A sordid business indeed

posted at 12:31 pm on March 3, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Earlier today, we took a look at some of the fallout from the current Supreme Court case examining certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act. At that time, I mentioned that there was more than a little hypocrisy on display this month from those insisting that it is somehow part of an evil plot to destroy the world for the court to even examine the question. There was one example in particular, however, which really caught my attention last night. In what I’m sure he felt was a delightfully witty attack on the Justices, MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted the following:

HayesTweet

Next thing you know, Chief Justice Roberts will be asking why there’s no white history month during oral args

This bit of cleverness was a promotional tweet flogging his latest blog entry, A Sordid Business.

At this week’s Supreme Court oral arguments over the fate of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, conservative hero Antonin Scalia said something instantly infamous when he referred to the re-authorization of the Voting Rights Act as the “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

Of course, obliviousness to offensive racial rhetoric is nothing particularly new from the conservative justices on the Roberts court in oral arguments. But it’s not just the way the majority in the Roberts court talks about race, it is the way they have gone about declaring unconstitutional practices we use to pursue racial equality in a society that is to this day shockingly unequal.

This would barely be worth a mention if it were simply some sort of unhinged outlier in terms of the chattering class, but this line of alleged reasoning is actually fairly common on the web this week. Both the flawed premise and inherent logical failure of that blog post, along with the trivial question in the tweet mentioned above deserve a brief look, if only to debunk the argument.

First, the blog post opens up with a broadside which declares that broaching the very idea of the perpetuation of racial entitlement – indeed the very notion of such entitlement at all – is “offensive racial rhetoric.” But over the course of the fifteen long paragraphs which follow, absolutely no supporting evidence or argument is offered to defend that assertion. Like so many other arguments in this contentious, highly charged debate, it is expected that the reader will simply agree that anyone asking such questions is a racist and should be considered “offensive” to right thinking, good progressive Americans.

The only “evidence” offered in support of continuing the provisions of the act in question are a lengthy list of perceived “bad laws” passed in the South by the horrible southerners we discussed in the previous column. It’s a great argument if you’re going into this prepared to believe that the picture being painted by Hayes and his cohorts is not only true, but the only possible scenario. Unfortunately, with one small poke at this pile out outrage, it falls into a heap. The very fact that one can so quickly and readily lay their hands on a list of such “bad laws” demonstrates the failure of this argument. These issues are all decided, debated and settled in full public view.

There were many other such laws put forward in states not falling under the restrictions of the VRA in places such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. These included the oh-so-terrible voter ID laws which Hayes rails against in his blog post. Some were overturned, some were upheld and some were delayed. All were given a hearing when challenged up and down the line. And here is the great mystery which Chris Hayes and those screaming from the same balconies can’t seem to wrap their heads around. When legislative bodies in the South pass laws which these same opponents disapprove of, they will go through the same process of challenge and review, traveling – where necessary – far beyond the borders of the state through the federal appeals process. In order for us to accept Hayes’ claim that this is an insufficient safeguard, we must believe that the appeals courts will somehow automatically treat cases coming from the South differently than those from the rest of the nation.

This argument has no basis in reality. What is left, once this fiction is torn down, is a case of progressives seeking to continue a national trend of maintaining a general bias and prejudice against southerners, hoping to punish them for the sins of their great, great grandparents and scoring political points in the process. As I said in the previous column, the great irony here is that this army of race warriors claiming to be waging a battle against prejudice are, in fact, sustaining the real bigotry in this debate. And that’s the real sordid business on display.

In closing, this brings us to the original question which Hayes derided on Twitter. Why is there no White History Month? You can read reams of verbal warfare on the web on this subject, but for progressives who are actually interested in an answer as to why people might even ask this, it’s pretty simple. The problem isn’t that there is no White History Month. The problem is that we live in the 21st century with decades of progress in equality behind us, but we still somehow feel the need to separate people into racially defined camps. If you want to have a “history month” for a group of people, we’re not saying there needs to be a White History Month. We’re saying that all you need is a Human History Month. This entire battle over the last century has been to ensure that we are all recognized as equal human beings, hasn’t it? But apparently not if you happen to be part of the progressive contingent determined to grimly cling to the nightmares of the past to use as cudgels against those who disagree with them in the present. Racism is still a problem today, but it’s not coming from where you think.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I don’t have to editorialize or propagandize anything, the facts are what they are.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Lulz. Sure you don’t, libfree.

“The facts” show that we’re one of the only countries in the world that’s been able to have such a diverse mix of people without engaging in bouts of ethnic cleansing every few decades (they’re not very good about this aspect in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, the Balkans and most of Africa), and that we’ve made incredible strides in race relations in this country in a pretty short amount of time since the end of segregation.

