Anti-Lynching Legislation

Touche!

Well said!

Here’s an absolutely on-point link to Dr. Walter Williams’ website that exposes the silliness of all this:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html

This is the country that ended slavery. Despite filibuster. ’nuff said.

Did anyone not vote for the apology?

To be fair, DS, I cannot recall La Shawn ever being a fan of pandering to any demographic.

Vote for “Anti Lynching Bill” 100:1

Vote to lynch Black conservative female judge -

less than 60%.

Anti-lynching laws? Isn’t that what they call “murder”? We don’t need it. It’s already on the books. And doesn’t Robert KKK Byrd know about lynching in the 20th century?

Forget the apologies–empty words. Rather the proof in the pudding would be to act to change the problems La Shawn cited. IOW, repentance is meaningless without changes.

La Shawn, you are absolutely right – at least in part. I can’t see how this “apology” does anything. Although, I did read that a guy from my old neighborhood was there. Simeon Wright and Wheeler Parker were in the house when they came for Emmett Till. It was interesting hearing their account of what happened. If you are ever in Summit, IL, look up Wheeler Parker. He’s the neighborhood barber and a reverend. He has a fascinating take on what occurred. What the Senate needs to do is apologize for not asking tough questions when it came to Iraq.

Absolutely rousing, La Shawn! The Democrats should just say no to pandering, but, as Hillary said the other day, “It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing.”

Here is a piece of resolution that cost no money other than the time it took to debate and pass it (Interestingly no with a roll call vote, so we don’t know who voted for it and who obstained) That just says the United State Government and the US Senate in particular is SORRY that NOTHING was done while state and local governments allowed people to be dragged out of jails in broad day light, strung up by the neck and burned to death while on lookers including children gawked and laughed and ate barbecue.

I really can’t see what is wrong with that.

How can someone apologize for something that they were not responsible for?

And for what would Barack Obama have to apologize?

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to each of you for anything and everything for which you actually or might have been wronged no matter who it was that wronged you. It is my hope and desire that you will live from this day forward a joyful and secure life without blame towards others.

It is my hope that you will then a apologize to me for anything and everything for which I actually or might have been wronged no matter who it was that wronged me. I hope and desire that I will live from this day forward a joyful and secure life without blame towards others.

Ralph

Thank you for presenting your side but I don’t see this issue as you have framed it. It was an apology after the fact but the hope is that since lynchings still happen in these yet to be United States we will soon see actual legislation making lynching a federal crime. This would remove the decision on charging these crimes from the system controlled by state government and elected officials and put the judicial decisions into the hands of those appointed for lifetime tenure on the bench. No it didn’t take as much press about the apology as it has been given but that does not mean that it is ineffective. This country still turns its head when it comes to race. The reason blacks are killing other blacks are as you listed – bigger social issues that need to be addressed. Problem is I don’t see that happening from these politicians either. If you were saying that less time should be spent on this issue so that more time could be spent on issues that were actually being presented that benefitted my race and my country I would be all for that – but in reality, such is not the case.

“And let me guess, JB, you think the government should be addressing black-on-black crime, instead of the black community itself.”

I don’t think the government addressing crime is properly called “feeding at the trough.”

La Shawn,
I hear you about not waiting on the gov’t to address black-on-black crime (or looking to the gov’t for solutions to a multitude of other social ills). Taking this issue as an example – black-on-black crime – how would you propose the black community deal, without perpetuating a gov’t dependant mentality?

No La Shawn, I think the government should step up to the plate in the same way that you are advocating and play ball on equal levels across the board. This country largely ignores that its founders and early settlers raped pillaged and killed the natives to formulate their idea of a free nation…then immediately passed laws not allowing someone to come behind them and do the same thing that they had just done.

It is not the governments job to take care of any group but it is the governments job to take care of its communities. You want them to stop apologizing and I want them to stop letting people buy votes through million dollar lobbyists. You want them to not focus on age old black crimes – I want them to confess that they made black subserviant by not funding our programs in the past and give up the money that they saved and applied to the programs they selected. This is not about giving anything special, not about reparations for wrongs done not even about an apology. This is about a parent having two children, feeding one nutricious food and the other junk food but expecting them both to be olympic caliber athletes. Then, upon finding out the junk food child can’t compete because of poor nutrition you blame the child… ok that makes sense. So then you change the diet and feed them both the same thing…ignoring the fact that the healthy child has been competing an training at a superior level for quite some time so would be more experience, and label this fair and again ask them to compete expecting the junk food child to exceed. Ok that makes sense too. they have the same opportunities to eat you say. Ok. I am not a liberal – not even a democrat but I am also not blind. I’m a realist. Save the apology and pass federal laws making this a crime.

