dear LaShawn,
May I offer a heretical remark? The statements Coulter cites aren’t obviously racist. What they obviously are is dislike of the Administration/Republicans masquerading as objective assessments of Condi’s/Thomas’s qualifications. So I put these statements in the same class as jibes about how “dumb” Bush is. Why can’t people just come out and say, “Look, Condi is a smart lady, but I don’t like what she stands for—and here’s why.” In short: ad hominem attacks are bad enough, even if they’re not obviously racist.
Does that make sense?
Cordially,
Adrian
Ann was on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country last night Dec 9 with Al Franken discussing whether Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” would win, or even be nominated for, best picture of the year.
As the conversation evolved…uh, devolved into whether Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11″ would be nominated, the sparks begin to fly between Ann and Crazy Al.
Geeze, it was better than a world champion boxing match. Ann was a cool calm and skilled Ali and Al behaved like an amateur ‘contender’, losing his temper big time and throwing wild punches as Ann popped him, then withdrew to watch him lose it.
I popped popcorn, got drinks, and candy snacks at the intermissions, just like the real thing. Final score, Ann 10 rounds, Al still licking his wounds…. and angrier than ever.
TVD, I don’t think it is a question of racism. Rather it is a question of consistency.
On the one hand, liberals support quotas, which means they do not care about somebody’s qualifications if they have the right profile. But then they claim (falsely) that certain minorities are unqalified for a job. Why do qualifications matter sometimes but not at other times?
On the one hand liberals insist that minorities need to be appointed to high positions. That is their stated goal–to put minority people in high positions. Then a Republican president actually does it, instead of just talking about it. Do they laud him and thank him for meeting the goal? No, the rules are suddenly different. These appointees don’t count because they are not REALLY black or hispanic, they’re not qualified, they’re being paid off, etc.
“(She endorsed a man instead! Thanks a lot, sister.), a true feminist! You win some, you lose some.”
Make a liberal mad and his/her true colors come shining through every time.
“On the one hand, liberals support quotas, which means they do not care about somebody’s qualifications if they have the right profile.”
That’s a gross oversimplification. Don’t pull the “well, liberals say…” strawman out, please. Show me specifics. And, as an aside, take a look at the amicus briefs filed by the Fortune 500 companies supporting affirmative action in Grutter/Bollinger. I have a tough time considering all those giant corporations “liberal.”
To address the substance of your argument, affirmative action doesn’t=quotas, and in any event pure quotas are unconstitutional. Affirmative action isn’t about disregarding qualifications, it’s taking a broader look at how personal experiences (including those of minorities) factor into and enhance those qualifications. For instance, were I an employer, I might note LaShawn’s black conservatism and note that it indicates a willingness to stand up for ideas that are apart from the majority of black people, and thus, an enhancement to her other qualifications and abilities.
Consideration of race is part of that, but it’s only there because race is an inextricable part of identity. If someone was describing me, they’d mention that I was black. Same for LaShawn. Or Oliver Willis.
“These appointees don’t count because they are not REALLY black or hispanic, they’re not qualified, they’re being paid off, etc.”
Here’s the rub with black people appointed to high positions who aren’t qualified. If they mess up, there’s bad precedent: I don’t want liberals OR conservatives to be able to say “well, we tried a brother/sister as SecState/Supreme Court Justice, and it didn’t work out, so we’re reluctant to do it again.”
In fact, statements like yours on the conservative side of the aisle make it MORE likely that liberals strongly examine the qualifications of their nominees, just so there’s no question.
Thanks, Kyle, that helps with my comment, too.
Adrian
Skin color preferences don’t necessarily mean quotas, that is a true statement. But such preferences even without a designated number are still wrong.
tvd, I know time is a fleeting thing, but it would serve you well to at least scan the category I’ve called “Race Preferences.” I know your comment isn’t directed toward me, but I’m compelled to respond anyway. I’ve written a post called, “The Immoraltity of Race Preferences.” You may find it informative.
La Shawn,
Is it ok for government to ever use race in making selections? i.e. adoptions; undercover/diplomatic outreach etc?
Just curious.
Read your post. Would like to drop a fisk. Here it go.
“I was asked to explain why I believe race preferences are immoral.
Immorality is the state of being immoral. An immoral thing is that which is contrary to accepted principles of right and wrong. Morality is conformity to ideals of right human conduct. For a primer on right human conduct, I direct you to God’s word, the Bible.”
OK.
