David 'KKK' Duke returns!!!!
Kirt
As a spin-off to Bob Livingston deciding to not to be the Speaker of
the House and retiring in six months, our problem will now be your
problem. Former Grand Wizzard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David
Duke has announced his candidacy for the 1st Congressional District of
Lousiana. This is Livingston's district that went heavily to David Duke
in his U.S. Senate and his Gubernatorial bids. In those statewide
districts however the rest of the state could vote against him. Now
this is not the case.
If Livingston does quit, the embarrassent of Louisiana might be one of
our nation's Congressmen. Scary, isn't it?
Kirt
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Kirt <kben...@concentric.net>
wrote:
...
>Former Grand Wizzard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David
>Duke has announced his candidacy for the 1st Congressional District of
>Lousiana. This is Livingston's district that went heavily to David Duke
>in his U.S. Senate and his Gubernatorial bids. In those statewide
>districts however the rest of the state could vote against him. Now
>this is not the case.
>
>If Livingston does quit, the embarrassent of Louisiana might be one of
>our nation's Congressmen. Scary, isn't it?
No, not really scary.
Eye opening for those who are asleep.
----- Sign Below The Dotted Line -----
Welcome to my virtual reality!
Ed Brown - dark...@flash.net
http://www.charm.com/~darkstar (Under construction)
Copyright, 1998 Edwin Brown
Artclemons
In article <367ef54f...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>No, not really scary.
>Eye opening for those who are asleep.
Sadly most of those who defend the republican party and its views on race
will point to J.C. Watts being appointed chief house nigger, and Clarence
Thomas as prime examples of no racism in the republican party. I've
always wondered just how people could explain the ties between the
racist right and the supposedly ideological right without suffering some
feelings that things just weren't right, but then again, I also had about the
same thought long ago when I realized that slaveowners had sold people
they knew to be their biological kin too.
-art clemons-
trudogg
> Former Grand Wizzard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, David
> Duke has announced his candidacy for the 1st Congressional District of
> Lousiana.
Didn't he marry his sister and move to Paraguay or something?
> If Livingston does quit, the embarrassent of Louisiana might be one of
> our nation's Congressmen. Scary, isn't it?
Borrowing from Ed Brown...Wake up Lousiana, ya gets the representation
you deserve. If it's nap time at the polls, ya gets the strange punk in
the odd colored sheets...
--
You're not paranoid, they really are out to get you...
http://www.mindspring.com/~trudogg/indexvb.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~trudogg/indexvm.html
Ray Wood
Artclemons wrote in message
<19981223195107...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>Sadly most of those who defend the republican party and its views on race
>will point to J.C. Watts being appointed chief house nigger, and Clarence
>Thomas as prime examples of no racism in the republican party. I've
>always wondered just how people could explain the ties between the
>racist right and the supposedly ideological right without suffering some
>feelings that things just weren't right, but then again, I also had about
the
>same thought long ago when I realized that slaveowners had sold people
>they knew to be their biological kin too.
I know what you mean. But, try to catch an airing CSpan
has been carrying of a visit Judge Thomas made to the
Virginia Home for Boys. I watched the man eyes and
listened to his voice as he took the time and made an
effort to try and change the life of every young man in
the room. Most of them were black, and I have no doubt
at all that the judge was sincere.
So, where Judge Thomas is concerned, my feelings have
become ambivalent. His politics stink to high heaven and
smell an awful lot like opportunism. But, he does care
about saving the lives of young black men ... and I have
to give him proper respect for that.
Ray Wood
Artclemons
>So, where Judge Thomas is concerned, my feelings have
>become ambivalent. His politics stink to high heaven and
>smell an awful lot like opportunism. But, he does care
>about saving the lives of young black men ... and I have
>to give him proper respect for that.
>
I'm sorry, but gestures that look good on the resume are for impressing
admission groups at educational institutions, and demonstrating that concern
exists. Going to speak one time and feeling sad during the visit isn't as
important as for example once a week showing up to tutor one or two
of the boys, or taking a limited number out to see the outside world
or any of a wide variety of things. I've heard lots of speeches in my life,
I don't recall one that changed me, and I heard some rather famous speeches,
live and in living color so to speak.
If you want to show respect to Associate Justice of the United States
Thomas, so be it, but speaking to a group of boys isn't concern, and using
the same logic, the criminal who shoots three people down, but stops to
hand a purse back to the little old lady who dropped it in fright deserves
respect too, even if the act by the criminal is a gesture too.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
>In article <76add4$m...@news3.newsguy.com>, "Ray Wood" <ray...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>So, where Judge Thomas is concerned, my feelings have
>>become ambivalent. His politics stink to high heaven and
>>smell an awful lot like opportunism. But, he does care
>>about saving the lives of young black men ... and I have
>>to give him proper respect for that.
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but gestures that look good on the resume are for impressing
>admission groups at educational institutions, and demonstrating that concern
>exists. Going to speak one time and feeling sad during the visit isn't as
>important as for example once a week showing up to tutor one or two
>of the boys, or taking a limited number out to see the outside world
>or any of a wide variety of things. I've heard lots of speeches in my life,
>I don't recall one that changed me, and I heard some rather famous speeches,
>live and in living color so to speak.
