It's adding my opinion, to which I'm entitled. And, no, I don't intend to invest my time running around the internet, identifying money sources and staff bios for "studies" that reek of bias on their face. I know a little too much about how self-interested "studies" are used as a tool to further agendas and spin the public. And it's being done by BOTH sides.

But stating 'I don't put a lot of credit into studies because I have seen a lot of biased ones' is adding nothing. Either present facts why the study being cited isn't up to scratch for you or don't. Simply stating 'I don't trust studies' adds nothing to the conversation. It is ignoring the facts that there are many objective, solid and realistic studies out there. It is lumping all studies in the same basket - they aren't.

Those aren't the ones I have a problem with.

If you don't think that studies factor in socio-economic conditions or that YOU ALONE have spotted some flaws in these studies that the writers would never have thought of considering (silly academics!) then you need to read the studies in more detail and read the methodology to see that these things are indeed considered. You, or other far right analysts, aren't spotting anything that hasn't been considered. You are just using your own bias to convince yourself that there must be flaws in the studies or they must be wrong.

And if any media or news source states 'all these studies are biased, ours is the real one' then guess what? I'm betting 100% that theirs is not the real one and I'll go with the 99% of studies that disprove their point.

"And here comes the class warfare, right on schedule. Boring, michty. Repeat: I don't share your fear and loathing of successful American business owners. Peddle that stuff elsewhere."

Until the day comes where the far right stop attacking the poor and defenceless I will continue to the bitter end to point out your hypocrisy: that is that it's only 'class warfare' to you when the poor and defenceless fight back. I will 'peddle' it after every post where you call the poor 'slackers' and defend giving massive hand-outs to the wealthy in society. You can repeat 'class warfare' all or you like or actually present facts, logic or reasoning in response. It won't affect me.

Gosh, another opinion stated in the form of fact, backed by a cooked, misleading "statistic" — void of socio-economic conditions, gang participation, drug sales/usage, etc. — that does nothing to prove your opinon. What, pray tell, were the chances.

Haha I mean I assume you weren't being sarcastic and joking but you actually illustrated the exact point I was making.

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that everyone is supposed to fall for such tactics, just like you do. "Studies" that are funded, conducted and conveniently summarized by self-interested parties not only have zero credibility on their face but its a tactic as old as the hills. And not even just a political tactic but one that's been used in the advertising industry forever. I can't even begin to tell you how many times a client has ordered up a "study," rigged to be used as "proof" of superiority against the competitor. But because you're suckered into the "study" tactic, quite naturally everyone else is supposed to buy into it, too. Fascinating.

a super-rich man running for President, backed by his super-rich friends

And here comes the class warfare, right on schedule. Boring, michty. Repeat: I don't share your fear and loathing of successful American business owners. Peddle that stuff elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBFHxVvK91M

Did you not read David or LD's posts? I'll let David explain since he put it very nicely already, from David:
Caucasian don't have to fight for rights because they enjoy them. They're not being imprisoned disproportionately - a black person and a white person arrested for the same crime are not treated as equals under the law. Another example. White men tend to make more for the exact same jobs as white women or other minorities. Why is that?

Chris:
"Oh, yeah, "studies" funded, conducted and summarized by self-interested parties: another favorite tactic of the Left's."

Haha I mean I assume you weren't being sarcastic and joking but you actually illustrated the exact point I was making.

The funny thing is the self-interest is right there, right in front of your face, you just need to open your eyes: a super-rich man running for President, backed by his super-rich friends, backed by super-rich Corporations, whose main policy is permanent tax cuts and economic benefits for the super-rich. You will find the most obscure tedious self-interest but ignore the one staring you in the face.

Oh, yeah, "studies" funded, conducted and summarized by self-interested parties: another favorite tactic of the Left's.

That door swings both ways. One could say Blacks are racists for calling themselves "African-Americans," instead of "Americans," and forming such self-segregated groups as the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm trying to imagine the uproar if a Congressional White Caucus were to exist, or a White Firefighters Association. I don't think Blacks realize how far they go in segregating themselves. And I'd love to know when they plan to stop, if ever.

I don't. And I agree with your opinion of
Michale. I like him too. But I've a different perspective on racism.

I've no idea what people think racism is that inspires so many racists to honestly believe they are not racist. I knew racist southern (and northern) whites in the fifties and sixties and they were just people. I liked a lot of them. And many of them liked a lot of Black folk. Every one of them thought they were being reasonable and rational, not racist. There were obviously dangerously radical racists and just plain evil racists. But, like I said, racists were just people and we come in all varieties.

As I once told Chris, what made the difference in the Civil Rights Movement was the advent of television and live news coverage. Because of it many racists saw discrimination first hand, really saw it, for the first time, and learned that many of the things that they knew, that their parents knew, that everyone they knew "knew," were wrong. And so they changed their attitudes.

Racists aren't some form of monster. Acting on prejudices is a very human thing to do. In many cases its a very smart thing to do. (You needn't try your hand in every fire you encounter to see if they're still dangerous.) But only if your prejudices are well founded. Not popular. Not common-knowledge. But well-founded. Based upon fact and legitimately applicable.

As I said, racists are people with race-based prejudices who act on those prejudices instead of being objective. They may be essentially good people. they may be well-meaning people. But they are exceedingly dangerous people nonetheless. They are capable of doing tremendous harm.

Another thing that was made painfully obvious for me is that "politics" is not some sterile harmless mental exercise. Politics radically effects the lives of everyone, myself and every minority in particular, because America has a penchant for what Madison dubbed "the tyranny of the majority." Its why people are always so willing to legislate the "rights" of other people as long as they believe it won't really affect them. But become oh so concerned and wary of "slippery slopes" when it might actually affect them too.

Michale certainly is not a bad person. But his attitudes are typical of southern racists of the fifties and early sixties. As Stokely Carmichael famously said during The Movement, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Because, with regard to racism, if you're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution.

Michale, as are many Americans, Democratic and Republican, is part of the problem.

(1) Pure rhetoric (in this case 'affirmative action' comments).
(2) Picking minor or ambiguous faults in the facts or data presented that don't make any different to the outcome.(the statistics, facts and studies are all wrong because apparently no-one writing them considered any other variables - silly academics!)
(3) Claiming 'liberal media bias' when (1) and (2) fail.

We haven't yet reached (3). This will probably come when you cite some more studies and information to disprove their point.

Well, that's why statistics can be so misleading; they lump everything together instead of looking at job performance on a case-by-case basis. Like I said, there's no such thing as "the same job" aside from the job specs. Performance is a whole other story, entirely.

Yes, individuals can be better on one side or the other. But you should also see individual women who are better performers than individual men.

Sure, there are plenty of them. And plenty of them are making oodles more money than men. "Statistics" don't show that, though, do they?

There are tons of factors that decide the ultimate value of a worker, and a lot of it is dependent upon the industry. "Image" is very important in some industries. Personal grooming can mean the difference between one person advancing and the other standing still. I remember taking a pass on hiring a particular woman, years ago, because she interviewed with chipped nail polish and scuffed shoes, twice in a row. She was up against a man who was equally qualified but immaculately dressed and groomed. So the job went to him, because he had that extra little edge. Another time, a promotion came down to a man and a woman, and I promoted the man because he got along with the client a whole lot better than the woman. And it was an important client.