PREACH!

Wow. What a post.

In the Washington Times article at the end, I noticed this part:

Lawyer E. Faye Williams said she will not rest until the Senate’s oldest office building no longer carries the name of former Sen. Richard B. Russell, Georgia Democrat, who led a filibuster for six days to block one of the anti-lynching bills in 1935.
“We started with that in mind, but we did not get a single sponsor to change the name of the office building,” Mrs. Williams said. “This apology is a rebuke of Sen. Russell, but we will not stop.”

Without pointing out the irony, I’d like to say that removing people’s names who did bad things isn’t what we should do as a country. It is perfectly legitimate for people to see the name, do the research and find out who that person was and what he did as a reminder. History is a lesson. We need to pay attention not forget it.

For all the talk I see about weening blacks off the government I must find pause. The biggest benefits of government aid on all levels does not happen in the black community. If you want to say that government aid is bad say that don’t say black need to stop getting on government aid. Through tax credits, special assessment and impact fees – other races are benefitting tremendously from “government aid.” Are you disavowing that as well? Are you actually saying lets end all aid to all people and let a true system of economic independence take over because the first ones to lose in that system would be those that are currently benefiting the most from government aid right now. Or maybe you are saying that everyone that benefitted from aid should give the money back – Perhaps Scripps could give Florida back the $300 million in “government aid” they took to move the company to Florida…somehow I don’t think this is your argument. Your argument seems to be that aid should only be given to those who deserve aid and also that blacks have taken advantage of an aid system to their detriment and now should remove themselves from the aid. Then I would ask why was so much effort spent on giving blacks fish rather than teaching them how to fish? While government was developing welfare programs and giving small stipends to blacks for family misplanning – they were not edcuating or informing blacks of the trends in the bond markets or the use of public finance for redevelopment. That wasn’t the governments job you say – I say it became the governments job when it allowed blacks to be denied the ability to be educated in classrooms with other races that were learning this information.

Feeding at the trough indeed. Let’s close the trough down if we want it closed but don’t allow discretion in choosing who shall have the right to eat.

#31 ACtus wrote, “I don’t think the government addressing crime is properly called “feeding at the trough.””

Lack of Reading Comprehension again ….

I see where you get your UNTRUE accusations…

la shawn:

i think rosie o’donnell should apologize for her entire body of work…

check out the June 14 post on my blog – re: Rosie O’Donnell. it’ll make you laugh – or cry.

ironically, for lefties, everything comes down to selfishness and power. their lip-service to tolerance and understaning is all just a front.

-nikita demosthenes

You’ll likely see all 100 senators sign this apology Darkstar. It’ll end up being meaningless. 75 have signed so far and it will hang on the wall for longer to give the other senators not present the opportunity to sign it.

La Shawn’s point remains and it is valid. All this smoke and mirrors from the same Senate who has Roberty Byrd (Democrat) still. His name will probably be on the apology.

#36 – Now that’s the gospel. Thanks for the reply.

I notice how you avoided the the point of my argument by focusing on your definition of government aid. I never said that I believe in getting a check for not doing anything. I did say that government aid should be equal if given or not given at all. I have read some of your other posts and I will be responding to more of them when I have time. I hope that you also visit my blog so that you could begin to understand this is not about me advocating for welfare (notice you keep singling out blacks but ignoring that more than black were the recipients of welfare checks) but more me advocating for equal treatment under the law. An apology would never had been necessary if lynchers were treated equally under the law as murderers…but much in the same way you are advocating a “pick and choose” method of government aid to recognize as ok, courts did the same thing. Like – for instance – the young man that was kidnapped and beaten, permanantly injured and rendered uncapable of caring for himself just last month in Shreveport LA. His attackers who admitted doing the crime were only given 30 days in jail. Explain how your help ourselves argument would have helped him 1) not get beaten up and 2) make the laws of our country apply equally to his attackers? Should we all come together and lobby Congress to make this happen? Or should we keep eeking out our lives ignoring the fact that God created all men to be equal and that a wrong is a wrong. Liberal wrong is wrong and Conservative wrong is wrong. You don’t like “government aid” fine – don’t like it, but don’t just not like it when it helps those you don’t approve of.