Art, if I were you, I would take very seriously what Ray wrote.
I wrote in this forum before that there is a strong movement to
"change the face" of Clarence Thomas by targeting kids.
He's going to places to speak to kids. When classes come to the
Supreme Court for a visit, he has an open door policy. Helped by his
friend, Armstrong Williams, they are saying to hell with the adults,
we will win the kids. The kids are tomorrow. The kids will write about
Thomas' legacy.
Everytime he speaks to a group of kids, and he gives stories about his
childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
credibility.
I'm telling you, he's winning.
Rich Thompson
> I wrote in this forum before that there is a strong movement to
> "change the face" of Clarence Thomas by targeting kids.
Sure.
> He's going to places to speak to kids. When classes come to the
> Supreme Court for a visit, he has an open door policy. Helped by his
> friend, Armstrong Williams, they are saying to hell with the adults,
> we will win the kids. The kids are tomorrow. The kids will write about
> Thomas' legacy.
Sure.
> Everytime he speaks to a group of kids, and he gives stories about his
> childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
> those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
> at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
> credibility.
No doubt.
> I'm telling you, he's winning.
But as true as all of that might be, doesn't it actually add support to
what Art is saying?
Art's claim is that Thomas doesn't *care*, but is simply engaging in
meaningless gestures. Pointing out that the gestures (meaningless or not)
actually serve a pragmatic purpose for the actor doesn't at all negate the
contention that he doesn't care about the well-being of Black people.
Isn't that the same thing that people say about Clinton?
Richard Thompson
Department of Psychology
McGill University
1205 Dr. Penfield Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
H3A 1B1
(514) 842-1231 x4286
"If you don't look into your soul right now, I'm going to have to hurt
you."
-MIB, the series
morp...@my-dejanews.com
>
> In article <76add4$m...@news3.newsguy.com>, "Ray Wood" <ray...@msn.com> writes:
But, he does care
> >about saving the lives of young black men ... and I have
> >to give him proper respect for that.
> >
>
. Going to speak one time and feeling sad during the visit isn't as
> important as for example once a week showing up to tutor one or two
> of the boys, or taking a limited number out to see the outside world
> or any of a wide variety of things.
More than true. Feeling sad does nothing to empower anyone to seek
and accomplish their goals. If you get down on a one to one basis
with people needing help, you accomplish a whole lot more than
rhetorics and platitudes.
> If you want to show respect to Associate Justice of the United States
> Thomas, so be it, but speaking to a group of boys isn't concern, and using
> the same logic, the criminal who shoots three people down, but stops to
> hand a purse back to the little old lady who dropped it in fright deserves
> respect too, even if the act by the criminal is a gesture too.
> -art clemons-
I know of of a young white teen who takes drugs and directs other
teens to the local drug dealer. This teen also gives his lunch and
other things to the homeless people he meets on the streets. He
even knows them all by name. The good he does, is overshadowed
by the harm he does himself and others in connection to drugs.
-morpheme-
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ray Wood
DarkStar wrote in message <36897d74...@mail.flash.net>...
>Everytime he speaks to a group of kids, and he gives stories about his
>childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
>those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
>at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
>credibility.
>
Even if it is all spin. Even if Judge Thomas is just this
enormously talented actor who can fool the public,
what is most important is that he is giving young
men a message which is having a positive effect
on their lives. Which is not a bad thing.
He is a republican, a conservative, but that doesn't
automatically mean that he is against black kids.
Ray Wood
morp...@my-dejanews.com
>
> I wrote in this forum before that there is a strong movement to
> "change the face" of Clarence Thomas by targeting kids.
> childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
> those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
> at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
> credibility.
>
> I'm telling you, he's winning.
Sorry to barge in on this but if he is winning, all the more
reasons for parents to discuss issues directly with their children.
This is basically a form of brainwashing and abject propaganda.
Perhaps making such discussions a part of the evening meal.
It is scary the things the educational system & so called authorities
are allowed to spoon feed the children, without the knowledge of
the parents.
Parents need to grasp control of their childrens minds to teach
them how to think and make educated decisions as to what
they will or won't believe.
Artclemons
In article <36897d74...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>Everytime he speaks to a group of kids, and he gives stories about his
>childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
>those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
>at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
>credibility.
>
>I'm telling you, he's winning.
He only is dealing with small groups of children, that isn't winning. One also
has to ask just where Armstrong is finding so many parents willing to let
their offspring be so duped. I also note that his image is not improving
nationwide, and that while older adults may no longer be the people who
set images in the community, it is telling that so many detest him. I note
that even El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, and MLK jr were not universally loved while
alive, but they were not decried as traitors by older humans. Being called
a traitor takes more than gestures to get around in the long run, and it should
be noted that the statement lingers on until the individual does something to
prove the statement isn't true. DC/Baltimore/Fairfax isn't the world or even
a cross section. If you asked most youth, even hard working youth about
Clarence T., you would not get a favorable discussion or description.
-art clemons-
RevTDC
>Date: 12/30/98 6:20 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <76dllu$6...@news3.newsguy.com
>Even if it is all spin. Even if Judge Thomas is just this
>enormously talented actor who can fool the public,
>what is most important is that he is giving young
>men a message which is having a positive effect
>on their lives. Which is not a bad thing.