It seems much more likely that the people in power, mostly white men, seem to favor other people who are similar to them, white men. This is known as discrimination.

That's nonsense. If that were true, I would've had all women working for me throughout the years. And I would've hired the woman with the chipped nail polish and scuffed shoes because she was a woman. Except the immaculately groomed black man got the job instead. And he turned out not only being the right person for the job but went on to become one of my favorite humans and a dear friend.

I personally suspect that child care has a lot to do with women not advancing as smoothly or quickly as men in the workplace. I also know a number of women who don't shoot for higher, more demanding positions specifically because they don't want to sacrifice quality time at home. That's another thing that doesn't come shining through in "statistics."

The problem here and in this country is that, if you don't agree with everything a minority says or don't give a minority everything they ask for, you are a racist...

This is Obama's legacy....

As I said, I am done..

Michale.....

Statistically, there is a gap in pay between what men make and what women make for the same job.

Yes, individuals can be better on one side or the other. But you should also see individual women who are better performers than individual men.

If this were the case, statistically you would see equal pay for the same job.

You don't.

Unless you're arguing that men are higher performers than women all the time. This I don't believe.

It seems much more likely that the people in power, mostly white men, seem to favor other people who are similar to them, white men. This is known as discrimination.

-David

There's no such thing as "the same exact job." They may have the same exact job specs, but every individual puts out their own work product. Personalities may make the difference in performance. Men may be more naturally aggressive, by nature, and achieve better results. Men may devote less time to child care, thus more time to the job at hand, or may be viewed as more reliable. There are a thousand different reasons men can more successful in the workplace. Success is measured by the boss's assessment, not the worker's body parts.

Crap. Err ... equality. That's me, defender of inequality!!! There's a few other glaring grammar errors in the post but as this is going on 14 hours of work, please forgive and hope the ideas at least come through.

It does. But the minorities I illustrated are simply ones who are not treated as equals by the government or by our society.

Caucasian don't have to fight for rights because they enjoy them. They're not being imprisoned disproportionately - a black person and a white person arrested for the same crime are not treated as equals under the law. Another example. White men tend to make more for the exact same jobs as white women or other minorities. Why is that?

Why is there a difference?

This is the type of inequality I fight for. If caucasians were somehow being treated unequally under similar conditions I'd fight for them too. But they aren't.

Could you be an more disingenuous. Any more racist?!

LewDan - Though I agree with almost every argument you've made in this, I'd hope that you'd not call people racist based on some posts on the Internet.

Is Michale provacative? Yeah. Does he try to push people's buttons? Yeah. But he seems to do it pretty equally and irregardless of race. In fact, he's self-admitted that sometimes he has a tendency to go to far a be a bit of an ass (my words, not his, he probably said something different).

Nonetheless, I've grown to like him even though I disagree with almost everything he says and sometimes his political arguments are ... let's just say ... not my favorite.

But then he'll say something funny and I'll remember that he seems like a pretty good guy. Someone who I'd enjoy hanging out w/ until our political comments got too heated and I'd have probably have to leave before starting a fight I'd lose because he's quite likely a better fighter than me.

Anyways, at least personally, give him the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to accuse someone personally of being a racist just from what they say on a post.

Can arguments be racist or discriminatory? Sure. But most likely Michale is just trying to say them to stir the pot. This is what conservatives do. They try to throw you off any positive message and get you so angry that you're not taken positive steps.

Me ... every time I feel myself getting too flustered by Michale, I step back and go do something positive. Like make a donation to someone I support. Or post a letter to my newspaper. Or write my Congressman.

If enough people do this, the self-perceived pundits of the world won't matter. And that is the real trick.

Just my two cents ... and btw, what I remember from this post is your excellent comment about racism. Which is likely why Michale is trying to knock you off your game.

-David

Michale,

I did my best. I don't know how I could be any clearer. I'm accusing you of being a racist because your actions are racist. I thought I was quite specific. I quoted examples. I offered my reasoning.

You, of course, continue to lie. I specifically said every race has a right to be proud. I never addressed "political" beliefs. I took exception to what you professed as your "personal" beliefs.

I was very clear that you are a racist, not because you disagree with me, but because your actions and beliefs are racist. And I explained what actions and why they are racist. None of which had any impact on you because racists are motivated by prejudice not facts, and certainly not by logic. You, of course, offer nothing factual, nothing objective, and no reasoning, at all. Just you're righteous indignation and arrogant superiority.

But I'd hate to interfere with your need to be a victim in order to rationalize your prejudices. Besides, personally, I think nothing helps to fight racism better than letting racists be heard.

Ahhhh... So it's OK for black to show pride in their race...

That's strange.. because when caucasians show pride in their race, black people scream.. RACISM!!!!

because you are a racist.

And now we get right to it...

Ya know, that's the problem with Obama's presidency...

It makes the charge of "racism" obtuse, nonchalant and utterly meaningless

Prior to Obama's presidency, being accused of racism was an abhorrent thing. It actually MEANT something to be accused of being a racist..

Nowadays, it's almost a badge of honor....

He's a racist. She's a racist.. They are all racists... Hell, you even accuse CW of being a racist... back up in {97}...

Because of Obama and people like you, being accused of racism is not any big deal...

Why?? Because NOW, one is accused of being a racist, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF POLITICAL DISAGREEMENTS!!!

Obama and people like you have set the status of race relations back 100 years....

Congrats... Enjoy your world where everyone who disagrees with you is a racist... You've earned it...

I'm done...

Other 36%

Circular reasoning.

Are those crimes arrests or convictions? What's the impact of prosecutorial discretion in prosecutions and convictions? Of the discretion of LEOs in arrests? Of the ratio of LEOs in communities with high minority populations versus non-minority communities? What's the impact of juries composed of people with biases like yours? Of legislators with biases like yours creating crimes, and criminals, through legislation?

You quote statistics out of context that are the result of "institutional racism" as proof that there is no racism. Could you be an more disingenuous. Any more racist?!

Hence, NBC mentioned race..."

No I am not. I said NBC never said she was Black that's what prompted CWs comment and my replies. I've said, repeatedly, that her being African-American is relevant and I've stated why, repeatedly. I never said race wasn't mentioned, I said it was and should have been.

You consistently misrepresent the facts because you've a race-based prejudice that determines your position, not the facts of situation at hand, because you are a racist.

"Yes, and in contexts where a racial designation is a necessity, then bringing up race is logical...

So, explain to me why bringing up race in the context of a gymnast is necessary..."

Because African-Americans are proud of her being African-American and because, hopefully, she is likely equally proud of being African-American.

We have no problem with others being proud of their race. You, however, think African-Americans shouldn't be proud, or at least not seen or heard. We should be silent, invisible, unnoticeable. We should never mention our history, never complain about our treatment and never brag about our accomplishments. And we should behave that way, and you get to decide when "bringing up race in the context of a gymnast is necessary," because you've a raced-based prejudice that determines what you think is right rather than being fair-minded and reasonable, because you are a racist.