“The facts” don’t include things like “institutionalized racism,” which is an impossible to falsify construct that serves no useful purpose for debate.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 3, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Y’all are not ready for all this truth.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Again, you can only deal in banal generalities and purposely shadowy concepts. “Seismic globalization forces” is a nice way to completely deflect blame from years of failed liberal policies, passed by generations of pols on both sides of the aisle.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 3, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Oh really? You’re going there. So, which is it conservatives. Are the only intellectuals those with college degrees or not? I thought people who learned independently or through experience were just as good as us fancy pants elitist college types. Do make up your mind.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 7:49 PM

YOU responded to my argument of how slavery is learned in this country by saying that’s not how it’s taught in college today. I responded to that point by noting that many, if not most people who believe in the original sin of slavery leading to perpetual reparations are not college educated, and many who are didn’t go to college in recent history. They are far more influential politically than the few taking your college courses.

You can’t claim that what people have been taught about slavery, what they then teach their children and impress upon school boards and textbook writers needs to be taught, is at all influenced by what you teach your college students TODAY. That may be so in the future.

shuzilla on March 3, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Oh really? You’re going there. So, which is it conservatives. Are the only intellectuals those with college degrees or not? I thought people who learned independently or through experience were just as good as us fancy pants elitist college types. Do make up your mind.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Yeah, see, you misunderstand because you don’t actually interact with conservatives (except when they cook your food or install your air conditioning), you just believe every caricature you’ve been told about them. Conservatives don’t downplay college degrees; when we have to get surgery, we get it from somebody with an MD, not a guy who learned at home from watching ER re-runs.

Here, I know you have trouble learning things that aren’t liberal boilerplate pablum packaged for you by your pals in academia, so let me try to break it down on multiple fronts:

1. Intellectuals can be people with or without college degrees. Going to college doesn’t instantly imbue someone with the status of “intellectual.”

2. There’s nothing wrong with being an intellectual. If our Congressmen had more intellectual curiosity, maybe they’d actually try and fix some of our problems instead of just fastening themselves into their lifetime sinecures and reaping the benefits.

3. College degrees are incredibly important, especially for the hard sciences and other high-skill areas.

4. Getting a college degree doesn’t automatically make you better, smarter or more intellectually capable than the guy who pumps your gas or cooks your breakfast.

5. There’s nothing wrong with going to community college or trade school instead of a four-year university if you think it’s a sounder financial decision for your future.

6. What most conservatives despise (and non-conservatives, I would) is people who view their college degree (especially one in the humanities or soft sciences) as a license to be a jerk, condescend to those without degree, and assume automatic competency in all areas. People who use their degree as an aegis against all criticism and as a buttress for all their arguments. “I went to college, so I’m right and you’re wrong,” whether it’s directly stated or implied, is the sign of a small mind hiding behind a flimsy piece of paper.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 3, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Libfree I meant to point out, “the facts NEVER speak for themselves” I believe you used a phrase like that…facts almost always need interpretation and/or context.

As Hume said, I believe, “We can show that running hot rollers over babies causes them PAIN, we canNOT demonstrate that it is wrong.” The “wrongness’ is not a fact, but an interpretation…

Good Solid B-pus hits the nail on the head…many of today’s Intellectuals are merely ACADEMICS or pseudo-intellectuals…

An “intellectual” is a person interested in ideas, not the possessor of a PhD nor the purveyor of ideology…

JFKY on March 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 7:49 PM

I am certain libfreeordie that your college degree is an insignificant humanities degree which requires no more than an IQ of 90 to obtain… In other word 80% of the population can obtain your meaningless degree… You are nobody and probably you are paid little money and you think you deserve to be paid much more because of your useless degree so you get all angry and envy of those who make more money than you…

mnjg on March 3, 2013 at 8:50 PM

I have a degree in the humanities, and I think I “earned” it. Besides the insane costs of tuition for a private university, I was an engaging conversationalist in class discussions and I wrote thoughtful, intelligent papers.

But I could have done nothing in class, wrote regurgitated nonsense that I parroted from the professor, and still graduated, just with a lower GPA, and I’d be in possession of the exact same diploma.

Good Solid B-Plus on March 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM

In a just world, the founding of a nation supposedly built upon the Natural Rights of Man would not have legalized slavery.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Can you at least PRETEND for just a moment that the founders of this great nation were men of their time, not space aliens? Are men not expected to, are they not allowed to, advance themselves, to improve themselves? If we are still that nation who enslaves Africans, no matter what we do, no matter what the cost has been of working towards racial plurality throughout our history, then are not African Americans still no more than the slaves that their ancestors were, fit only to take orders and answer to the lash?