>
>He is a republican, a conservative, but that doesn't
>automatically mean that he is against black kids.
>
>
>Ray Wood
>
>
>
There is no accurate to gauge wether or not Justice Thomas is having a positive
effect on the lives of young African American men. In fact, we can not even
determine the level of commitment Justice Thomas has for the well-being of the
African-American community. We can only look at his actions and try to make
some determination of his commitment to the upliftment of the community.
With this in mind, it can be argued that a majority of the decision written and
supported by Justice Thomas have not been in the best interest of the majority
of the African American community. He has continually supported policies that
have not contributed to well-being of the most marginalized segments of the
African American community. It is one thing to say you will pray for the
hungry person and quite a different issue to feed that person. At times, it
appears Justice Thomas is more interested in hiding behind "prayer" and
relecutant to "feed" the hungry.
Republicans and Democrats are both woefully defecient in merging theory with
action. This crituque of Justice Thomas is equally as applicable to Michael
Jordan.
"Justice is produced in the soul..." Plato, Book IV of the Republic
-Terrance D. Carroll
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated morp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> dark...@flash.net wrote:
>> I wrote in this forum before that there is a strong movement to
>> "change the face" of Clarence Thomas by targeting kids.
>> Everytime he speaks to a group of kids, and he gives stories about his
>> childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
>> those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
>> at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
>> credibility.
>>
>> I'm telling you, he's winning.
>
>Sorry to barge in on this but if he is winning, all the more
>reasons for parents to discuss issues directly with their children.
>This is basically a form of brainwashing and abject propaganda.
>Perhaps making such discussions a part of the evening meal.
Sure, but everyone "brainwashes" and "propagandizes" children. That's
what teaching/education is really all about.
>It is scary the things the educational system & so called authorities
>are allowed to spoon feed the children, without the knowledge of
>the parents.
>From some of the cases that I've heard about, the parents did know.
And if a kid is going to the Supreme Court for a field trip, and they
meet Justice Thomas, and he tells them to stay in school, study hard,
set goals, etc, what parent is going to object to that?
>From what I'm hearing, *that's* the message he is giving to young
kids. Hell, a few years ago, he spoke at an HBCU, and after he spoke,
he got a standing O....
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
...
> DC/Baltimore/Fairfax isn't the world or even
>a cross section. If you asked most youth, even hard working youth about
>Clarence T., you would not get a favorable discussion or description.
Believe what you will Art, but it isn't just in the D.C. area.
Artclemons
In article <19981230200926...@ng94.aol.com>, rev...@aol.comnojunk
(RevTDC) writes:
>Republicans and Democrats are both woefully defecient in merging theory with
>action. This crituque of Justice Thomas is equally as applicable to Michael
>Jordan.
The difference between Jordan and Thomas is monumental. Not only is
Jordan unable to participate in decisions that can affect the lives of most
of the community, but Jordan claims to be no more than an entertainer
or sports figure who makes money. Those are not the expectations for
an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, nor is
it likely that Jordan will ever have such power no matter how many
endorsements and commercials he gets to make the rest of his life.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, DarkStar wrote:
...
>
>> I'm telling you, he's winning.
>
>But as true as all of that might be, doesn't it actually add support to
>what Art is saying?
No, not at all.
>Art's claim is that Thomas doesn't *care*, but is simply engaging in
>meaningless gestures.
I can't say whether he cares or not, because I don't know his heart.
>Pointing out that the gestures (meaningless or not)
>actually serve a pragmatic purpose for the actor doesn't at all negate the
>contention that he doesn't care about the well-being of Black people.
If he cares and it is pragmatic, then what?
I leave the question open because I've read quotes from some people
who come away convinced that he does care.
RevTDC
quasi...@aol.com
"Ray Wood" <ray...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> Artclemons wrote in message
> <19981223195107...@ngol03.aol.com>...
> >Sadly most of those who defend the republican party and its views on race
> >will point to J.C. Watts being appointed chief house nigger, and Clarence
> >Thomas as prime examples of no racism in the republican party. I've
> >always wondered just how people could explain the ties between the
> >racist right and the supposedly ideological right without suffering some
> >feelings that things just weren't right, but then again, I also had about
> the
> >same thought long ago when I realized that slaveowners had sold people
> >they knew to be their biological kin too.
>
> I know what you mean. But, try to catch an airing CSpan
> has been carrying of a visit Judge Thomas made to the
> Virginia Home for Boys. I watched the man eyes and
> listened to his voice as he took the time and made an
> effort to try and change the life of every young man in
> the room. Most of them were black, and I have no doubt
> at all that the judge was sincere.
>
> become ambivalent. His politics stink to high heaven and
> about saving the lives of young black men ... and I have
> to give him proper respect for that.
>
You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him for
their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a mistake. I mean,
how can alienating someone do any do other than reinforce their defensive
position? Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
when the volume got turned up, we didn't hear this. I can't help but think
that in a way, we've hung this man out to dry. I know this may come as
strange coming from me, perhaps I'm feeling a little guilty or maybe it's
that time of year, but I think we should lay off the guy. Let him help in
his own way. If you give him a little space, maybe he'll give us a little
space. What am I talking about? He is us.