Actus, your comprehension is terrible. The voice vote was not the entire senate. It was a vote to move the measure from point a to b status and there was debate on the wording that it contained. But you’ll probably see all 100 senators sign it.

On comment 36 – as a black male I must have missed my class on abrogation of male responsibility in fatherhood? All my friends and former teamates that have kids either have custody of the children or are married to their mothers so they must have missed it too. We all go to church most of us sing in a male choir and have, for the most part, been pretty successful in giving back to our community. Perhaps you could provide me some direction on where this male focused discussion is? Perhaps it is juxtaposed within all those commercials for feminine hygeine products and sex drugs on television (read – legallized dope dealing) that I refuse to watch or perhaps in the thirteenth article I had to read about how black men are on the down low, cheating no good scoundrels, not god fearing and uneducated good for nothings that I completely ignored cause it wasn’t talking to me. It would be interesting to see though if you could give me direction. Either that or admit that you too are believing the hype by labeling a “generation” of black males based on the few 50 cents and Tupacs you have seen paraded across the tv screen. Make you a deal – you stop thinking Thug Gangsta everytime you see me, I will stop thinking crazy paranoid shallow person everytime I see someone clutch their purse as I walk by on my way to law school.

Montie,

For the record, JB. Welfare is crippling to the recipient – whether a corporation, farmers, the chronically unemployed, or the retired. It removes the core self reliance and self disciplines that are necessary to move forward. Disaster relief would be a temporary fix, but if it extends over a long time, it is still destructive.
Welfare is reaching into someone else’s pocket to take their money and give it to someone else. That BTW (forestalling an analogy) is NOT what Robin Hood did. He stole from the government to RETURN the money to the poor.

Women have more babies out of wedlock because they’re immoral

Accepted.

and no study will ever come to such a conclusion because the researcher would be branded a racist and/or sexist.

Actually, no because then the study would be based on faith.

You see the same thing I see every day and know people who live like that.

I see people who are or have been on welfare, but none “got pregnant to get on welfare.” And when there are broad based studies of the situation that points to different things, then the claim of “getting welfare for money” doesn’t add up and should be erased from the discussion.

On meaningless things, just about every week, the congress does meaningless proclamations of some sort, but not one thing is said. But in this case, people have a fit.

And if they read the apology, they would see it was an apology for the inactions of the senate not the U.S.

Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: both look at the Black community and see the worst in it as THE DEFINITION of the Black community. And I refuse to accept that definition.

Apologies are worthless…give me reperations…

It still didn’t give any numbers

“But you’ll probably see all 100 senators sign it.”

Hopefully.

Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: both look at the Black community and see the worst in it as THE DEFINITION of the Black community. And I refuse to accept that definition.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 3:37 pm

I see Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Janice brown, Condeleeza Rice, James Sowell, Star Parker, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and our own La Shawn as the definition of the Black Community.
I see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc as the worst
of the black community. When I think of welfare recipients, I don’t think of black or white, but the liberals sure seem to want to keep blacks dependent on the government.

Dell.

Dictionary.com said this about reperations – No entry found for reperations.

Here’s nothing !

“Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: both look at the Black community and see the worst in it as THE DEFINITION of the Black community.”

DS, there’s nothing like a massive, sweeping, and frankly untrue, generalization. I don’t view the “Black Community” as a monolith, because that would be incredibly silly. Btw, where is that “Black Community?” I can’t find it on a map anywhere.

Dell, I was wondering how soon reparations would surface. I need some myself. Where do I apply?

Um… is it just me, or is the following quotation really unnecessary and rather completely out of line?

“The reasons conservatives suck is because they are myopic and arrogant, and talk alot of trash but have no real solutions other than to say ‘you dumb negro’s are immoral’.”

I seem to recall Janis Joplin singing a little ditty about that very thing…….

Pat’s Rick:

It would probably be better if you saw some black people in your own community who are decent hardworking principled folks than some bold faced names.

If we all started viewing our neighbors the way we view some bold faces who seem to be an example of “the good black people”, we’d all be better off.

