With a smiley face at the end of this comment MJ, you would have given us a good laugh. Without one, ‘your’ disturbing us.

“Johnny Bag O’Donuts” (or Tony, Vito, Vinnie, etc.), used humorously in place of a difficult-to-pronounce Italian surname.

” 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.

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

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

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.

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!!

Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.10.04 @ 12:58 pm’

You forgot to add that he’s an apoligist for executive branch overreach. See Hamdi.