Just a few thoughts.
John Clarke
> Ray Wood
Mycroft
Ray Wood wrote:
> Even if it is all spin. Even if Judge Thomas is just this
> enormously talented actor who can fool the public,
> what is most important is that he is giving young
> men a message which is having a positive effect
> on their lives. Which is not a bad thing.
>
> He is a republican, a conservative, but that doesn't
> automatically mean that he is against black kids.
>
> Ray Wood
Colin Powell is a republican and a conservative (well I'm at
least sure he's a republican.) But I'm VERY sure that Colin
Powell cares about kids, black white and otherwise. Why?
For two reasons :
1) He espouses policies that are based on what he feels will
actually HELP people versus what is "politcally correct."
And please note, contrary to what conservatives would have
you to believe political correctness is relative. It is "politically
correct" for Clarence Thomas to be against affirmative action
because that's his party's position. By the same token it is
politically correct for Clinton to be for it.
But back to Colin Powell. He supports some limited affirmative
action, though he hopes to see it phased out eventually. (And
most of us do wish to reach that "color blind" society where it's
no longer needed.)
Colin Powell also supports welfare reform, but he feels that care
should be taken to protect children who actually NEED the assistance.
(Rather than having a "cookie cutter" arbitrary time limit for
everyone.)
2) He's now working ACTIVELY in volunteer efforts rather than
doing "charity photo ops". And yes, Clarence Thomas isn't the only
one out doing "charity photo ops". (I had to laugh some years ago
at seeing Hillary trying to hammer on a "habitat for humantiy" project
during one of Clinton's campains. She would have done better as
a tutor or giving free legal advice. The last picture of President and
Mrs. Clinton cooking for a Chrismas dinner for the homeless was
cute though.)
So, this brings me to a question that I keep asking, but never get
an answer for. Why do conservative republicans keep shoving the
likes of Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Ken Hamblin et al
down our collective throats when they could get FAR more miliage
from the Colin Powells and Tony Browns of the world? Colin Powell
could have WON the last presidential election. But rather than trying
to recruit him and save their sorry party, they (right-wingers) ran a
"full court press" against the very IDEA of General Powell running
for president.
Rich Thompson
> On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:54:06 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >Pointing out that the gestures (meaningless or not)
> >actually serve a pragmatic purpose for the actor doesn't at all negate the
> >contention that he doesn't care about the well-being of Black people.
>
> If he cares and it is pragmatic, then what?
Well, then he cares.
But if the caring is lower down on the hierarchy than the pragmatism, he's
not much different than most white people.
> I leave the question open because I've read quotes from some people
> who come away convinced that he does care.
And what do you say to people who come away from Clinton with the
impression that he cares?
Look at the man's policy- or law- affecting decisions. Do those decisions
benefit or harm? To me, that's the test.
Artclemons
In article <368ad98c...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>If he cares and it is pragmatic, then what?
>
>I leave the question open because I've read quotes from some people
>who come away convinced that he does care.
The problem I have with most of the people who claim that Thomas does
care is precisely that most of them are the same folks who argue that
he should be respected just because he's on the Supreme Court of the
United States. I judge the man by how he exerts power, how he votes,
how he behaved while associated with a quasi judicial federal agency,
and by with whom he associates. He flunks any reasonable test for
caring about the community or its future based on any of the measures
I judge him by.
-art clemons-
bjc...@azstarnet.com
football team beat Nebraska. When I returned, I started reading this thread about
David Duke and the KKK and for whatever odd reason, it struck me as being curiously
funny that the subject being discussed was Clarence Thomas.
Life is weird in the way it twists and turns. Just my .02 cents worth.
Sheri
Ray Wood
Artclemons wrote in message
<19981231204434...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>The problem I have with most of the people who claim that Thomas does
>care is precisely that most of them are the same folks who argue that
>he should be respected just because he's on the Supreme Court of the
>United States.
Well, I for one wouldn't argue that he should be respected
for the office he holds. I understand all to well why
Reagan nominated him and I understand how much of
a slap in the face of Black America his replacing Thurgood
Marshall represents.
But, I still think Thomas cares about the lives of young black
men. Really, I do. Isn't it possible that he may honestly be
naive enough to believe the republican hype? There are
such misguided people in this society and, let's face it,
Judge Thomas is far from the brightest brother around.
I don't think he is particularly knowledgeable when it
comes to the history of the struggle of African-Americans.
Yes, he is naive and yes, he is dangerous because of
the power of his position. But, that could all be true
AND he could still see himself in the eyes of troubled
young brothers and sincerely be making efforts to steer
them in the right direction.
Ray Wood
Ray Wood
Mycroft wrote in message <368BC458...@nospam.cis.uab.edu>...
>So, this brings me to a question that I keep asking, but never get
>an answer for. Why do conservative republicans keep shoving the
>likes of Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Ken Hamblin et al
>down our collective throats when they could get FAR more miliage
>from the Colin Powells and Tony Browns of the world? Colin Powell
>could have WON the last presidential election. But rather than trying
>to recruit him and save their sorry party, they (right-wingers) ran a
>"full court press" against the very IDEA of General Powell running
>for president.