“Natural rights, as well as those found in the Constitution, belong to individuals, not groups. If an individual is discriminated against because of his race, he should be compensated, not his entire racial group. There is no such thing as Group Rights. An individual has a right to seek redress from injury from a particular institution, not an entire race.”
I don’t disagree with the premise here: however, Constitutional rights are often explicated in terms of what you might call “group rights.” For instance, First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes a “chilling effect” in which a restriction on an individual’s activities may cause members of similarly affliated groups to curb their speech. Additionally, there is a Constitutional concern about the total amount of speech allowed in what the court calls the “marketplace of ideas”—surely that is a consideration of “group rights,” as well.
“Skin color preferences bestow undeserved advantage on some and undeserved burdens on others. Such an idea is anathema to democracy and freedom.”
It’s not. No one deserves every advantage that they have. I’m six-four, and can reach the high shelf. That’s an undeserved advantage. If I had a super-high IQ or idiot-savant like abilities to play chess or multiply 7-digit numbers, that would also be an undeserved advantage. Additionally, my height (and width ) make me unable to play in the NBA. That’s an undeserved advantage. However, none of those innate advantages or disadvantages are related to democracy or freedom. No person affected by affirmative action (and the degree to which there is an effect is a debatable question) is less free or less able to participate in the democratic republic.
“Why should people be compensated for a wrong they did not suffer? Why should some be penalized for a wrong they did not commit?”
Happens all the time: it’s a problem inherent in any externality. If there’s negligent, persistent misconduct on the part of someone else, for instance, a reckless driver who blocks a road or a factory which pollutes an area so badly that it cannot be used for agrarian purposes, then other people have to deal with the harms produced, whether or not they had an active hand in committing or causing them. Is that situation fair? No. Just common.
“A person’s sex or skin color doesn’t entitle him to special favors or treatment. Skin color or sex doesn’t entitle anyone to receive less or more consideration.”
I think we part ways at the “entitlement” bit. Skin color or sex are recognizable, whether they’re entitled to receive consideration or not—they’re the ultimate “elephant in the living room.” All affirmative action does is allow consideration of factors that are already consciously under consideration.
“Giving one group preferred status over another group is unjust, especially when done by our own government. It is against the law and in violation of the U.S. Constitution, regardless of intentions.”
There is always preferred status in one form or another. People with good lawyers have more access to the courts. People with good lobbyists have more access to the legislature. People with good investment bankers and accountants have more access to the markets. In addition, limited affirmative action is not in violation of the U.S. Constitution, at least according to the Supremes, who have the final word.
“The idea that we can “fix” history by preferring the race once discriminated against over the race once doing the discriminating is flat out wrong, not to mention counterintuitive.”
Maybe—I’m not familiar enough with my Bible to tell. But it’s clear that that remedial measures are what the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended. The premise is probably outdated, though.
I’ll simply note that in spite of all the discrimination, white people seem to be doing OK. Wouldn’t that indicate that there are qualititative differences between minority-on-majority discrimination and majority-on-minority discriminations.
“In his brief for the Brown v. Board of Education, the case that declared government-sanctioned race discrimination illegal, Thurgood Marshall wrote, “Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state, bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.””
He was right. Distinctions by race then meant firehoses, Jim Crow, and lynchings. Now, they mean that Johnny Bag O’ Donuts goes to Ithaca College instead of Cornell.
“I’ll concede this: I believe social engineers’ hearts were in the right place, but they had no idea what their skin color schemes would look like thirty years out. Thanks to them, we’re still entangled in race debates and race politics.”
Race debates and race politics are an inherent part of human nature, from the Bible on down. I don’t think you’ve supported this contention with any specific proof connecting it specifically to current affirmative action policies.
“These things will not pass until individual rights regain their proper place in this country. Any questions?”
Nope.
Addendum: “Affirmative action tends to undermine the spirit of individual initiative. Such is human nature; why struggle to succeed when you can have something for nothing?” — Arthur Ashe, Days of Grace
Is Clarence Thomas’ individual initiative in question? Affirmative action tends to buttress the individual initiative of minorities—you know that you’re one of the few people of color in your environment, and you know you have to “work ten times as hard.” (That’s Coulter’s quote from a Hannity/Colmes appearance)
I’ve not commented on the “victimology” bit, because it’s just a slam on black liberals generally. Liberalism/progressive ideas don’t equal victimology: it’s just recognition that race matters, and pretending that it doesn’t doesn’t make that so.