Did your program account for the fact that money was removed from someone who worked hard to obtain it and was less likely to want to keep working hard and get punished for it? versus someone just luckily obtaining money with little effort and therefore not realizing work ethic?

Not making any race statement here, I’m simply referring to human nature. If I give my daughters money for nothing they will not spend money as wisely as if they work and earn it. And that’s not saying anyone is working or not now. It’s simply referring to the effect of someone receiving FREE money.

The effect of such a program also needs the accounting of administrative costs. Welfare has 72% administrative costs. Education has approximately 50% administrative costs (depending on what you classify is classroom costs or not).

To pull money from the private sector, have administrative costs and give to another segment of the private sector probably won’t live up to your computer models ONE BIT. Just my educated guess.

Bak, there you go again, being sensible.

So after the apology, then what concrete solutions?

Thanks for that list, Dell. It lays out your vision very well. But one unanswered question is how that ambitious agenda will be funded. Since there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there remains the uncomfortable truth that government cannot create a single penny of wealth, which productive part of society will we be extorting to pay for it all?

I have to take exception to what you said regarding taking the worst of the black community to be the definition of the black community.

To all of those who object to what I wrote, then answer me this: why is it that both liberal public commentators and conservative public commentators, present the Black community as helpless and in dispair?

Liberals present the Black community as being mostly poor because of social conditions. Conservatives present the Black community as being mostly poor because of internal conditions. How many of either camp proclaim the strengths and accomplishments of the Black community on a regular basis?

“Since there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there remains the uncomfortable truth that government cannot create a single penny of wealth, which productive part of society will we be extorting to pay for it all? – Redbeard”

Taxes are not extortion but the necessary evil of government. Good economist on both sides of the coin argue the how muches of taxes are appropriate. I am not advising any additional taxes, and 85% of the time am for a reduction in taxation. I am advising the reallocation of current taxes towards more effective means to 1) improve the urban communities which are predisposed to poverty, which is closely correlated to crime and 2) Improving the overall American economy.

You are correct when you say that the government can not create money, but it umpires the rules of the game in a free market system. So I am simply saying create rules that envigorate the economy through the creation of strategies that encourage investment in inner cities, that empower urban individuals to create a self-determined environments and reduce the need for personal welfare (lets not touch farm subsidies and corporate welfare).

If the school is going to spend $558 Million (that is our school districts budget) doesn’t it make sense to spend it in a way that is most effective and efficient and provides for the most prosperous long term scenarios?

DG: “Redevelopment of urban infastructure through the redistribution of current social service dollars”

DG: “I am advising the reallocation of current taxes towards more effective means…”

I advise getting rid of all social services funded by Fed tax dollars. That’s but one point where we diverge.

DG, you should check out CA Senator Tom McClintock’s modest proposal to save his schools.

You want to talk about sweeeeet? His proposal would rescue kids from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Along with other initiatives, he would end up with a net savings. The only problem standing in his way are the unions, race pimps and the MSM/DNC. Check it out, you might get some ideas for your grand plan.

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=292

Darkstar,
You said, “Why is it that conservative commentators don’t really acknowledge such groups unless it is lead by “one of their own”?”

Led, led, led. I know there is a metallic element (symbol Pb, as I recall) spelled lead (as in pencil lead), but the past tense of “to lead” is “led.” Sorry to be such a pencil-necked geek, but I have seen that too many times to let a smart guy like you get away with it.

LaShawn, thanks for a detailed and passionate summation of this stupid bill. Unless they can raise people from the dead, stop wasting my tax dollars emoting useless legislation. The whole thing is nonsensical and so I knew it would pass. Did Sheets Byrd vote for it?

DS,
Good point. More than once I’ve seen a congresscritter admit that he/she hadn’t read the text of a bill or resolution. Often, their staffs read and analyze them, then hand off a summary and recomendation. Now, keep in mind the nepotism and cronyism that provides the staffing pools in Washington…
But this stupid little resolution makes for good press, and the media would crucify any dissenter, and so would their opponent in the next election.
Democrat opposes or abstains, and the ads would shout “What are XXXX’s moral credentials, they’ve betrayed the black constituency?!?” and the republican who opposed or abstained would be hit with, to paraphrase O-Dub “RACIST!”.
Man, there are days where I wish politicians were a game species, even if the season was only one weekend a year…

We seem to have wandered off-topic into an area where economics starts to apply. Mind if I butt in?