"Your absolutely right. Complaining about false instances of racism is not the equivalent of racism..

It's far FAR worse....."

And you declare claims of racism are false, not objectively because of the particulars of any particular claim, but because you've a raced-based prejudice that determines your opinions instead of being objective, because you are a racist.

"Will black people still be given advantages and benefits they don't deserve in the 22nd century??? The 23rd???

When does the statute of limitations over slavery run out??? When are the actions of people removed by centuries finally atoned for???"

You claim that even though you stacked the deck for two-hundred years, acquiring all the chips, simply declaring you won't do that anymore (while, of course, keeping all the chips) makes the game fair, because you are a racist.

You think its fine to execute murderers in the pursuit of justice even though its against the law to murder. You think ts fine to seize peoples money and property in the pursuit of justice even though its against the law to steal. You think its fine to arrest people in the pursuit of justice even though its against the law to kidnap and imprison. But affirmative-action in the pursuit of justice?! Now that's just wrong! Because its against the law to discriminate.

The fact that every punishment and remedial action undertaken by the law in the pursuit of justice is against the law in other contexts has nothing to do with your "reasoning". You think affirmative-action is unjust because you've a raced-based prejudice that has nothing to do with the law or logical consistency because you are a racist.

No one is asking for anyone to "atone" for the "actions of people removed by centuries." We're trying to deal with the actions of people, such as yourself, who act based upon race-based prejudices instead of facts. And there is no Statute of Limitations for any ongoing crime, including racism. But you, being motivated by race-based prejudices instead of reacting objectively, rationally, fairly, and situationally don't accept that because you are a racist.

So you do everything in your power to try to silence and discredit anyone with the temerity to call out racists and racism. Trying to falsely equate racism and opposing racism as equally undesirable. Arrogantly thinking that you get to decide how others must refer to themselves. When they may speak out, and how. When they may be recognized... And all because you've raced-based prejudices that you think should govern how people act rather than people determining how they should act for themselves or situations determining what's appropriate behavior, because you are a racist.

Oh, and did I mention that you are a racist?

Blacks 37.8%
Hispanic 19.4%
Caucasians 6.8%

Other 36%

sources:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

Look at what you are saying..

You are saying that, because a people were persecuted a couple centuries in the past, they are owed something in the here and now...

Do you know HOW many examples in history of a group of people being persecuted there are???

Suppose I were to find evidence that your great great great great great grandfather kicked the ass of my great great great great great grandfather in a bar fight...

Does that mean that YOU owe ME some form of restitution, payment or consideration???

Two hundred years from now, are the ancestors of James Holmes going to owe restitution to the ancestors of those who were gunned down in that Aurora theater??

Two hundred years from now, are the ancestors of Wade Page going to owe restitution to the ancestors of the Sikhs that were gunned down in that Wisconsin temple???

I mean, look at it logically...

If we are to suffer for the sins of our ancestors, our DISTANT ancestors, we're going to be paying and paying and paying until our dying days...

I asked before (twice) and no one seems to have the answer..

Will there be Affirmative Action 100 years from now??? 200 years from now??? FIVE HUNDRED years from now???

When are the sins of the past finally laid to rest? When is the debt paid???

Let's be honest and call affirmative action what it is...

It's racism in response to racism....

Michale.....

Have a look at the folks in Alex Pelosi's video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/17/real_time_interviews_shameless_welfare_recipients.html

What SHE said... :D

Michale.....

That's funny.. I thought equality should apply to ALL the races..

You have, inadvertently, made my point for me..

In the Left's exuberance to be uber-tolerant to other races, the caucasian race seems to have been ignored..

I think ALL races should be able to share in equality rather than ALL races but the caucasian race...

But I guess I am the minority in that thinking around here... :D

Michale.....

Have a look at the folks in Alex Pelosi's video: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/17/real_time_interviews_shameless_welfare_recipients.html

I don't think anyone is asking for benefits they don't deserve.

Bull.. Then explain affirmative action..

The fight, Michale, is for equality.

Again, bull... Institutionalized racism against anyone but white people is dead... PERIOD...

Cite me ONE confirmed instance of *institutionalized* racism in the last 4 years against any race but caucasian..

Just ONE and I'll concede the point...

Are we living in an "equal" society when white people commit more crimes,

Your cite for that???

yet black men represent the majority of people in our jails?

There is a reason for that...

That, my friend, is institutionalized racism.

It is not, because your facts are wrong. Show me the stat that says white people commit more crimes...

I haven't heard anyone arguing for any benefits they don't deserve.

Then explain Affirmative Action...

Michale.....

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/team-obama-says-they-dont-story-of-man-who-stars-of-131462.html

Team Obama got caught in another lie.....

Jeezus, I can't wait until we get rid of these clowns...

Michale.....

I don't think anyone is asking for benefits they don't deserve.

The fight, Michale, is for equality.

Whether for women, for gay people, for blacks, or for Hispanics.

Are we living in an "equal" society when white people commit more crimes, yet black men represent the majority of people in our jails?

That, my friend, is institutionalized racism. I haven't heard anyone arguing for any benefits they don't deserve.

-David

Now you are contradicting yourself..

In your vernacular, African American IS a race..

Hence, NBC mentioned race...

Referring to race in any and every context is not automatically "racism" it may simply be stating a fact. Granted its rather arbitrary, but we have nonetheless designated subsets of the human race which we refer to as "races".

Yes, and in contexts where a racial designation is a necessity, then bringing up race is logical...

So, explain to me why bringing up race in the context of a gymnast is necessary...

Your definition makes complaining about racism, in the "fair and balanced" manner so beloved of bigots, the false equivalent of those actually perpetrating racism. A rather convenient definition for racist bigots everywhere.

Your absolutely right. Complaining about false instances of racism is not the equivalent of racism..

It's far FAR worse.....

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm less than impressed by your passionate advocation of diversity and racial harmony everywhere, as you strive so diligent to enable and provide cover for racism and bigotry.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether you are impressed or not..

The simple fact is, by making race an issue in EVERY SINGLE aspect of society, the (by and large) black community has ensured that racism will continue...

You never answered my question.

Will black people still be given advantages and benefits they don't deserve in the 22nd century??? The 23rd???

When does the statute of limitations over slavery run out??? When are the actions of people removed by centuries finally atoned for???

When will we finally be free of racism IN ALL IT'S forms???

Michale.....

Then why is it even mentioned???

Michale,
It wasn't mentioned. NBC mentioned her being an African-American which as I pointed out does have a bearing on the significance of her achievement.

And your argument on "racism" is based on the racist spin promulgated by bigots to enable racism and thwart affirmative-action against racism with "reverse racism" nonsense.

Referring to race in any and every context is not automatically "racism" it may simply be stating a fact. Granted its rather arbitrary, but we have nonetheless designated subsets of the human race which we refer to as "races".

"Racism" is acting on unjustified biases based upon race-based prejudices instead of acting rationally based upon facts obtaining to the situation at hand.