The republican party is far from a monolith. Powell is a moderate
republican, but, the party is currently being controlled by the
conservatives not the moderates. Those fire-breathing right-wingers
hear themselves speaking whenever guys like Connerly and
Sowell (and, to a lesser extent, Thomas) open their mouths.
They will never provide anything more than token support for
Colin Powell because Powell's politics are much closer to
Clinton's that Gingrich's.
Ray Wood
J Lanier
[snip]
>You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him for
>their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a mistake. I mean,
>how can alienating someone do any do other than reinforce their defensive
>position?
Be charitable if you like, but IMO, Thomas has had opportunities to
respond to legitimate criticisms of the positions he's taken on their
merits and fails to do so, time and again. Instead, it seems to me that
he often uses such forums (such as his self-serving speech before the
Black lawyer's earlier this year) to wallow in his belief that he is
unduly criticized by the black community, and whomever else.
Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
>knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
>theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
>when the volume got turned up, we didn't hear this.
Perhaps he has managed to convince himself of that, but it just doesn't
ring true to me.
I can't help but think
>that in a way, we've hung this man out to dry. I know this may come as
>strange coming from me, perhaps I'm feeling a little guilty or maybe it's
>that time of year, but I think we should lay off the guy. Let him help in
>his own way. If you give him a little space, maybe he'll give us a little
>space. What am I talking about? He is us.
>Just a few thoughts.
[snip]
J Lanier
[snip]
>Everytime he speaks to a group of kids, and he gives stories about his
>childhood, when some adult says he has "Forgotton where he came from,"
>those kids are going t remember the stories Thomas told, and then look
>at the adult like they are crazy. And the adult will loose a little
>credibility.
>I'm telling you, he's winning.
What, the control on the spin of his "image"? And for how long? Stories
are very nice, but what happens when one of those kids runs up against the
reality that belies Thomas' positions?
IMO, Thomas (and others like him) continually fail to address the existing
inequities of this society and the way in which they can operate to
arbitrarily and unfairly undermine even the best efforts of certain of its
members, and that there needs to be some entity looking out and protecting
the interests of those who are vulnerable.
The positions he consistently takes would weaken or dismantle such
protections, and this is one of the reasons he is criticized, and IMO,
rightly so, although he seems to have convinced himself and would like to
convince others that it is solely because he marches to a different
ideological drummer.
morp...@my-dejanews.com
> Sure, but everyone "brainwashes" and "propagandizes" children.
That's > what teaching/education is really all about.
I guess my view of the educational process is different. I more so feel
it should teach the children to think. Since I knew it did not, I went
the extra mile to teach my children to think and not accept whatever
someone chooses to have them believe.
>From some of the cases that I've heard about, the parents did know.
> And if a kid is going to the Supreme Court for a field trip, and they
> meet Justice Thomas, and he tells them to stay in school, study hard,
> set goals, etc, what parent is going to object to that?
Actually, I would object to that. Since I am aware of C. Thomas, my
choice as a parent would have been to inform the school my views
on the field trip and take a day off from work and remove my child
from school that day. As one individual, I might not be able to
influence what the school system does. However, I do have a
choice as to what I want influencing my child.
>From what I'm hearing, *that's* the message he is giving to young
> kids. Hell, a few years ago, he spoke at an HBCU, and after he spoke,
> he got a standing O....
After reading Mr. Clemons statement that he is only dealing with a small
group of children, I will have to agree with that statement. I also agree
with Mr. Clemons statement that if you ask most youth about C. Thomas
they would not give you a favorable description.
If you go to the lower grades of youth, most likely they would not
even care. I remember when I was 10 years old, I did not think
much of adults. I could see through their double talk and thought
they were not very bright to not even realize they were doubletalking.
They tended to act as if all children were ignorant enough to believe
every thing they said. The closest I came to idolizing an adult was in
connection with a dead adult. That was the musician Beethoven.
I was intrigued with his ability to compose music in the face of
not being able to hear.
The artistic & sports world tends to influence youth more so than
the political realm. In terms of the media brainwashing, I am less
influenced by it because the hearing get a double dose (sight
& sound). I only get the sight version, so much less get through
which gives me a bit of time to form my own opinion.
Some children may be influenced by Thomas rhethorics. Some
individuals will be lost to the influence of others in any category.
All will not be saved. As a parent, I have always felt that it is
in the best interests of my child that I teach them how to think.
We have always had deep discussions on all types of issues
and topics and IMHO, we all benefited from the discussions.
It kept the communications open to enable me to help
and guide them when necessary.
-morpheme-
morp...@my-dejanews.com
>
> But, I still think Thomas cares about the lives of young black
> men. Really, I do. Isn't it possible that he may honestly be
> naive enough to believe the republican hype? There are
> such misguided people in this society and, let's face it,
> Judge Thomas is far from the brightest brother around.
>
> I don't think he is particularly knowledgeable when it
> comes to the history of the struggle of African-Americans.
> Yes, he is naive and yes, he is dangerous because of
> the power of his position. But, that could all be true
> AND he could still see himself in the eyes of troubled
> young brothers and sincerely be making efforts to steer
> them in the right direction.