There are really two arguments going on when we talk about welfare programs: (1) Does it work? (2) Even if it does work, should we do it at all?

Just dealing with the first question, if you look at any statistical measure, the start of the Great Society programs coincided with the destruction of the family in the US. Blacks, as the poorest and most vulnerable, suffered first and worst, but eventually even whites had seen an increase in welfare dependency and fatherless families. You may argue that this is coincidence, but there is a sound economic argument for causation.

If I offered $X,XXX per month to have a child out of wedlock, most readers would refuse and rightly feel insulted. You all have better options and a longer time frame (hopefully eternal) with which you set values to your choices. There are others, though, to whom this offer would not look too unattractive. These are people whose other choices are only a little better or a little worse. Perhaps the stigma is less in their social context; maybe their education and employment prospects are not all that good; maybe the men in their lives are poor husband material. This kind of offer only affects behavior at the margin where the choices are close to equal in value, as those choices are valued by the individual.

Over time, though, the margin tends to move. The stigma becomes a little less for many others; education tends to deteriorate for others; men behave a little worse, knowing that the state, not they, will pay for their mistakes, and more women are willing to accept those terms.

If you want to argue the morality of welfare systems, you must look beyond the intentions to the unintended secondary effects. Good intentions are no excuse to persist in harmful behavior, whatever your original motive. This system was clearly broken and needed drastic reform, at the very least.

While it almost goes without saying that any item that passes through the US Senate on a voice vote only is worthless, this post and the majority of the comments show such an extreme degree of ignorance as to the issue, it is a wonder the degree of vitriol reaches so high. One struggles with where to begin, but let’s begin at the beginning:

- This is not an apology for failing to pass anti-lynching legislation 100 years ago (or 1905); rather it is an apology for failing to pass any of the seven anti-lynching bills that cleared the house in any of the decades of the previous century – right through the 1960s.

- Congratulations to those of you who correctly identified the Democratic party of the “solid South” (those Sons of Confederate Veterans who were on the losing side of the Second Revolutionary War), as you at least showed that you were able to recognize the word “Democrat” when it was repeated from the first half of last century through today. Unfortunately, you have not made the connection to the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson (whom you most likely only know as the stoic face on your yuppie, welfare checks (the $20 bill for those of you too slow to comprehend) or to the modern-day Republican Party. That’s right; the solidly Democratic South (identified as such after the demise of Reconstruction, the empowerment of the KKK and the removal of Federal troops from the South back in the 1880s). The South was solidly Democratic as that was the party that committed treason against this nation by starting the Civil War by attacking US troops at Fort Sumter. Their attempted creation of a breakaway republic was crushed by Lincoln and the Republican Party, but after the Republicans tired of Reconstruction expenditures (and perhaps sharing the Senate and House bathrooms with those recalcitrant Negroes), the Republicans withdrew the troops and the South returned to its pre-Civil War, Democratic Party roots (otherwise known as the party of white men). It was not until FDR started to let Black troops into the Army in large numbers (so he could get the manpower needed to fight a war on two fronts) that Black folks even considered voting Democratic. This, naturally, led the most racist of the Southern politicians – Strom, Helms, Lott, etc., out of the Democratic Party and into the South. The successive election of Truman and the later election of Kennedy, cemented the migration of Blacks to the Democratic Party and of racists to the Republican Party.

Make no mistake: did some Black people – in particular those whose family members were killed by mobs of thugs – seek a statement from the Senate?

Yes.

Did those same US, taxpaying citizens have any recourse at the local level; did they see any enforcement of laws against murder when their relatives were pulled from their homes and into the dark to be killed?

No.

Is it the responsibility of the Federal government to ensure that all of the citizens of this nation are treated as equal before the law?

Each one of us has to answer that question for ourselves; God help those of you who say “no”.

“Did you catch the way AP and others worded it: the anti-legislation filibusters were by ‘Southern conservatives’. The phrase ‘Southern Democrats’ never made it into any of the wire stories -I- was able to find. ”

Probably because it would cause people to associate with the current democratic party, which would be misleading. And would cause people to miss the fact that those racists left the democratic party because of their conservatism wasn’t in tune with its progressivism.

Where did they go, when they left the democratic party?

“…the negative consequences of individual freedom in a democracy and free market system…”

Dell, right there is the basic reason that we will never agree. Freedom is not a negative factor. Lack of freedom causes negative consequences.