Channel-surfing last night, I saw a promo on VH-1 for a show called “My Coolest Years,” in which celebrities reminisce about their high school years. Ann Coulter was apparently going to be featured in the segment about celebs who were hippie types in high school. I thought it was pretty uncharacteristic of VH-1 to include Coulter in *any* of their programming, but darn it, I didn’t get to watch the show. (Who’d a thought she was a hippie type in high school?
)
actus wrote: “are there any unracist critiques of thomas?”
Yes. He has terrible taste in porn (if a certain litigant is to be believed), and personally, I think his fashion sense is dated and drab.
Ann is witty. Her wit rubs people wrong sometimes.
I like her wit but realize that she isn’t going to convert many liberals that way because her witty points are DEEP.
She exposes the double-standards and hypocrasy.
She riles us conservatives up.
I like her.
Here’s the but.
But, maybe she could label columns to make the point to liberals that she is using wit to expose hypocrasy with this column or something because that whole point is lost and it really brings out the anger in liberals who don’t get the point.
That’s not a big but….
LawWife’s question wasn’t answered….
SCSI,
Personally I like his fashion sense.
Then again I shop at thrift stores
Nevermind LB, The photo is from her website. Got it. Thanks.
Armstrong Williams also wrote a piece.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-12-09-williams_x.htm
Trying to link below…
I looked at Ann’s pics, but she didn’t mention the occasion of their meeting. That’s what I really want to know. Neither looks close to death or anything like that.
Maybe she’s the mistress?
Oh. That was horrible. I’ll strike that.
Armstrong Williams wrote on this topic.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-12-09-williams_x.htm
TVD -
Very impressive legal analysis. Unfortunately the fact remains that attempting to fix past mistakes by repeating them isn’t going to change the past. The one thing it’s guaranteed to do is create more of the same problems in the future. Revenge is a short-lived gratification at best, and history is full of many tragic examples.
As you correctly point out, we all posess unfair advantages and disadvantages. That’s life.
We can also create both, but we do so as individuals. An institutional advantage or disadvantage, enforced by a government is not fair and should not exist. For instance a race based preference.
I have no idea whether or not Clarence Thomas is a brilliant or not. The same is true for my knowledge of Rhenquist. I hear he is very good, but I have to take other peoples’ word for it. In spite of my ignorance, I can read, and the constitution isn’t a very complicated document. It was meant to be plain and simple because it was written for a country, not just 9 lawyers. For that reason, I would be more inclined to support the judge who keeps that notion in perspective, rather than the billiant legal mind who infers what he believes, but argues what it implies.
Whatever their personal qualifications, you have to admit Ms. Rice and Mr. Thomas have made the most of their opportunities, which in my opinion, says a lot about them.
LaShawn,
I love Ann – I’m as conservative as she – but, check out her link to Jon Stewart’s book in her piece. I could be wrong, but in my years of HTML coding, it looks like Ann provided a link that tracks how many people she steered to the site and bought the book, allowing her to receive a commission. Now, I think this is quite “ballsy” but the libs are going to rip into her.
tvd,
took me a long time figgerin’ them big words and such. i just want to make sure i got the jist of yer fisk: ’see? two wrongs DO make a wright!’
southpaw,
i don’t think you have to waste pixels with the ‘impressive legal analysis’. something about tvd’s writing make me think he is already impressed.
Once again, I know why I just love Ann Coulter. I wish I could have seen her and Al Franken go head to head. Thanks for the Armstrong Williams link. His article was excellent.
Mike:
Heaven forbid I try to offer a thoughtful critique of LaShawn’s argument. Don’t think you got the “jist” of anything, but that doesn’t necessarily make me “wright.” Thanks for commenting just to be insulting, though. Very tolerant.
TVD, quotas by any other name are still quotas. The complicated and inconsistent system of race-based preferences still works out the same whether you call it a quota or something else. It boils down to schools and employers needing to make sure they have a particular percentage of minorities–it’s only the method of achieving the balance that varies.
If a black student gets extra points for being black on his college admission rating, then Dr. Rice and Justice Thomas and Colin Powell should get extra points, too. I know that I’m oversimplifying here, but am I WRONG?
It’s not a strawman to say “liberals say. . .” unless what I attribute to them is not the mainstream liberal opinion. It is a generalization, but is it an UNFAIR generalization? You’re not going to tell me that liberals are AGAINST quotas (or whatever you prefer to call them), are you?