Your definition makes complaining about racism, in the "fair and balanced" manner so beloved of bigots, the false equivalent of those actually perpetrating racism. A rather convenient definition for racist bigots everywhere.

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm less than impressed by your passionate advocation of diversity and racial harmony everywhere, as you strive so diligent to enable and provide cover for racism and bigotry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMkmxJ3P9Tw&feature=youtu.be

With ads like that, Obama is clearly showing the American people that he doesn't DESERVE a second term..

Michale.....

Most noticeably, "African-Americans" themselves. Why not just go with "Americans"?

Her being a Black person has no bearing on her achievement.

Then why is it even mentioned???

THAT's my point...

Everyone says that race doesn't matter, yet everyone goes out of their way to differentiate the races...

It's like the old joke, "How can I miss you if you never go away??"

How can we move past racism when everyone who claims to be non-racist go out of their way to point out and emphasis the races??

Michale.....

The people of their district or state, not the country.

I disagree.

While actual REAL cases of voter fraud through impersonation are completely non-existent and still wouldn't be prevented if the perpetrator simply goes to the effort to obtain a fake ID.

But yes, "other people feel differently." Their thinking is demonstrably illogical, irrational and incorrect—but it is different.

Being the first Black person in the world to do something done many times by non-blacks is a statistical anomaly, not a particular achievement. Unless you think there's some inherent reason the achievement is more difficult for Blacks than anyone else.

If you believe that of the subset of people in the world who are Black you are a racist. Her being a Black person has no bearing on her achievement.

If you believe that of the people in the USA who are Black you are correct. As the history of the USA amply illustrates black Americans have had to, and still have to, overcome a lot to obtain even a level playing field, much less excel over everyone else.

In order to vote you must register. Its the registrars responsibility to assure voters are eligible before the registration is accepted. In every state I've voted in voters receive an ID card. If States want Photo-IDs there's no reason not to issue them.

But what Republicans want is to impose additional burdens on, and only on, those who do not currently have photo-IDs. They have simply changed the rules just before the election and arbitrarily decided that additional identification must be presented. Identification that must be obtained at the voter's expense. Even in those cases where some form of "free" ID is available its still and additional expense because:

a.) either the the voter has already taken the time to register and received whatever ID the state chose to issue.

or

b.) they haven't registered yet and the state is demanding a 2-step redundant process where the voter must identify themselves to register and then identify themselves again to obtain photo-ID.

Burdens that are not borne equally on everyone but fall heaviest on those without photo-IDs, primarily non-drivers.

That's what makes Photo-IDs a Poll Tax, discriminatory and disenfranchising.

Even if the Republicans' motivations were honest, the means they've chosen is discriminatory. It does not place the same burden on everyone. It arbitrarily changes the rules after people have already met their legal obligations imposing additional burdens. And it requires people to pay for IDs regularly and unnecessarily imposing a poll tax. (Photo-IDs must expire regularly even though identities never change.)

In spite of the absurd argument that disenfranchising, even were it only a few, voters is worth it to possibly be able to prevent a crime which theoretically might happen on day, Photo-ID requirements are discriminatory and unnecessarily burdensome. (In addition to being unwarranted.) And that's without even considering the bureaucratic hurdles procedurally imposed to make obtaining Photo-IDs difficult for certain classes of people. No of whom are considered to be primarily Republican supporters.

Yes, it is.

In this day and age, not having a photo ID is tantamount to not existing...

All the old people sob stories ya'all are trading? How do they cash the Social Security Checks if they don't have ID??

You can cheery pick all the sob stories you like, but the simple fact is, actual REAL cases of disenfranchisement is a minute of a minute speck of a problem...

Photo ID is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem.

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it..

Other people feel differently..

Michale.....

You don't think it works the same in other countries?

You rule the Government through elections and other forms of accountability. Their job is to Govern for THE PEOPLE not for any one particular individual based on their orders or wishes.

So no, no individual American is boss of the President. And no individual American has the right to tell him what to do. That is the opposite of democracy. THE PEOPLE have that right.

"No.. Republicans who don't believe in elections w/o any integrity whatsoever...
We already have the solution to this problem.
Democrats can mount massive GET AN ID campaigns..
THEN no voters will be disenfranchised.."

This is the problem in discussing photo ID - you live in a complete bubble and think it is a really simple issue because in YOUR eyes the idea of not having photo ID is absurd. It isn't.

Photo ID is a stupid solution to a non-existent problem.

Let me rephrase that, as I don't know, nor do I CARE what Republicans believe..

*I* don't want an election that is devoid of integrity.

*I* want to make as sure as humanly possible that *I* am not going to be disenfranchised, that *MY* vote is not going to be negated by some lowlife who is voting illegally...

I have the right to expect that my country will uphold it's own laws..

I know, I know.. With Obama as President, actually upholding and enforcing our own laws has became trite and passe'...

Hopefully that will change after this election with a change in administrations...

Michale.....

No.. Republicans who don't believe in elections w/o any integrity whatsoever...

We already have the solution to this problem.

Democrats can mount massive GET AN ID campaigns..

THEN no voters will be disenfranchised..

We assure that only Americans can vote in the election and no voters will be disenfranchised unless they CHOOSE to be...

It's a win win for everyone. :D

Is this a great country or what!!!??? :D

Michale

State governments are pushing voter ID, Michale.

State governments controlled by Republicans.

Republicans who don't believe in government.

-David

It's hilarious..

When Republicans are in control, it's ALL the Republicans fault...

When Democrats are in control, it's STILL all the Republicans fault..

When Democrats have a virtual LOCK on all aspects of government, everything is STILL the Republicans fault...

This begs the question...

Are Democrats ever to blame for ANYTHING unrelated to not being able to stand up to Republicans????

Anything at all???

Anyone??? Anyone???? Beuhler???

Michale.....

Actually, yeah, he does. Here in America, our pols are our public servants. We, the People, rule the government, not the other way around.

It's apparent that you know nothing about our system of government.

Our elected officials are our employees. They do, indeed, work for us..

And, if we find their work subpar, we can fire them..

Which is exactly what is going to occur on 6 Nov 2012...

Funny, '2000 election' and 'disenfranchising' - there are two phrases that Republicans don't generally like to put together or talk about... ;)

Simply more evidence that I am not a Republican.. I am a registered NPA... No Political Affiliation...

:D

Michale.....

That alone shows the need for photo ID.."

Lololol amazing. Your standard of evidence is awesome 'MANY' reports show how easy it 'COULD' be lol. Guess what? I am not an American citizen so can't vote. I could go steal my friends photo ID (he looks like me) and go and vote. That easy. I COULD do it. OMG! Maybe we should have retina scans and finger printing to ensure there is no fraud??

"I live way out in the boonies.. I guess the government has got to buy me a car so I can go vote... :D"

Actually it is Government responsibility to have many voting stations as close as possible to people...

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is the more transparent candidate than Romney. Fact.

And *I'LL* say it again. That is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, based on a VERY narrow criteria..."

Nope. By any definition of 'transparency' this is a fact. By any precedent of 'Presidential candidate transparency', this is a fact. So yes Democrats have the right to demand tax returns from Romney; until Romney provides school records you do not have that right to demand them from one candidate alone.