Right-on LaShawn! Unfortunately, there is a political industry that exists to complain that “African Americans” are descriminated against, and that industry has to hold blacks down as victims, keeping them oppressed and feeling bad about themselves, in order to hold their power. Thanks Rev.s Jesse & Al. Dr. King’s vision of people being judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is upheld by the Republican party. Notice the MSM and Democrats do not give any credit to the administration for Condi Rice. The administration doesn’t taut her as a “black woman” they put in a high position of power, but they could… Why don’t they? They just see her as the best, most qualified person for the job. Get it? W judges the content of her character (and her qualifications) and isn’t trying to create “a cabinet that looks like America”.

Also… I’m reminded of what Arthur Ashe said when he was asked about Prop 48 (which set a minimum score for college athletes to participate in their sports as freshmen). The question was intended to provoke him to declare that it unfairly targets black athletes. Ashe said: “I don’t think it’s right. The minimum score is too low. It should be higher.” Arthur Ashe knew that you don’t lift people up by lowering expectations.

Love ya LaShawn!!!

Outstanding!

Things not earned are not cherished.

“Entitlements” as used by bureaucrats and social experimenters is a cruel misnomer. Even in the private sector, and on a small scale, it gets ridiculous. I was in line at a fast food restaurant recently. The rather unpleasant old man ahead of me made quite a show of demanding his “entitlement” of a cheap cup of coffee: “I want the SENIOR coffee at the SENIOR coffee discount. Last time I did not get my SENIOR discount.” I very much wanted to ask him why he thought he was “entitled” to have coffee subsidized by me and by all the other full-fare customers, but I bit my tongue.

LaShawn;
Is there any symbolic redemption in issuing apologies for past wrongs? I’m thinking in terms of Nehemiah 9:2 where the Israelites apologized to God for the sins of their fathers.

I see an apology as a first step if it is followed by just behaviors and decisions afterwards. As a first step, it may not be necessary, but it could conceivably pave the road for the future. Correct me if I err (I’m sure you will:)

Again, how many people actually READ the apology?

Man…

It’s an apology because the senate, not the U.S., but the senate, never passed any anti-lynching legislation.

The ignorance of the basic resolution, NOT BILL, is amazing.

“Indeed. That must be why nobody cherishes their children. Or their lives.” You’ve lost me with that one, Worm. What do you mean?

As for the coffee, the shop needs to make a certain percentage net profit at the end of the day in order to remain solvent and satisfy the stockholders. Now, if that cheap cup of coffee pulls in more old folks and creates more business, that may, or may not, justify the discount, although the discounted senior meals are also suspect. The discount may only work for the restaurant if they use the old folks’ business for low-profit volume, and make up the profit difference on the backs of the other customers. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Interesting economics descussion, but not my real point, however it turns out.

My main point is the idea that some people feel “entitled” to a discount. If the restaurant decides to give a discount, that’s their business. But for anyone to feel as though the restaurant owes it to them is an idea without merit, a point lost on the “entitlement” grouch I mentioned earlier. Can you see where I’m going with this analogy?

Personally Andy, I am waiting for the letter from my first grade teacher who used that red marker to grade my papers and made me feel bad It traumatized me for years (I still have nightmares about it and sometimes can not cope at work)

I deserve an apology!

Renee, yeah but if she did apologize, at least it would be for what she did and not for what the school did.

You know, like that saying goes “~Because you don’t speak for me”

Bravo! Excellent commentary.

DS, the Senate IS the United States.

No, it’s one of two legislative branches of government.

I think most people “get” that a Senate resolution is not a law.

But people, at least the commentators here, don’t seem to get that they are apologizing for the inactions of the senate, and no one else.

Don’t raise your blood pressure over this nonsense, please.

IMO, the nonsense is the reaction, over all, not just here.

I could only imagine if I put myself in place of a woman fifty years ago in rural Alabama who found her husband, the father of her children swinging from a tree because he refused to take any crap from the good ole boys.

We can go on and on about the serious problems in our communities.

Yet, having read some of the responses to the Senates actions, would some of the individuals dare repeat their thoughts to the face of this woman or any familiy member who suffered directly because a strong black man stood up for his family and his innate sense of justice and fairness?

Fifity years ain’t all that long and for those who had to witness this horror remember it as if it were yesterday.