If you are really truly concerned about whether Thomas is a competent justice, more power to you. That’s fair, and the reasoning you give for it is valid. If you question Dr. Rice’s qualifications, that is also fair, although I’d love to see you or somebody say what is lacking in her resume–compared to other Secretaries of State.
What I think a lot of us have noticed is that people don’t back up the claims of incompetence or unpreparedness, they just make them. The same people never question the competence or preparedness of liberal leaders. And they cry “discrimination” if anybody else does. I mean, name a liberal who had the courage to say that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson was not qualified to be president–or the audacity to claim that either man was/is.
Mike at Work-
I think you mean 3 lefts make right. Or is it the other way around? Can’t remember.
All my friends, like me, think the world of Dr. Rice and Chief Justice Thomas. And certainly General/Secretary Powell as well. Our hopes, now dashed, were that President Bush would persuade Powell to stay on the team for 4 more years, but as Defense Secretary, with Rice taking over the State Dept. At least we’re getting one of our wishes. Dr. Rice will do a great job at State and her lame detractors will come to see what a very serious candidate she’ll become for her boss’job in 2008! In the meantime, our great President will be making perhaps his most important and far-reaching appointment decision yet–Rehnquist’s replacement. Thomas would be an excellent choice and the President knows this better than anyone. And then that mental midget, Harry Reid, can try to figure out what he should be doing constructively as leader of the “minority” party!
The next 4 years will be exciting, even fun. But we’ve got to work extra hard to persuade more black voters to embrace the Republican party. A big challenge, especially for a white guy like me.
I have never been a Ann Coulter fan and have like Al Sharpton for all the wrong reasons (that’s that gang-banga in me) but that picture of them together says alot.
Two people, both demonized excessively, smiling in a photograph together. Just two people. Not demons. But people. I wish folks would understand that when they go on unfocused rants about people’s views and go personal.
I stumbled upon a liberal site where they were screaming at Ann for saying that Caryn James is a black person when she’s actually white! They acted like that negated everything she said. OK, so Caryn James is white. That means she’s another white racist liberal! Ann proves her point.
Shayne
” stumbled upon a liberal site where they were screaming at Ann for saying that Caryn James is a black person when she’s actually white! They acted like that negated everything she said. OK, so Caryn James is white.”
The ranting was because she called Caryn James an Uncle Tom. It’s just an example of her steamrolling the facts to make a point: even if her overall point is correct, that doesn’t excuse her playing fast and loose with facts.
I assume that white people cannot be either Uncle Toms or House n***ers–it’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand
‘Yes. He has terrible taste in porn (if a certain litigant is to be believed), and personally, I think his fashion sense is dated and drab.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.10.04 @ 12:58 pm’
You forgot to add that he’s an apoligist for executive branch overreach. See Hamdi.
Ann Coulter is the best, I can hardly wait for that video/documentary to come out on her. What she does, and does so well, is take the very words liberals use, and throw them back in their face. After the last thread on Ann, I went back and read ‘Slander’ again, and her chapter on Elian Gonzalez. It still strikes me as amazing that all the libs who have had so much problem with Ashcroft, never saw anything wrong with Janet Reno sending in a SWAT team, in violation of how many rights and laws? and having that machine gun pointed right at Elian’s head, or her sending in the BATF to torch the Davidians in Waco.
The libs hate Ann because she constantly points out their flaws, hypocrisy, and lies, and they just can’t stand to have someone with the guts to stand up to them. Keep it up ANNIE!!
What’s disturbing about Ann Coulter is her dyed blonde hair. Why can’t women in the media go with the color they have (or at least cover their gray with an approximation of their natural color)?
I don’t know about any of you, but I would love to see Ann and Al Franken on tour together. Is aw them on TV last night and just thought how great they would be touring the nation. It would make millions.
Even ordinary, non-politicos would go and see it.
Seriously, though. Ann Coulter is to the right what Michael Moore is to the left. Though those of you on the right may not be able to admit it, she deals in the same type of grandstanding, outlandish, one-liner craziness as Moore. Often too comical and witty and loose with the facts.
And that’s why I love her. I think I mentioned it previously on this blog. She is simply the most intriguing female in politics today. A strong woman who says what she feels is certainly to be respected.
I schedule my nightly news watching around Ann’s appearances. As a liberal, I can’t get enough of her.
TVD:
Unless I’m missing something—not unlikely, given the late hour—you haven’t answered LB’s argument.