Even if it WERE a fact, it would be irrelevant. *I* am Obama's boss. He works for ME...

And *I* want to see his school records.. I want to see if he told me the truth about how smart he is...
"

Lol no he does not work for you, nor does he owe you something that you alone wish to see from him. You are not his boss, he is your boss ;) I'd love to see the day where an American citizen can boss their President around though. Hey Obama - come over and wash my car! What do you mean 'no', you work for me!

"But we could always talk about Democrats disenfranchising Military votes in the 2000 election, if you like.. :D"

Funny, '2000 election' and 'disenfranchising' - there are two phrases that Republicans don't generally like to put together or talk about... ;)

Assumes facts not in evidence..

(Got it right THAT time, Joshua) :D

Many reports over the last few months have shown how easy it could be to vote with someone else's card..

That alone shows the need for photo ID..

The burden of getting photo IDs to voters should NOT fall on a political party or any other person. It is part of responsible Government to ensure that their citizens have the necessary tools to vote and aren't needlessly disenfranchised.

Really???

I live way out in the boonies.. I guess the government has got to buy me a car so I can go vote... :D

Maybe you would prefer if the government even voted FOR the people, eh?? :D

then I'd expect (like the only 5 countries that have photo ID for voting) you'd introduce free photo IDs to voters and conduct your own photo ID drives to ensure awareness and ability to vote.

I don't have a problem with that at all...

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is the more transparent candidate than Romney. Fact.

And *I'LL* say it again. That is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, based on a VERY narrow criteria...

Even if it WERE a fact, it would be irrelevant. *I* am Obama's boss. He works for ME...

And *I* want to see his school records.. I want to see if he told me the truth about how smart he is...

Also http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

That's old news. I already issued a mea culpa for that error..

But we could always talk about Democrats disenfranchising Military votes in the 2000 election, if you like.. :D

Michale.....

Absolutely agreed, michty. However, what we have w/ conservatives in power is irresponsible government.

They are, by definition, people who don't believe in government.

In this case, while I would still push to eliminate the ridiculous voter ID laws, it still makes sense to try to get as many people voter IDs as possible.

-David

There is NO fraudulent voting! Voter ID ALREADY takes away people's ability to vote fraudulently.

In order to prove fraud you must:
1. Cite recent cases of fraud
2. Show that voter ID is not sufficient to prevent fraud (point (1) and (2) usually go together)

Which will then probably lead to:
3. Present these findings to the 98% of democracies round the world that use voter ID, not photo ID, as they have all concluded that voter ID is a solid enough system to prevent fraud - but you, Michale, personally know better than them and they will all be amazed and instantly move to photo ID once you present your amazing findings...

To save me turning purple and dying I won't be holding my breath that you will be able to present any of these things...

Joshua/David/Michale
The burden of getting photo IDs to voters should NOT fall on a political party or any other person. It is part of responsible Government to ensure that their citizens have the necessary tools to vote and aren't needlessly disenfranchised.

IF you were to introduce photo ID and claim to be doing this for 'voter fraud', or whatever nonsensical/non-provable reasoning you fancy that day, then I'd expect (like the only 5 countries that have photo ID for voting) you'd introduce free photo IDs to voters and conduct your own photo ID drives to ensure awareness and ability to vote. You'd also do it in a timely fashion, not months before the biggest elections that only happen every 4 years. The Republicans proposing photo ID don't want to do any of these things, which tells you exactly why they are doing this... (clue for Michale: it has nothing to do with fraud).

Michale
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama is the more transparent candidate than Romney. Fact. IF Romney wants to pressure Obama to release school records by releasing his own then go ahead - THAT would be playing Democrats at their own game. The fact he hasn't done this tells you all you need to know about Romney and transparency.

Also http://factcheck.org/2012/08/obama-not-trying-to-curb-military-early-voting/

It has such profound symmetry... :D

Michale.....

Romney should step up and announce that he will release 10 years worth of Tax Returns when Obama releases all his school records and transcripts..

No Democrat will ever mention Romney's tax records again... :D

Michale....

In the meantime though, it's a ridiculous subterfuge. Republicans could give a rat's ass about "illegal voting". Except that it makes a great straw man to reduce the number of people who vote.

And Democrats could give a rat's ass about "voter disenfranchisement"...

It's remarkable how, more often then not, it goes both ways.. :D

Michale.....

@Nypoet- If ID laws go into effect, I'd be willing to place a bet that it will be Democrats pushing for people to get them. And you're right ... it would be a great idea.

In the meantime though, it's a ridiculous subterfuge. Republicans could give a rat's ass about "illegal voting". Except that it makes a great straw man to reduce the number of people who vote.

-David

Why don't you also make them do an IQ test?

Because intelligence is not required to vote..

We proved THAT when we elected Obama... :D

Just because YOU think getting an ID is easy and YOU want people to get them doesn't give YOU the right to take away an American citizens right to vote.

No one is taking away ANYONE's right to vote..

We are simply taking away anyone's "right" to FRAUDULENTLY vote...

I really don't have a problem with that an neither should anyone who doesn't have an ulterior agenda..

Joshua,

personally i think this is a disingenuous argument in support of a fraudulent law.

I respect that opinion.. It's wrong, but I still respect it.. :D

HOWEVER.... it also happens to be an excellent idea, both from a public relatios standpoint and a policy standpoint. if you are working to make sure every voter has an ID, it puts to lie the opponent's argument about illegal voters, and casts yourself as the party trying to protect people's voting rights against the other party who is trying to take them away.

Agreed.. If Democrats were to do this, then Republicans wouldn't have any legal or ethical leg to stand on.. In fact, Republicans would be stoopid not to MATCH the Democrats GET AN ID drive with one of their own..

But we won't see Democrats do this, because helping disenfranchised voters is NOT the goal of the Democrats agenda...

The goal of the Democrats agenda is to get as many illegal votes as is possible...

I would LOVE to see Democrats prove me wrong and mount a massive GET AN ID drive..

But they won't..

Michale.....

personally i think this is a disingenuous argument in support of a fraudulent law. HOWEVER.... it also happens to be an excellent idea, both from a public relatios standpoint and a policy standpoint. if you are working to make sure every voter has an ID, it puts to lie the opponent's argument about illegal voters, and casts yourself as the party trying to protect people's voting rights against the other party who is trying to take them away.

the fraudulent ID law should still be struck down, but in the meantime an ID drive could make for some excellent PR.

Why don't you also make them do an IQ test? Or set up some giant flaming hoops that they must also jump through to vote? Let's really test how much they 'want' to vote because how much they 'want' to vote is so crucial to you (luckily we don't live in this world and human rights belong to citizens no matter how much or how little they are shown to 'want' them).

Just because YOU think getting an ID is easy and YOU want people to get them doesn't give YOU the right to take away an American citizens right to vote.

What does it say about your ideas when your best hope of getting elected is preventing people from voting?

Presidential Election 2000 Military ballots..

'nuff said...

And I think people are catching on to the game conservatives are playing.