Besides, we all know that states rights didn’t mean one earthly thing when the local sheriff happily participated in the very lynching.

The Senate does have serious business to take care of. Yet, this gesture brought a sense of peace to the families and loved ones who were plucked from many a tree as Strange Fruit.

I guess in about 5 – 10 years SCOTUS will be apologizing for Roe v Wade.

Alright, DS. You “win.”

It ain’t about winning.

Fifity years ain’t all that long and for those who had to witness this horror remember it as if it were yesterday.

I worked with a woman, in her 20s, who grew up in Mississippi. Lynching hit home for her because of a lynching that happened to someone in her family during the 50s.

The apology was just about the least useful thing that body has ever done.

I disagree. I think the proclaimations declaring such and such day the official such and such thing as being least useful. But no complaints there, right?

We know what it’s really about. 1) a back door for reparations, 2) they omitted the key historical fact that the Senate/US tried time and time again to stop lynchings but were thwarted by a few bad apples who filibustered each and every attempt.

Then why don’t people have a beef with Sen. George Allen, conservative senator representating the Commonwealth of Virginia?

“Then why don’t people have a beef with Sen. George Allen, conservative senator representating the Commonwealth of Virginia?”

Simple. George Allen did not filibuster an anti-lynching law. If that man were still alive, we would have an A1 Thick and Hearty Burger (whataburger reference) sized beef with him.

The last senator who was around when anti-lynching bills were filibustered was Thurmond. He’s dead. I don’t have a problem with people apologizing, except that when they didn’t personally do what they’re apologizing for, they’re making a cheap gesture to claim moral superiority over the people they’re apologizing for. If it cost the senators something to pass this resolution, I’d have more respect for it.

Some things can’t be made right. History can’t be changed. We have to live in the world we’re born into, and make what we can of it.

p.s. – i think the above metro blog map only works in internet explorer. when i use mozilla firefox, the links don’t show up.

-nikita

Big Worm, ok so we make em but we earn their hearts & minds, which is what I think was redbeard’s point. Remember the old Houseman line about earning respect? Happy?

In my business I don’t discount anything for any specific demographic, because it won’t help the bottom line. I’m not about to give up any hard-earned margins on any product in this highly competitive business without a direct financial benefit. Discounts must be earned (back to that word again) by causing a net benefit to the bottom line through increased business on higher margin items. I suspect this is not the case with the “senior” discounts at the fast food restaurant, and I then suspect a PC public relations motive prompted by the demands of the “gimme gimme” entitlement crowd over at the AARP. Call me a cynic.

Maybe my business is run more according to “Street Econ 101″ instead of “University Econ 101.”

Helms is not a member of the Senate. If you want to go back to include all past members who didn’t vote the right way, it will be quite a list, but still meaningless in 2005.

Actually Chris and Senorita La Shawn, I think the Senate generally wastes time ALL of the time. I freely admit that this was a Red Herring document, but hey frankly that is the business of politics, government etal. Those Senators that did not sign did so for political reasons, and are rightfully being called out for it.(Not rightfully in the sense of right and wrong, but in the sense of it is right for their opponents to ding them on it.) For some it will cost them votes and for some it will gain them votes, and they all knew it when they did not sign. La Shawn you too to a smaller extent are now part of the same game, as are my parasitical reponses on your site. So, La Shawn it may seem like a waste of time to you, but to me it is business as usual, and all 100 of them wouldn’t have it any other way, and frankly niether would you and your ad revenue every time you get a link on the Daou Report. Thanks for the discourse. I wish I understood spanish.

http://www.dictionary.com has a translator.

And I’m eating turkey and bread (pavo y pan) for lunch.

Did anyone see the interview day before yesterday of Homegirl, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice with Chris Matthews of “HardBall”?

I found out about the interview on the Booker Rising blog.

Anyway, the interview was very good and quite interesting.

Then, Matthews asked Homegirl for her opinion on the Senate apology and Anti-lynching resolution.

Homegirl smiled and said, “Better late than never.”

Apparently, Homegirl’s grandfather ran away from home and the age of thirteen because of an altercation with a white man concerning his sister.

What would have happend had Secretary Rice’s grandfater decided to hang around?

I know someone saw that interview. I know someone heard her response.

By the way she’s black, conservative and she’s a Republican.