What you’ve done instead is claim, in effect, that the principles underlying skin color preferences are ones that are inherent in social life anyway. But are the analogies you draw true analogies? I’m having trouble seeing how that they can be.
To take just one example, you say that “ufair” preferences are accorded people all the time: people with more money get better lawyers, etc. The trouble is that that’s not truly analogous to affirmative action, which is an explicit policy. Is there any law that says that rich people should always get lawyers?
Setting aside all your quibbles about LB’s formulations, how would you respond her main contention that race-based preferences are immoral because they mandate preferential treatment based on skin-color and without regard to individual merit and so amount to a well-intentioned racism in reverse?
Cordially,
Adrian
tvd,
You used an expression that I thought was exclusive to Chicago, specifically the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Is that your stomping ground by chance?
All,
This ‘comments’ section is really smoking tonight. Some good thoughts, interesting points. Thanks
See, actus, I think my criticism is more universal than yours
I think more people will agree that his taste in porn is poor than will buy into his being an apologist.
But neither are racist.
Adrian:
” how would you respond her main contention that race-based preferences are immoral because they mandate preferential treatment based on skin-color and without regard to individual merit and so amount to a well-intentioned racism in reverse?”
I generally would defer to LaShawn on matters of Christian morality, as it’s not my field–that’s why I dodged that point in the initial response.
I’d respond that the degree of harm isn’t substantial enough, in the aggregate, to rise to the level of immorality or racism (as far as my understanding of the term goes). AA just doesn’t give rise to the sort of widespread, egregious harm that Jim Crow caused. Reverse racism may be the same thing as racism in terms of abstract principle, but the substantial difference in actual, tangible harm is what makes AA not immoral, in my book. Compare the black children of 1950’s Alabama with Jennifer Gratz.
Besides, AA’s an experiment (much like all democracy is an experiment) that has barely been going on for a generation: frankly, I wish it wasn’t such a partisan issue, if only so that we could take a dispassionate look at its effects. I’m a pragmatist, not a moralist.
I also don’t agree with the contention that affirmative action and merit are mutually exclusive. Employers/colleges have interests in ensuring that there is effective diversity: no one is well-served by artifically elevated people to responsibilities that they can’t handle. I’ll note that Michigan’s football team doesn’t actively recruit dwarves, nor does the law school recruit the educable retarded, though I’m sure those groups would add to the diversity of the school.
As far as AA being explicit policy: organizations, as long as they’re within their Constitutional prerogative, have the right select the people they think will benefit their organization.
Merry: What expression did you mean? And no, I’m from the red part of NY, but currently in Heinz country.
Kyle: “What I think a lot of us have noticed is that people don’t back up the claims of incompetence or unpreparedness, they just make them. The same people never question the competence or preparedness of liberal leaders. And they cry “discrimination” if anybody else does. I mean, name a liberal who had the courage to say that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson was not qualified to be president–or the audacity to claim that either man was/is.”
I suspect a key is that many white leaders on both sides are uncomfortable and unsure how to deal with black people, both as people and as voters. LaShawn touches on this when she says that Repubs should avoid going for the “black” vote, something I think is true of Dems as well. I think liberals have outsourced the job of black relations to useful fools like Sharpton, when they should have been using Obama’s approach all along. I probably missed some of your points, but it’s late and bed beckons.
Peace.
tvd,
“Johnny Bag O’Donuts” (or Tony, Vito, Vinnie, etc.), used humorously in place of a difficult-to-pronounce Italian surname.
“What’s disturbing about Ann Coulter is her dyed blonde hair. Why can’t women in the media go with the color they have (or at least cover their gray with an approximation of their natural color)?”
With a smiley face at the end of this comment MJ, you would have given us a good laugh. Without one, ‘your’ disturbing us.
Its quite plain that the demacrats want only liberals running everything they still want AFIRMATIVE ACTION and racial prefrences they dont realy want equial rights the dont beleive in MARTIN LUTHER KINGS color blind society
There is no such thing as “Group Rights.” A right is inherent in a specific human being, not a group. The purpose of the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, is to protect the individual FROM groups (ie “majority tyranny”) and the government, not the group/government from the individual. Any “legal analysis” that starts with the premise that the Bill of Rights articulates a “collective” right, rather than an “individual” right, should, therefore, be thrown in the dustbin (as a matter of course).
Equal treatment under law requires equal treatment under law because that is what our system is based on, not because of the “deservedness” of any particular individual or group.
Comments on this entry are closed.