Some perspective. The population of African Americans has risen from about 18 Million in 1960 to about 38 Million today. That’s more than doubling (and without the numbers of immigrants other ethnicities have enjoyed due to the rather inhospitable image of the USA towards blacks). At the same time, the overal population of the US has only increased about 50%, so the AA population increase has greatly outpaced the general population.

However, since 1960 the poverty rate among African Americans has gone from 50% to 25%. So, while the population doubled the poverty was cut in half! That’s remarkable. The problem is that half of something is equal to one-fourth of twice that something, so doubling of population while cutting the poverty rate in half means that there are the same number of poor African Americans as there were 50 years ago. The appearance is that nothing has changed.

Had the AA population grown 50% like the rest of the nation, there would have been as many African Americans in the US today as there are currently living above the poverty line; thus, almost no poverty among African Americans.

What’s missing most from African American politics is gratitiude.

shuzilla on March 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on March 3, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Good post. About number 6, I’ve noticed that some of the dumbest people I’ve encountered had Ph.D.s or were even professors. I don’t have a problem with good humble people who weren’t so well-endowed in the brains department, but the impression I get from these low brain-power Ph.D.s is that they got an advanced degree to compensate for the feeling of dumbness. Once they get that degree and feel like they’re three times smarter than they actually are, it’s just an intellectual trainwreck from there.

As for people with advanced degrees in the more rigorous fields, they’re pretty much all smart because they have to be. These are fields where sophistry is punished, not rewarded.

NukeRidingCowboy on March 3, 2013 at 8:58 PM

“Institutional racism” is those forms of racism which originate from the Government.

There is indeed institutional racism. Part of it is called the American education system, and in only a few places can low income parents (including blacks) remove their children from failed schools and get them the education they need to succeed in this world.

There is indeed institutional racism. Part of it is called the minimum wage, and every time it increases, the numbers of jobs available for teenagers goes down — including black teenagers, whose economic circumstances make them far more vulnerable to job loss.

There is indeed institutional racism. It’s called Planned Parenthood, and 30% of black children are murdered in the womb because our Government funds it.

There is indeed institutional racism. It’s called the American welfare system — a system which rewards families for breaking up — a system which guarantees that the majority of those children on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder will come from broken families, with all of the problems that causes to them in later life.

And none of these institutions were build by conservatives — all of thenm have been built by liberals.

unclesmrgol on March 3, 2013 at 9:04 PM

There is indeed institutional racism. Part of it is called the American education system, and in only a few places can low income parents (including blacks) remove their children from failed schools and get them the education they need to succeed in this world.

Keeping blacks in their own schools is part of the new segregation.

There is indeed institutional racism. Part of it is called the minimum wage, and every time it increases, the numbers of jobs available for teenagers goes down — including black teenagers, whose economic circumstances make them far more vulnerable to job loss.

Keeping blacks out of the workforce by taking out several treads of the ladder of upward mobility is part of the new segregation.

There is indeed institutional racism. It’s called Planned Parenthood, and 30% of black children are murdered in the womb because our Government funds it.

It’s been called by black leaders as genocide against blacks; which, if I recall correctly, was the plan all along?

There is indeed institutional racism. It’s called the American welfare system — a system which rewards families for breaking up — a system which guarantees that the majority of those children on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder will come from broken families, with all of the problems that causes to them in later life.

Keeping black children from being competitive with everyone else’s children – keeping them from feeling a sense that competitiveness is a requirement, a virtue – is all part of the new segregation.

And none of these institutions were build by conservatives — all of them have been built by liberals.

A permanent dependent underclass dwelling in ‘hoods that can elect only one of their own – the goal of the new segregation.

shuzilla on March 3, 2013 at 9:14 PM

shuzilla on March 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Your posts today and a few others were great. You cannot reason with a lib though. I appreciate your effort and it helps me express myself better.

arnold ziffel on March 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

shuzilla on March 3, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Also, if it saves just one liberal it’s worth it. ;)

arnold ziffel on March 3, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Why is there a picture of a female with this story?

WhatSlushfund on March 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Still waiting to come across this punk in NYC.Want to show him the gloves my son wore during his 2 tours in Afghanistan. I remember this asshat said he didnt think our military was heroric.

Thicklugdonkey on March 3, 2013 at 10:05 PM

Why is there a picture of a female with this story?