Actually, the facts show that everyday Americans are catching on to the game that DEMOCRATS are playing.. :D

If Democrats are so concerned about voter disenfranchisement, they would push GET AN ID drive out the ying-yang...

The fact that they don't shows that they are only interested in one thing. Making it easier to cheat in an election..

mitchy,

If you can provide any shred of evidence or facts that Obama is less transparent than Romney go ahead.

You seem to think I give a rat's ass about Romney... I have NO idea why you think that..

*I*, as Obama's employer, want to see his school records..

If he has nothing to hide, he would release them..

It's a VERY simple argument. And especially ironic, it's the DEMOCRAT's argument.. :D

You don't think this fraudulent vote would be caught under the current system? I can tell you 100% it would. And if this is happening all the time, show me some stats on voter fraud (I'll show you one it is 0.0002% - you want to disenfranchise 35 million people to stop voter fraud of 600 people.

And people can get an ID if they really want to vote...

Michale.....

When Obama releases his school records (which DO contain financial disclosures, I am interested in) then.... and ONLY then... will you have a viable argument.."

Nope. These are the FACTS:

Taxes - Obama 12 years, Romney 1.5 years (being generous).
School Records - Obama none, Romney none.
Birth Certificates - Obama short and long form, Romney short form.

If you can provide any shred of evidence or facts that Obama is less transparent than Romney go ahead. Until you can you can put up with our calls for Romney to be more transparent, while we ignore your calls on Obama being more transparent because he ALREADY IS the most transparent candidate.

"When you have a white man going into a DC Voting Station and being able to obtain the voter card for Eric Holder, the black Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, photo ID is definitely not "too far"...

When you have a Dem organization sending out pre-filled out ballots to dogs, dead people and children, photo ID is definitely NOT "too far"..."

You don't think this fraudulent vote would be caught under the current system? I can tell you 100% it would. And if this is happening all the time, show me some stats on voter fraud (I'll show you one it is 0.0002% - you want to disenfranchise 35 million people to stop voter fraud of 600 people.

The dead dogs stuff is obviously complete nonsense but I don't need to even bother commenting on that.

What does it say about your ideas when your best hope of getting elected is preventing people from voting?

I think it says you don't have much confidence the majority will buy in to your ideas. So you have to limit democracy.

And/or ... that your ideas are only going to benefit a small amount of people.

And I think people are catching on to the game conservatives are playing.

The interesting thing is that this may lead to some new political realities. Some of the things which worked in the past may not be as effective as they used to be.

-David

When you have a white man going into a DC Voting Station and being able to obtain the voter card for Eric Holder, the black Attorney General of the UNITED STATES, photo ID is definitely not "too far"...

When you have a Dem organization sending out pre-filled out ballots to dogs, dead people and children, photo ID is definitely NOT "too far"...

Like I said, the integrity of the election is FAR more important than the lazy or those with an agenda...

If Democrats were truly worried about the photo ID requirement, they would have a GET AN ID drive.....

The fact that they don't simply indicates that Democrats are not interested in anything but cheating in the election..

Michale.....

You need a new argument on this.

It's the LEFT's argument, not mine...

: Obama is a more transparent Presidential candidate than Romney. Fact

In YOUR opinion. I don't agree...

But not following in his father's footsteps, not following precedent and not matching Obama's transparency levels are all completely separate.

Not really...

It all comes down to transparency..

Obama is transparent about the things he WANTS to be transparent about. Nothing else..

When Obama releases his school records (which DO contain financial disclosures, I am interested in) then.... and ONLY then... will you have a viable argument..

Michale.....

I have discussed disenfranchising in detail with Michale (see voter suppression article).

As I pointed out just because getting a photo ID for you is easy doesn't mean everyone else not living in such a privileged world should have their vote taken away.

Reality in America is such that many people don't have a TV (3.3%), bank account (7.7%), cell phone (9%) or access to the internet (22.7%). And 11% of VOTING AGE don't have a photo ID. Should we take away a basic human right because they don't have any of these things? Of course not.

This is why only 5 countries in the world have photo ID to vote (and all provide photo ID to their citizens for free).

Voter ID is fine, photo ID is too far.

Michale
All Obama has to do is release the required records (not forgeries) and he can put it all to rest..
That IS what the Left is saying about Romney's records, right???

You need a new argument on this. You keep rehashing the same nonsense and I will continue to repeat: Obama is a more transparent Presidential candidate than Romney. Fact.. I'd also guess that since the last time he released personal records that no President ever had to before you on the right accused him of forging it so he can't really win...

If Romney wants to release his school records then pressure Obama to match him - good for him! When he does this I will join your school records crusade.

But not following in his father's footsteps, not following precedent and not matching Obama's transparency levels are all completely separate.

As for joke, I'll go with my favourite one-liner of all time:

How do you get a fat girl into bed?
Piece of cake...

Now THAT was funny!!!! :D

Good one...

Michale.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/priorities-ad-ties-mitt-romney-to-cancer-death/2012/08/07/d723d8c0-e084-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html

According to Obama, Romney causes cancer....

Reminds me of that old MAD Magazine spoof of the Richard Prior movie SOME KIND OF HERO, where they made Richard Prior responsible for everything bad that happened in the world..

Yea, that's the ticket. Team Obama should be writing for MAD magazine..

Michale.....

How do you get a fat girl into bed?
Piece of cake...

As opposed to the stoopid, lazy and ignorant?? :D

Sounds like a plan to me! :D

Kudos to the quote. Bonus Kudos for it being a Trek quote. :D

Michale...

Obviously what Harry Reid said was silly and yes it is on par with many arguments on the right - up there with the birthers and schoolers. The difference is we can acknowledge it as such, it will be forgotten about in a week.

We??? You got a mouse in your pocket??

No one has acknowledged anything. Hell, Reid WON the coveted and highly valued and much sought after MIDOTW award!!

That doesn't sound like any acknowledgement of the hilarity of Reid's utterly baseless accusation...

To this day there are still birthers and schoolers (even on this forum) which is quite frankly laughable.

All Obama has to do is release the required records (not forgeries) and he can put it all to rest..

That IS what the Left is saying about Romney's records, right???

Almost every single independent source agrees. But no, as usual when facts don't support the Republicans they are 'liberal bias'. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

I wasn't commenting on the viability of Romney's tax plan. I am just a knuckle-dragger who doesn't have a clue about high finance crap like that.

My only comment was to the idea that the report was issued by an "independent" source.. It wasn't. Period...

Michale.....

so only the smart and strong-willed should be permitted to vote? that's practically a eugenics argument.

McGivers: I don't know if you'll like living in our time.
Khan: Then I'll have to remold it to my liking.

Once you have satisfactorily addressed the reports of fraud that HAVE surfaced then you might have a case...

I would list them, but don't like to put dozens of links in my posts.. :D

Michale...

CW
"I get big tax breaks, yes I do. Guess who pays? It's folks like you!"
"When you actually do the math, the middle class takes quite a bath!"

I saw somewhere that Obama has actually put a tax calculator up on his site to illustrate the difference between his and Romney's tax plan.