>
> Ray Wood
>
I think he is naive enough to believe the republican hype.
I also don't think he is very knowledgeable when it comes
to the history of the struggle of African-Amerians. A little
knowledge is a very dangerous thing IMHO, especially
in connection with the power of his position.
Considering the fact of all this possible confusion on
the part of Mr. Thomas, I would never ever trust him
to steer any child of mind in the right direction a/k/a
the direction according to Mr. Thomas. Wouldn't that
be like the blind leading the blind?
Artclemons
>You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him for
>their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a mistake. I mean,
>how can alienating someone do any do other than reinforce their defensive
>position? Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
>knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
>theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
>when the volume got turned up, we didn't hear this. I can't help but think
>that in a way, we've hung this man out to dry. I know this may come as
>strange coming from me, perhaps I'm feeling a little guilty or maybe it's
>that time of year, but I think we should lay off the guy. Let him help in
>his own way. If you give him a little space, maybe he'll give us a little
>space. What am I talking about? He is us.
The problem with this attitude is that it allows people like Clarence Thomas to
claim identification with the community while acting to destroy it. Thomas'
record while handling civil rights complaints was enough to make most
thinking African-Americans with any knowledge of law to not want the man
on the Supreme Court, and to find his votes on the court and his self serving
rhetoric all too predictable. At what point can a community reject a
supposed member? I note that conservatives regularly proclaim the need
to shun and reject those who don't live up to their standards, why is it wrong
to shun and reject conservatives who don't live up to African-American
community?
-art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
...
> He flunks any reasonable test for
>caring about the community or its future based on any of the measures
>I judge him by.
On the measures you judge him by. But there are others, who do have
the interest of the Black community at heart, that believe different
from you.
DarkStar
>On Thu, 31 Dec 1998, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 11:54:06 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
>> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
...
>> >Pointing out that the gestures (meaningless or not)
>> >actually serve a pragmatic purpose for the actor doesn't at all negate the
>> >contention that he doesn't care about the well-being of Black people.
>>
>> If he cares and it is pragmatic, then what?
>
>Well, then he cares.
>But if the caring is lower down on the hierarchy than the pragmatism, he's
>not much different than most white people.
True.
But the question still remains.
>> I leave the question open because I've read quotes from some people
>> who come away convinced that he does care.
>
>And what do you say to people who come away from Clinton with the
>impression that he cares?
>Look at the man's policy- or law- affecting decisions. Do those decisions
>benefit or harm? To me, that's the test.
There are people, Blacks included, who believe affirmative action is,
on balance, destructive, and their arguments are cogent, whether I
like the reasoning or not. So, even some of the decisions are up to
debate.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
wrote:
...
>Perhaps he has managed to convince himself of that, but it just doesn't
>ring true to me.
Fine, it doesn't ring true to me either.
But jumping up and down, yelling, getting red in the face, and acting
like fools is not getting anywhere.
We alienate those who may "be on our side," and develop sympathy for
Thomas. And it's happening. It happened when he was
invited/disinvited/invited to speak to the school, and it happened
again with the lawyer group, only stronger. To see it, all you had to
do was read the op-ed/editorial pages.
And the current plan to target children, is a good plan. The question
is, how do you counter it?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
>In article <76g9c0$upj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, quasi...@aol.com writes:
>
>>You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him for
>>their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a mistake. I mean,
>>how can alienating someone do any do other than reinforce their defensive
>>position? Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
>>knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
>>theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
>>when the volume got turned up, we didn't hear this.
...
>The problem with this attitude is that it allows people like Clarence Thomas to
>claim identification with the community while acting to destroy it.
The fact is, he is Black, claims he knows about discrimination, and
claims he was once "a Black radical."
Sorry, you can't overlook it.
>Thomas'
>record while handling civil rights complaints was enough to make most
>thinking African-Americans with any knowledge of law to not want the man
>on the Supreme Court, and to find his votes on the court and his self serving
>rhetoric all too predictable.
Then keep mentioning it.
But saying he ain't really Black or has forgotten about being Black
ain't gonna cut it.
> At what point can a community reject a
>supposed member? I note that conservatives regularly proclaim the need
>to shun and reject those who don't live up to their standards, why is it wrong
>to shun and reject conservatives who don't live up to African-American
>community?
I ain't sayin' it's wrong.
I'm saying the method used is counter-productive and stupid. Shoutin',
yellin' and carryin' on don't make a bit a difference. His ass is
still sitting in a seat as a judge for life.
DarkStar
>In <36897d74...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
>
...
>>I'm telling you, he's winning.
>
>What, the control on the spin of his "image"?
Yes.
> And for how long?
If he keeps going for the kids, I'd say for a long time.
>Stories
>are very nice, but what happens when one of those kids runs up against the
>reality that belies Thomas' positions?
Those kids will then form their opinions.
>IMO, Thomas (and others like him) continually fail to address the existing
>inequities of this society and the way in which they can operate to
>arbitrarily and unfairly undermine even the best efforts of certain of its
>members, and that there needs to be some entity looking out and protecting
>the interests of those who are vulnerable.
Understood.
Wayne Johnson
>On the measures you judge him by. But there are others, who do have
>the interest of the Black community at heart, that believe different
>from you.