WhatSlushfund on March 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM

If I was a man that looked like Ashley Banfield or Rachel Maddow, I thinks I would consider a new look.

arnold ziffel on March 3, 2013 at 10:06 PM

One only needs to see the earlier blogpost about the lefts reaction to school choice in Alabama to know who the real racists are in this country. Democrats depend on their plantation of government dependent blacks for political power. It is disgusting indeed.

Ellis on March 3, 2013 at 10:17 PM

WhatSlushfund on March 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM

.
If I was a man that looked like Ashley Banfield or Rachel Maddow, I thinks I would consider a new look.

arnold ziffel on March 3, 2013 at 10:06 PM

.
Ashley and Rachel have more “balls” than any of the men at PMSDNC.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2013 at 10:20 PM

Still waiting to come across this punk in NYC.Want to show him the gloves my son wore during his 2 tours in Afghanistan. I remember this as$hat said he didnt think our military was heroric.

Thicklugdonkey on March 3, 2013 at 10:34 PM

arnold ziffel on March 3, 2013 at 9:20 PM

Thanks for the kind words.

shuzilla on March 3, 2013 at 10:42 PM

I also notice that while we are expected to pay for the sins that we did not commit, the Illegal children are expected to keep the citizenship that they parents stole… odd ani’t it – one of those heads you lose, tails I win things I guess. Hey, just like GAW – when it is hot it is because of GAW and when it is cold it is because of GAW. I like asking what then would indicate GAC (Cooling)?

rgranger on March 3, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Oh really? You’re going there. So, which is it conservatives. Are the only intellectuals those with college degrees or not? I thought people who learned independently or through experience were just as good as us fancy pants elitist college types. Do make up your mind.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 7:49 PM

.
We’re BETTER. I would include a link to a short video of actor Robert “Red” West saying “College boys”, with that tone of disgust (Black Sheep Squadron 1976-78) … But I CAN’T FIND ONE. Only complete episodes on youtube.

listens2glenn on March 3, 2013 at 11:05 PM

I wonder where the Left got the idea that Chief Justice Roberts could be bullied into changing his opinion in a case.

Oh, right…

Jingo95 on March 4, 2013 at 12:18 AM

libfreeordie will of course never admit that twelve hours ago he thought the “3/5 clause” meant slave owners did not want slaves to be counted as “persons” at all, while early abolitionists from New England wanted slaves to be counted as full human beings.

You know this is what libfreeordie thought, though. No one from kindergarten through dissertation ever taught him the truth because it contradicted The Progressive Narrative.

MidniteRambler on March 4, 2013 at 3:05 AM

Who is that in top photo? Rachel Maddow’s twin something?

Sherman1864 on March 4, 2013 at 3:34 AM

Why do you never see this Christopher Hays and Rachel Madcow at the same time? Just sayin.

ObamatheMessiah on March 4, 2013 at 6:43 AM

If you peel away all the other labels for the Left (progressives, socialists, communists, etc.) and realize that they are collectivists at the core, then you will understand their motives. The ironic goal of collectivism is to unite by dividing people: it breaks down people into groups that it can pit one against the other in order for the State to be the Shining White Knight that rides in to take control. Collectivism must always have “enemies” (The Rich, The Racists, The Republicans, etc.), or else there is nothing compelling against which to unite all the victim groups whose “outrage” they work so hard to foster.

In case you haven’t noticed, Glorious Leader is a collectivist to the marrow of his bones.

Logic on March 4, 2013 at 7:10 AM

The time for these laws has long since past. How do I know? By the fact Democrats are using them as a political cudgel to stoke the flames of racial discontent.

This is not an argument about “equality”. That is pure sophism in full view of the facts- which are that such laws viewed through a contemporary lens make select states unequal partners in our union.

The circumstances and conditions surrounding various laws which were passed and then challenged using this Act, are no different than similar measures approved in other states outside their auspices. But political detractors use the VRA to assume and posit a motive of racial discrimination exists, when another state passes the relatively same law without such challenge or disingenuous scrutiny. That’s not equal treatment under the law. It’s discriminatory racial politics.

The time for these laws has long since past. A fact prominently displayed by Democrats using them as political weapons to further divide our nation. They should be ashamed.

Marcus Traianus on March 4, 2013 at 7:48 AM

So lib dodges issue after issue for weeks, then comes in on this one?

Typical……..

itsspideyman on March 4, 2013 at 8:01 AM

If you peel away all the other labels for the Left (progressives, socialists, communists, etc.) and realize that they are collectivists at the core, then you will understand their motives. The ironic goal of collectivism is to unite by dividing people: it breaks down people into groups that it can pit one against the other in order for the State to be the Shining White Knight that rides in to take control. Collectivism must always have “enemies” (The Rich, The Racists, The Republicans, etc.), or else there is nothing compelling against which to unite all the victim groups whose “outrage” they work so hard to foster.