As for the Olympics stuff don't get me started. This is my first time watching the Olympics outside the UK and I can't believe how APPALLING the coverage is, never-mind that they show the same 10 adverts about 10000 times a day. Man I miss the BBC...

Michale
""Mitt Romney is complaining about an independent think tank report which analyzed his tax plan and came to conclusions Mitt didn't like.

That report was written by a former Obama staffer..."

Almost every single independent source agrees. But no, as usual when facts don't support the Republicans they are 'liberal bias'. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-tax-promise/

Chris
The Big Bang theory was ok at first. Now it is completely repetitive, boring and overuses the laugh track more than any show I've ever seen.

if you want to call it hearsay or rationalize it away in some other manner then you're entitled, but you're not entitled to act like i didn't include a fact that i did.

I stand corrected...

Objection.. Heresay.... :D

as for the voter ID law, you're making my point for me. it's not being sold as a law to disenfranchise the people michale thinks are lazy, it's being sold as preventing illegal votes, which is not the law's main effect and the law's proponents know it. THAT is fraud.

Not at all.. Considering the news reports of the last few months where voter fraud COULD have been perpetrated if the perpetrator was so inclined, PLUS the reports out of Virginia where voter ballots that were pre-filled out with Democrat selections were mailed to dead people, dogs, fish, children, illegals, etc etc, I would say that indicates that voter ID laws ARE needed....

If Democrats are so concerned about Voter ID laws, why don't the make a big push to make sure anyone who wants to vote have and ID..

They have GET OUT THE VOTE drives for registration. Seems it would be easy to have a GET OUT THE VOTE id drives..

The reason Democrats don't is because they don't care about that. They just want to make sure that they can cheat if they need to..

No other explanation fits the facts...

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/pennsylvania_s_voter_id_law_bad_for_both_parties_.html

Yes, you can find some sob stories about how it is impossible for people to get ID. Most of them, people really DO have an ID already..

I can find stories that justify the use of ID to vote...

But the fact is, it's the law that only Americans can vote in elections..

I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat who doesn't get to vote because of ID laws... Where there is a will, there is a way...

If people can't find that way, then they obviously don't have the will...

I submit that the integrity of the election is FAR more important than a sob story here and there...

That's an opinion, to be sure, but it's an opinion based on facts...

Michale.....

something doesn't have to be red or a herring to be a red herring.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/applewhiteetalvcommonwealt/voteridclients.htm

do you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALALA, or are you going to acknowledge that voter ID laws are the real fraud?

How would you have put it, if she had been from an African or Caribbean country rather than an American? I'm curious.

Because "african-american" is now a race (like caucasian, oriental, etc etc) any black person would be called african-american...

I can imagine some black people in Russia or Cuba might have a bit o problem with that designation...

Michale.....

no it doesn't.

i provided a concrete example of a friend whose word i trust, who experienced a direct instance of institutionalized racism in the here and now. if you want to call it hearsay or rationalize it away in some other manner then you're entitled, but you're not entitled to act like i didn't include a fact that i did.

as for the voter ID law, you're making my point for me. it's not being sold as a law to disenfranchise the people michale thinks are lazy, it's being sold as preventing illegal votes, which is not the law's main effect and the law's proponents know it. THAT is fraud.

regardless, the following article provides other concrete examples of people who would be disenfranchised for reasons other than just laziness.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/07/pennsylvania_s_voter_id_law_bad_for_both_parties_.html

facts ARE in evidence.

~joshua

The link says it all...

I honestly cannot believe that the Left, **THE LEFT** of all people would use the "he won't disclose X, Y and Z so he MUST be hiding something" argument...

It's so astonishing because the Left was a COMPLETE 180 on that argument when it came to Obama being transparent...

Thereby proving once again that, when it comes to hypocrisy, NO ONE outshines Democrats...

Michale.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313251/olympic-political-correctness-john-fund?pg=1

The words of Sarek Of Vulcan are especially apropos here...

"There can be no offense where none is taken"

It seems like many (mostly from the Left, but the Right has some whiners as well) go out of their way to FIND offense to take.. And, if they can't find it, then they just make shit up... The FL shooting is a perfect example of that...

Once again, I have to ask..

How can we move past racism when there are people in this world who will use claims of racism as a blunt-force weapon to beat people over the head with??

Michale.....

David,

Are you reading Harry Reid's autobiography?

Oh, it's FASCINATING!!!

“Any man or woman who will not be completely candid about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office.”
-Harry Reid

Hypocrisy, thy name is Harry Reid.

It's funny how the Left is ALL about transparency.. But only from the Right...

Let's see Obama's school transcripts. I, for one, would like to know how Obama paid for his schooling at Columbia and Harvard...

That certainly comes under the heading of "Financial Disclosures"...

Yea, I know, I know.. We aren't allowed to question "The One"....

For the record, I am not reading Reid's autobiography.. But these quotes are well-known as they show the complete and utter hypocrisy of Democrats in general and Reid in particular..

LD,

The law is the law.. You must be a US citizen to vote in an American Election.

ID requirements are widely known and not kept secret..

Anyone who doesn't have the proper ID come Election Day is simply lazy.. Or has an ulterior motive...

Joshua,

if we're going to get technical, neither is. african refers to people of a continent, and american refers to those of two continents. neither is strictly national. latin-americans and canadians sometimes get annoyed that we stateside use the moniker "american" to refer only to ourselves.

Your right. I should have said African and American are NATIONAL/REGIONAL designations, not racial...

my friend, ms. vaidhyanathan, who co-authored one of my guest-articles here, was very disturbed by the event. this is a terrorist act by a home-grown terrorist, and should be given equal attention to other terrorist acts.

While the Wisconsin shooting was horrific, it doesn't yet fit the definition of a "terrorist" act... It may yet, but as of now, it doesn't...

LD,

How's that?

Howz what?? That Charlize Theron is African American and Al Sharpton is not??

Charlize Theron was born in South Africa... Al Sharpton was hatched in the fiery pits of hell...

Granted, that doesn't make the case for Sharpton not being African American, but it felt good to say... :D

Joshua,

that's the thing, racism is still very real in social and economic circles, even today.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Institutionalized racism that targets non-whites is dead in the here and now...

It died the day we elected a black president..

Now, institutionalized racism AGAINST whites is alive and well and growing exponentially...

LD,

Let's see... We were forcibly removed from Africa and transported to America but we are "not allowed" to call ourselves African, American, or African-American. You don't have a problem with the Chinese who migrated to Korea being Korean but you've a problem, all of a sudden, with us? We're not allowed to be a race?!

You were!!! OMIGODS, you were forcibly removed from Africa!!!!! Holy crap!! Did you call anyone and report this!???

Oh, wait.. I see.. many hundreds of years ago, people that you may or may not be distantly related to were forcibly removed from Africa..

And somehow, this creates a system where you are owed something in the here and now??

I have to wonder how long this is going to go on??

In the 24th Century, are black people still going to be a protected class with privileges and special treatment because of what occurred 3 centuries previously??

It's actually ironic.. Because of black people demanding privileges and special treatment, no one will ever know if a black person was successful based on their own merits or if they are simply an Affirmative Action success.