Who?
Ken Hamblin? Larry Elder? Armstrong Williams?
Are you sure they have our interests at heart? Why do you think so?
Who supports the man who made it his business to support the Reagan
plan for civil rights in America?
Wayne "Thomas was and is out for himself" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
quasi...@aol.com
artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons) wrote:
>
> In article <76g9c0$upj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, quasi...@aol.com writes:
>
> >You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him for
> >their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a mistake. I mean,
> >how can alienating someone do any do other than reinforce their defensive
> >position? Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
> >knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
> >theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
> >that in a way, we've hung this man out to dry. I know this may come as
> >strange coming from me, perhaps I'm feeling a little guilty or maybe it's
> >that time of year, but I think we should lay off the guy. Let him help in
> >his own way. If you give him a little space, maybe he'll give us a little
> >space. What am I talking about? He is us.
>
to
> record while handling civil rights complaints was enough to make most
> thinking African-Americans with any knowledge of law to not want the man
> on the Supreme Court, and to find his votes on the court and his self serving
> supposed member? I note that conservatives regularly proclaim the need
> to shun and reject those who don't live up to their standards, why is it wrong
> to shun and reject conservatives who don't live up to African-American
> community?
Art, I do think we should reject conservative/Republican ideology. The
complication here is that we are dealing with own of our own people, and a
man who knows our experience. I can see if the guy came from some alien
background treating him like we do, but he doesn't. Justice Thomas is a
strong willed person. You can see it. The last thing you are going to be
able to do is to change this guy by brute force. I guarantee you that he can
cause us alot more grief as a people than we can to him. I don't mean to
state this obvious, but it's a fact. Why tackle this guy head-on by calling
him a sell-out, etc., alienating him and just attracting his rage? I
guarantee you that this man, if he hasn't already given into it, is saying to
himself, "Why bother? They don't really care about me. So what if I'm a
Black man? It don't mean shit. I should just f*** them as much as they're
f***ing me. I don't care." It should not have to come to this, and if it
does I think it's a shame because I really think this guy really wants to be
of service to his community, and we are wasting our chance. I just ask you
to take a moment and walk in the guys shoes. They may not fit, but just a
moment.
John Clarke
> -art clemons-
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 21:50:27 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On the measures you judge him by. But there are others, who do have
>>the interest of the Black community at heart, that believe different
>>from you.
>
>Who?
>
>Ken Hamblin? Larry Elder? Armstrong Williams?
Find one post by me where I support any of those three.
[ This spot reserved for Wayne, or anyone, to find one post where
darkstar@*cais.com, dark...@charm.net, edb...@radix.net, or
dark...@flash.net has supported any of the names mentioned ]
>Are you sure they have our interests at heart? Why do you think so?
Try former Black Panther members who don't like affirmative action, or
Farrakhan, or Colin Powell who "is for outreach type of affirmative
action, but not quotas."
>Who supports the man who made it his business to support the Reagan
>plan for civil rights in America?
So tell me...
Who made the crack vs. cocaine sentencing differences permanent?
Who signed the welfare reform bill into law with 2 smiling Black women
standing behind him?
Who waited until the very last weekend before the election to speak
out against the anti-AA prop in Cali, even though he was a frequent
visitor to the state?
>Wayne "Thomas was and is out for himself" Johnson
>cia...@ix.netcom.com
Ed "Clinton was and is out for himself" Brown
Artclemons
In article <368fcf3...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>There are people, Blacks included, who believe affirmative action is,
>on balance, destructive, and their arguments are cogent, whether I
>like the reasoning or not. So, even some of the decisions are up to
>debate.
>
The problem with acceding to their views is that the view of others must be
neglected. It is telling that when those who oppose affirmative action and
claim that it has negative effects are asked what should replace it, they
claim either a merit system based on tests and grading that is demonstrably
biased, or talk about the need for African-Americans to work hard. Let's
see a system that produces about two thirds the number of African-
Americans one would expect if the system were not biased in some way
is supposed to be replaced by a system that produces even fewer
African-Americans admitted to schools or given access to subcontracts on
government projects or any of a wide variety of other things that affirmative
action applies to. Let's also be honest if someone who is admissible to a
college is ashamed because others assume that the individual was admitted
while being less qualified, is worried about those opinions, that individual
has
a severe self image problem, one that ending affirmative action won't cure.
It's amazing how people tend to forget that just based on numbers on SAT
scores and grades, there should be a lot fewer white males admitted to
prestigious elite state funded schools, but somehow that gets ignored in
order to not admit African-Americans. I'm sorry, but the delusions of those
who can pretend the equivalent of believeing that the smell of burning cloth
isn't coming from their pants because lying down and rolling over to put out
the flames despite feeling lots of heat because it would be undignified to roll
over
in the mud aren't something I think the community either greater or lesser
should bother to worry about.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <368fea84...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>he fact is, he is Black, claims he knows about discrimination, and
>claims he was once "a Black radical."
>
>Sorry, you can't overlook it.