In case you haven’t noticed, Glorious Leader is a collectivist to the marrow of his bones.

Logic on March 4, 2013 at 7:10 A

Emphasis on control. The White Knight of the collectivist knows nothing of fairness, governance or justice – only power acquisition, power consolidation, rallying the troops and the economics of political capital. In every way, a Black Knight in white armor.

ROCnPhilly on March 4, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Why do we insist on treating slavery as if it is a Black-only issue. Not even in this country was it ONLY Blacks who were held in slavery. The British tradition of Indentured Slavery existed FAR longer than the enslavement of Blacks, but the enslavement of Blacks is all we EVER talk about.

I am of Germanic descent, the Romans held my ancestors as slaves FAR longer than this country has existed – by the same “logic” of the Proggies, I figure I am owed a free Lamboghini Aventadore as “restitution” – at the minimum. So where are my keys?

PJ Emeritus on March 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

You’re right. The real race problem in this country is the cruelty and pettyness of teenage social relations! You’ve solved it. Yes, black people are more than aware of the way skin tone offers some very small privileges to certain folks. This goes all the way back to the history of “passing” (see the descendents of Sally Hemmings for an easy intro into the practice). The stain of colorism in the black community is perhaps the greatest proof of how deeply rooted anti-black racism is to the United States. When whiteness is valued by the state and the economy it also becomes valued in other ways. I might also point out that nearly all conservatives took major affront to the very notion of “Black is Beautiful” in the 70s. It was framed as “hate.” Imagine that, calling dark skin beautiful being understood as an act of hate. Hilariously, now you’re suggesting that this young generation just invented and sustain colorism all by their lonesome. Learn your history.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Did you even read my post?
I stated words spoken to me by a black grandmother. They were not my words, they were her words. The whole post was centered around what was stated to me by someone else. I then based nothing on those words in my comment. I did not “solve anything” nor did I state in my comment any new theories or conspiracies or anything whatsoever, other than that.. because this woman stated her concerns to me I restated “I guess this concern exists.”

So when you write “I solved it” I have no freaking idea what it is you are writing about. But you’ve gone leaps and bounds here, which is very typical of libs… ignoring what I actually wrote and building false premises on what “I must be thinking” or “who I actually am.”

You don’t freaking know a thing about me, pal. Read the posts before you comment on them.

JellyToast on March 4, 2013 at 9:30 AM

Who IS this little pustule?

grumpy_old_soldier on March 4, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Why is slavery any more important to the history of the United States than it is to the history of the UK, or Germany, or Japan? Why not just realize that slavery is a part of WORLD history?

Good Solid B-Plus on March 3, 2013 at 8:18 PM

It is MUCH more important in the history of the United States and Germany because it was institutionalized here by our Constitution and there by laws which made those in the institution less than human. The UK was able to rid itself of slavery because it did (and still does) NOT have a Constitution — it merely took a law.

Here in the United States, we fought a war involving over 600,000 recorded military casualties (and unknown civilian ones), while the Brits didn’t have to do that.

Because of our Constitutional system, it took us, not counting that war, 60 years longer than the Brits to get rid of slavery.

Because of that Constitutional system, slavery was universal in the United States — in the end, under the Taney Court, the logical end of the Constitution as it was written was attained — there was no place in the United States where a slave could find freedom — which is why the Underground Railroad — in which slaves desiring freedom were “transported” north to a remaining British colony — became important.

And then there’s the century following the abolition of slavery where, in huge areas of our country, Jim Crow held sway — which wasn’t slavery, but institutional (Government provided) inequality of a type which harmed blacks economically.

And, finally, there’s the fact that slavery, and Jim Crow, happened here. After all, we turned away Jews facing death at the hands of the Nazis — because it was happening some place else and we didn’t want to get involved. Those Jews are few, and mostly dead, and their descendents who’ve made their homes in the United States are few. Here we have nearly every descendent of a slave still living amongst us. And people in the United States are still basically isolationist — huge numbers of us could care less about what’s happening in the rest of the world, as long as it isn’t happening here. That thread runs through every discussion — and that viewpoint is the one oft-times referenced by both liberals and libertarians.