No where is this better exemplified than our own POTUS.... There is simply no doubt that Obama would NOT be POTUS if not for Affirmative Action...

Doesn't that bother you at all??? Not knowing whether your success is YOUR success or if it was a case of "you didn't build that"??

As long as minorities in general and the black community in particular feel that society "owes them", then racism will never be truly overcome...

MLK would be horrified to see what his teachings has wrought...

Joshua,

policies that themselves are a fraud, i mean, since their biggest impact is on voters other than the ones for which they're ostensibly designed.

Once again, assumes facts not in evidence..

The only group that Voter ID impacts are those who are too lazy to follow the rules or who believe they are entitled to special treatment..

The rules are known and widely publicized.. There is simply NO valid excuse for not following the rules..

Michale.....

Which do you think "honors" her achievement more, recognizing she's a 1st among dark skinned people or that she's a 1st among people overcoming tremendous adversity?

I would argue that since the total number of dark skinned people is greater, that the honor of being first among them would be greater.

But why not honor both? Why not say something like: "...who is not only the first African-American to win gold, but also the first black woman to do so, ever"?

Seems that that would cover all the bases.

How would you have put it, if she had been from an African or Caribbean country rather than an American? I'm curious.

-CW

Just checking.

policies that themselves are a fraud

Not in my opinion.

i do that on purpose.

Policies designed to prevent voter fraud, y'mean?

policies that themselves are a fraud, i mean, since their biggest impact is on voters other than the ones for which they're ostensibly designed.

Yeah, I manage to commit typos every now and again. Thanks, anywhose. And BTW, the first letter of the first word of a sentence should be capitalized.

first of all, does this relate to any of the comments or the original post?

It relates to comments made about voter ID's.

second, are you suggesting that the election ought to have been tipped in the other direction

I don't know how Wisconsin does it counting, or how it reconciles voter fraud after a candidate has been sworn in. But that election sure smells like Franken won due to voter fraud.

by policies that deny six times as many legitimate votes as the illegitimate votes they prevent?

Policies designed to prevent voter fraud, y'mean?

that's not entirely true. many african-americans are or are descended from free africans who moved from africa within the past fifty years.

you got the grammatical usages of who's and whose reversed. who's = who is; whose = belonging to.

Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes.
[snip]
177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial...."

first of all, does this relate to any of the comments or the original post? second, are you suggesting that the election ought to have been tipped in the other direction by policies that deny six times as many legitimate votes as the illegitimate votes they prevent?

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial...."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163

CW,

Recognizing her as "Black" just means she belongs to the group of humans with darker hued skin. Recognizing her as "African-American" means she belongs to a group who were slaves for hundreds of years and were still second-class citizens just 50-years ago.

Which do you think "honors" her achievement more, recognizing she's a 1st among dark skinned people or that she's a 1st among people overcoming tremendous adversity?

If you're going to get "technical" the only race is "human." Otherwise race is designation for people of roughly (often very roughly) similar genetic, cultural and regional makeup frequently named for the region they generally inhabit.

You think African can't be a race because it a continent? Japanese because its a country? Chinese because its a country? Hawaiian because its a state in the US?

Let's see... We were forcibly removed from Africa and transported to America but we are "not allowed" to call ourselves African, American, or African-American. You don't have a problem with the Chinese who migrated to Korea being Korean but you've a problem, all of a sudden, with us? We're not allowed to be a race?!

For some reason anyone who was ever from Africa, and is dark skinned, is only "allowed" to call themselves "Black". Unless they immigrate to America whereupon each African nation devolves into a separate race? Or if they're white enough to be "Arabic"? While we, here in America, who are people of color sure as hell don't get to decide for ourselves how we should be referred to. Because, obviously, race is all about either being Black/African or some variation of white.

And where does this "who are generally not first-generation immigrants" come from? Your race changes after two or three generations? Do "you people" have any idea how racist you are?!

that's the thing, racism is still very real in social and economic circles, even today. but to most non-racist whites, such things may seem not to exist, since they themselves don't experience them. i ran into a guy this summer who was the senior district administrator, and retired a couple years ago. when a higher position opened, they eliminated the position rather than allowing a black man to get it, then re-created the higher position as soon as he retired. the racism was explicit, but because it was never recorded in writing or on tape, it couldn't be proven.

this is still happening today, even in a world where barack h. obama is president of the united states.

How's that?

You see, in a world that is TRULY diverse, where race TRULY doesn't matter, that wouldn't have garnered ANY kind of response...

We'll get there.... Doubt it will be in my lifetime, but we'll get there...

After all, Obama monkey tee-shirts and sock dolls were just a funny, not racist at all! No Siree!

When non-whites stop complaining about what offends them, since it offends white folk to hear it, then we'll have "a world that is TRULY diverse, where race TRULY doesn't matter"—to white people.

Wanna lay bets on how fast the Tea Party gets the blame???

my friend, ms. vaidhyanathan, who co-authored one of my guest-articles here, was very disturbed by the event. this is a terrorist act by a home-grown terrorist, and should be given equal attention to other terrorist acts.

not that they have to, but it would be good from a public relations standpoint if tea-party organizations would use the opportunity to sympathize with the victims and advocate the hunting down of the neo-nazis responsible. it would serve their cause better than turning attention to their own detractors and casting themselves as victims.

~joshua

if we're going to get technical, neither is. african refers to people of a continent, and american refers to those of two continents. neither is strictly national. latin-americans and canadians sometimes get annoyed that we stateside use the moniker "american" to refer only to ourselves.

purely by nationality, charlize theron is south african american (full name of country, no hyphen) while al sharpton is just plain american (or more precisely, estadounidense, since no fully exclusive national identification exists in common use english.)

that aside, "african-american" (hyphenated) is its own idiom, independent of its component words, much as a "red herring" is neither red nor a herring. as such, it refers to US residents some of whose ancestors inhabited africa before post-crusades european colonization, after paleolithic migration, and who are generally not first-generation immigrants (though there's some overlap and discretion on that point).

that said, i agree with CW, they should have just said "black." throughout most of the world, there's absolutely nothing offensive about that term, and it's much more inclusive.

~joshua

Just had a friend complain to me that she couldn't get a state photo ID because the address on her old state photo ID didn't match the address on her application for a new photo ID. So the state returned her application! Apparently since she now lives at a different address she can't get an ID?! And what's with the requirement that photo IDs must have expiration dates and be current? How does ones identity expire?

Sure its all about preventing voter fraud. That's why the rules ares so reasonable!

Obviously you're happy to join the wingers in trying to rig the election, but I'm old-fashioned. I think the military deserves to be honored because they're honorable. And since every one of them swore an oath to protect the Constitution, and the Constitution requires that everyone be treated equally under the law, I seriously doubt that they agree with you that the Constitution doesn't apply to them so they're deserving of special treatment.

It would also be nice if you too were less rabidly partisan and more often honorable.

Are you reading Harry Reid's autobiography?

I'm trying to think of a less interesting book and other than perhaps Pilgrim's Progress (the most boring book English teachers ever made you read), I'm struggling

:)

-David