But the results of slavery, and our incredibly stupid responses to its end, are still here, staring us in the face.

unclesmrgol on March 4, 2013 at 9:56 AM

I know I’ll probably cause some trouble by saying this but I’ll say it anyway. The worst day for the majority of African-Americans is going to be the day they wake up and find out they are equal and, because of the Democratic Party, they’re completely unprepared for that.

bflat879 on March 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I know I’ll probably cause some trouble by saying this but I’ll say it anyway. The worst day for the majority of African-Americans is going to be the day they wake up and find out they are equal and, because of the Democratic Party, they’re completely unprepared for that.

bflat879 on March 4, 2013 at 10:03 AM

They are equal, and the acts of the Democratic party to prevent them from asserting that equality continue today.

unclesmrgol on March 4, 2013 at 10:10 AM

The stain of colorism in the black community is perhaps the greatest proof of how deeply rooted anti-black racism is to the United States.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Blacks discriminating against other blacks based on skin-tone exists in Africa and existed in Africa prior to the United States’ existence. The Hutus and the Tutus, and various other clans and tribes existed and fought and enslaved each other before the white man “discovered” the dark continent.

So, claiming that the U.S. invented this is simply wrong.

The biggest issue I have with liberals constant lament about how terrible and racist the U.S. is is the fact that the U.S. in the year 2013 is by far and away the best place for blacks to live in the world.

Unlike Europe, in the U.S. there is a black president, black supreme court justice, tons of black congressmen, black governors, black CEO’s. There have been black secretaries of state and blacks in every high office in the land. We have more rich blacks then any nation and more middle class blacks then any nation.

No black person in his/her right mind would prefer to live in an African nation where black majorities exist rather than the U.S. Black Americans don’t migrate to South Africa, Ghana, or Kenya, or Rwanda or Ethiopia. Yet blacks do immigrate here from all of those countries. No country in Europe is less racist than America – not Germany, Italy or Great Britain.

Yet, to hear liberals tell of it, we are still steeped in the era of slavery or jim crowe. It is simply not true. Does racism still exist? yes, of course. But it is not gov’t sponsored institutional racism and it is extremely unlikely that will ever return. And, it is just as unlikely that we will stamp out all racism in its entirety. there will likely always be racists and frankly, part of a free society is that some people will have beliefs we find repugnant. It is not the gov’ts job to re-educate everyone to acceptable beliefs.

Regardless, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that all of the unconstitutional laws that differentiate American citizens based solely on race (affirmative action, contract set-asides, gerrymandering districts) were necessary evils to fix past injustice (I think they likely were to a large extent), the question is at what point do we stop having the government make decisions based on race and start treating all Americans the same.

Gerrymandered racial districts, for instance, likely do much more harm than good. Because those districts are safe and the congressperson never has to worry about reelection, that congressperson is going to worry more about his/her advancement in the party and not about the real needs of his/her constituents. Thus, for instance, black congressmen will likely support some form of amnesty for illegals, even though such amnesty will likely harm his/her constituents. These reps also oppose school choice although that will likely be more helpful for their constituents than blindly supporting teachers’ unions. But, in order for these reps to advance in the Dem party, they have to tow the party line. And because these districts are so safe, the opposition isn’t even going to bother trying to woo these voters. So, ultimately, these gerrymandered districts are worse for them then non. (I actually feel that way about all gerrymandered overwhelmingly safe districts).

Affirmative action likewise probably harms more than helps at this point in time, as it lowers expectations for blacks (most blacks who successfully utilize affirmative action come from middle-class black families living in the suburbs and going to good schools – meaning they should not need the extra help) and promotes black students beyond their competence level. For instance, the failure/drop out rate of black students at law schools, as one example, is much, much higher than whites. A big part of this is because instead of going to a law school ranked in the 50-100, where the black student’s grades/LSAT scores would place him, he goes to a top 20 law school and competes with students above his level. This is true across the board in universities, graduate programs, etc. (And, no, I’m not saying every black law student can’t do well in a top 20 law school – I’m talking statistics here, obviously there are black students who score high on the LSAT, etc). And, if you don’t believe that the white students don’t notice the over-promotion and draw conclusions that are not helpful to racial stereotypes, you are foolish, or that the general public does not assume most black achievement is somewhat based on lowered standards, you are similarly foolish. How can this help the black community at this point? How can having the white and even Hispanic population not respect black achievements b/c such achievements are tarnished by the believe that they were not as significant b/c of affirmative action be helpful to blacks generally? It can’t.

Ultimately, every time the gov’t uses race as a basis to make a decision, it is reinforcing the idea that race is the most important aspect of an individual’s worth – whether for good or ill treatment. Anyone interested in a color-blind society cannot believe this is good long-term for the nation. At some point, whatever benefit was to be derived from such policies is gone and we are only reaping negative returns.

Monkeytoe on March 4, 2013 at 10:16 AM

I might also point out that nearly all conservatives took major affront to the very notion of “Black is Beautiful” in the 70s. It was framed as “hate.” Imagine that, calling dark skin beautiful being understood as an act of hate. Hilariously, now you’re suggesting that this young generation just invented and sustain colorism all by their lonesome. Learn your history.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Please find me some credible source for this. I have no doubt that some racists somewhere said this – but find me a credible source that a conservative said it.

You, like all liberals, simply make stuff up to try and support your idiotic, fantasy world-view wherein all conservatives are evil and racist and therefore no ideas by a conservative has to be taken seriously. The only hate here is yours toward rational thought. You hear dog-whistles and hatred in every opinion that is not your own and yet it is you and yours who constantly agitate for laws and policies based on differentiating people based solely on skin color. Emotion is not logic – which is why no liberal argument ever takes into account actual facts and actual history and instead just makes sh*t up.

Monkeytoe on March 4, 2013 at 10:33 AM

I am of Germanic descent, the Romans held my ancestors as slaves FAR longer than this country has existed…

PJ Emeritus on March 4, 2013 at 9:02 AM

BINGO. And it took about a thousand years – years referred to as the Dark Ages – between the time my indo-European ancestors had the ability to destroy Rome, and bury the classical world along with her, to the time my ancestors had the intelect to appreciate what they had a hand in destroying, ushering in the Rennaisance.

I pray we don’t have to learn that lesson twice.

shuzilla on March 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

libfreeordie will of course never admit that twelve hours ago he thought the “3/5 clause” meant…
 
MidniteRambler on March 4, 2013 at 3:05 AM

 

Then he comes chooses contact with socially-backwards pro-gun, traditional-marriage, anti-pedophilia, anti-incest types who have much less education but actually know things, and he has to run away because he’s incapable of arguing the topics he introduced…
 
Sadder still is knowing that he comes here and gets knocked around academically by people who probably only graduated high school but who have genuine intellectual curiousity and have educated themselves on different topics, and this forces him to return to the comfort of that little womens-/LBGT-/black-studies bubble where he knows what he’s expected to say to be told he’s smart again.
 
Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
rogerb on February 5, 2013 at 7:03 AM

rogerb on March 4, 2013 at 10:51 AM

I am really having trouble seeing the arguments in favor of keeping Section 5.

Are liberals arguing that the inherent racism in the founding of our country’s federal government requires that same federal government be the ones to administer racial justice to the states?

Are they not arguing that the Federal Government is both guilty of this problem while simultaneously being the only body capable of ending it?

If there is “institutional racism” present in our form of government, why do African Americans overwhelmingly support the growth of that very government?

Isn’t any federal solution to discrimination inherently going to be discriminatory in nature due to “institutional racism”?

I am having a really hard time connecting these dots…

weaselyone on March 4, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I might also point out that nearly all conservatives took major affront to the very notion of “Black is Beautiful” in the 70s. It was framed as “hate.” Imagine that, calling dark skin beautiful being understood as an act of hate. Hilariously, now you’re suggesting that this young generation just invented and sustain colorism all by their lonesome. Learn your history.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 8:07 PM

It is every bit as hateful as “white is beautiful”. When you posit yourself groupwise as being superior (which is what the phrase ” is beautiful” is code for) to other groups, you are setting yourself up on a pedestal which is very easy to topple.

Conservatives (yes, we did) fought to give blacks an equal position as individuals in our society. You liberals have fought very hard against that position, using group-think to convince blacks first to take an inferior position, and, later, to gain their votes, that they should have a superior position to remedy the ill effects of the inferior position you once held them in. The only difference was the number of votes they represented to change your mind as to how they ought to be treated.

Well, they believe that at present, but I’ve mentioned in another comment above all the toxic dredge you guys have fed them to convince them to vote for you, whilst at the same time keeping them down on the farm. Every act you have done to try to uplift them as a group (or, to put it another way — to buy votes) has had the inverse effect — and yet they still take the poisoned candy.

You have infected them with the same disease you once used upon the whites — that someone could be superior by forcing someone else to be inferior. It has never worked — the ill will it breeds lasts for generations.

This whole thing is rooted in the principle of “one person, one vote”, something the Democrats have never been keen on following — as one can see from the proportions of Democrats vs. Republicans brought up on multiple vote charges.

unclesmrgol on March 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Jazz Shaw: Racism is still a problem today, but it’s not coming from where you think.

Actually, he Left has always been racist and that has historically been where it has come from. After all, democrats created the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc. Just look at Harvard and how long their leftist programs discriminated against women and blacks. And now we are supposed to believe they are some paragons of equality virtue?

I don’t think so. The Left has constructed a mightly lie and many have fallen for it, but not all of us.

woodNfish on March 4, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Hilarious.
 
Prior to the election, re: Romney:
 

Better than a monarchist with dreams of redistributing wealth from the middle to upper class.
 
bayam on August 21, 2012 at 10:07 PM
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/21/nbcwsj-poll-obama-lead-romney-by-four-nationally-by-three-in-battleground-states/comment-page-1/#comment-6164234

 
Yesterday, re:Obama:
 

The only redistribution that has occurred under Obama is from the middle class to the wealthy…
 
bayam on March 3, 2013 at 4:32 PM

 
So, any guesses on who bayam voted for last November?

rogerb on March 4, 2013 at 1:03 PM

But it’s not just the way the majority in the Roberts court talks about race, it is the way they have gone about declaring unconstitutional practices we use to pursue racial equality in a society that is to this day shockingly unequal.

And the “progressives” are unable to wrap their heads around the concept that these practices we’ve been pursuing may well be a big part of the reason for the current unequalness.

krome on March 4, 2013 at 1:48 PM

I don’t have to editorialize or propagandize anything, the facts are what they are.

libfreeordie on March 3, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Facts are indeed what they are. Oft times, however, I find myself thinking that some of the things you say are facts aren’t facts.

krome on March 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Stoking the racial tensions are Democrats who now use it mainly to gain Hispanic votes. Darn it, if you you came into this country illegally, you have broken out laws and are an illegal alien. BTW, this doesn’t just apply to Hispanics.

SC.Charlie on March 4, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Is it just me, or is this guy Rachael Maddow’s identical twin in drag?

NoPain on March 4, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Allah: Correction needed.

“Unfortunately, with one small poke at this pile [out] of outrage, it falls into a heap.”

Trochilus on March 5, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Why do you let so many threads die after you present your data and/or open ended argument?
 
rogerb on June 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM

 
Which threads are those?
 
libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 11:44 PM

rogerb on March 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM

. . .
The middle class has been hollowed out not because of minorities or food stamp programs, but because of seismic globalization forces that cannot be reversed or easily addressed.

bayam on March 3, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Wrong. And, it is not only easily available food stamps, but also a host of other too-easily available “social welfare” programs that have all contributed to the demise of our economy. The abuses in Social Security disability are another example, where the attempted cure leads to further problems.

Competitiveness requires resisting the temptation to intervene on all levels, something which particularly the federal government has simply been unable to do when being driven by politicians and many judges who cannot resist exerting power for its own sake.

A thriving middle class in this country is waning and simply cannot be reestablished for now because we have a President who falsely insists that the “middle class” can somehow be be reinvigorated and “protected” by increasing already-unsustainable levels of spending by the federal government, fed by an attempt to tax our way to prosperity via confiscatory policies that are nothing more than class warfare tactics aimed at the successful, and which could not provide sufficient revenues to fulfill even a modest percentage of the man’s stated goals.

The truth is that he could care less about the middle class — it is just empty rhetoric. He has no idea what created the thriving middle class in this country in the first place.

Instead, “resentment” has become the driving force of Obama’s brand of progressive politics. It is certainly not your grandfather’s “Pollyanna” liberalism that he is espousing. This is open class warfare, with a constant racialist hue.

That is the big fat lie which more and more people who are looking for a free ride choose to believe. So they vote for people like him.

This country experienced both sustainability and the admirable growth of a real middle class, particularly during the latter half of the 20th Century, because of the success of capitalism. Corporations were not the enemy — they were the employers. Certainly there were problems that from time to time required governmental intervention. But Obamaism has branded corporations and the “rich” as the enemies.

Corporations competed for a share of a huge market for consumer goods in the aftermath of World War II, and one of the economic results was an impressive few generations of workers and middle managers in all aspects of corporate life, people who believe in hard work, and earned their way to a modest level of prosperity for themselves and their families.

Trochilus on March 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

So libree plants his stupid comments on one thread, then leaves?

Talking to the village idiot…..

itsspideyman on March 5, 2013 at 1:30 PM

What is absurd is that we do need a White History month in this country. Most of our public school history books have more references to Malcom X than Patrick Henry. White people in America today think they come from oppressive and barbarous ancestors, when in fact what we have given the world is all that is good in the world. White people had better wise up. The fact that there are weakling like this tweeter-journalist is a great indicator.

Redstone357 on March 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Anyone else think he’s a ringer for Rachel Maddow?

FineasFinn on March 7, 2013 at 7:31 AM

Anyone else think he’s a ringer for Rachel Maddow?

FineasFinn on March 7, 2013 at 7:31 AM

I think he IS Rachel Maddow.

Sterling Holobyte on March 7, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4