Sorry, but his claims to being a radical so to speak are slim to none. Nobody
I know of, who went to Holy Cross at the same time or Yale while he was
there remembers firebrand Clarence T. Nobody can find any realistic
evidence that he was for example known to associate with radical, a
claim that crops up in a lot of FBI files about "militants" at the time
Clarence
T. claims he was a radical. As far as I know, he wasn't a participant in any
radical action, didn't for example go out and try to raise food for the Black
Panther free breakfast program, or do many of the other things that radicals
from that era did. Lets's just say that if Thomas was radical, he kept it
well to himself.
If Thomas does know about discrimination, he seems very able to ignore it,
except when he's being subjected to a "high tech lynching", look at his
record on the Supreme Court, on the Appellate court, and while a member
of a quasi judicial federal agency charged with investigating civil rights
violations. If he knew, the evidence is sorely lacking. Now as for his
skin color, Ward Connerly who is not much lighter than Thomas claims that
he should be called Irish
Art Clemons:
>>Thomas'
>>record while handling civil rights complaints was enough to make most
>>thinking African-Americans with any knowledge of law to not want the man
>>on the Supreme Court, and to find his votes on the court and his self
>serving
>>rhetoric all too predictable.
>
>Then keep mentioning it.
>But saying he ain't really Black or has forgotten about being Black
>ain't gonna cut it.
I know people of obvious African heritage, who listen to classical music, wear
expensive imported European suits, haven't knowingly read a book by anyone
of obvious non-European heritage, and who discuss things in terms of "those
criminals" when describing most other African-Americans, who have a finer
and more honed sense of identity with the community than Thomas. Saying
that Thomas no longer acts like an African-American is about the only way of
describing him that leaves us as a community, and any other approach means
that for example criminals who prey on the community also should be ignored
and not condemned. You can't have it both ways, either behavior outside some
bounds deserves condemnation or none does. Clarence Thomas deserves
condemnation for his actions and deeds, and gestures in this case just won't
make him Soul Brother number 12 million.
-art clemons-
J Lanier
>On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:02:23 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
>wrote:
>>In <36897d74...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
>>
>...
>>>I'm telling you, he's winning.
>>
>>What, the control on the spin of his "image"?
>Yes.
Well that is the problem with it and why people continue to criticize him,
whether they do so in an effective manner or not. They understand his
"gestures" for what they are. Shallow attempts to make himself look good,
without the underlying substance that demonstrates a true caring and
concern for people and the obstacles they face in being successful.
>> And for how long?
>If he keeps going for the kids, I'd say for a long time.
In the short-term, but when reality starts creeping in as those kids grow
up and some of them have experiences contrary to what they were told, then
comes the backlash. And if there is one thing people have a hard time
forgiving, is betrayal, as the today's current events should well
demonstrate.
[snip]
Rich Thompson
> On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:32:05 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >But if the caring is lower down on the hierarchy than the pragmatism, he's
> >not much different than most white people.
>
> True.
> But the question still remains.
Sure. And I still say that one can question Justice Thomas' caring at
least as much as one can question William Clinton's.
> There are people, Blacks included, who believe affirmative action is,
> on balance, destructive, and their arguments are cogent, whether I
> like the reasoning or not. So, even some of the decisions are up to
> debate.
Sure. There's always debate. But those who believe that affirmative action
is necessary or at least desireable will see Justice Thomas as
desctructive.
And I can't see there being very much debate about his stint with the
eeoc.
Ray Wood
Artclemons wrote in message
<19990102081743...@ngol05.aol.com>...
>I note that conservatives regularly proclaim the need
>to shun and reject those who don't live up to their standards, why is it
wrong
>to shun and reject conservatives who don't live up to African-American
>community?
The A-A community, by far, is less hypocritical and more
compassionate than conservatives. Which is a good thing,
so I wouldn't argue that we should emulate them.
What is wrong with pointing out both the good and bad in
a person? Why is it unacceptable to suggest that
Thomas is a political threat _and_ that he also demonstrates
empathy for the future of young black men?
Ray Wood
Ray Wood
morp...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76l5cj$k66$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Considering the fact of all this possible confusion on
>the part of Mr. Thomas, I would never ever trust him
>to steer any child of mind in the right direction a/k/a
>the direction according to Mr. Thomas. Wouldn't that
>be like the blind leading the blind?
I respect your opinion, and I would certainly express the
dangers of Thomas's political choices with my child.
But, consider the case of Thomas speaking at the
Virginia Home For Boys, where young men often
don't have the advantage of homes as stable as
yours or mine.
I think a young black conservative is less of a threat
to himself and our community than a young black
gangbanger.
If Thomas convinced a young man to turn aside from
a path of crime, regardless of Thomas' true intentions,
even if the young man's new path in life became one
far to the right of mine, I wouldn't see that as a bad thing.
Ray Wood
quasi...@aol.com
jla...@panix.com (J Lanier) wrote:
> In <76g9c0$upj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> quasi...@aol.com writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him for
> >their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a mistake. I mean,
> >how can alienating someone do any do other than reinforce their defensive
> >position?
>
> respond to legitimate criticisms of the positions he's taken on their
> merits and fails to do so, time and again. Instead, it seems to me that
> he often uses such forums (such as his self-serving speech before the
> Black lawyer's earlier this year) to wallow in his belief that he is
> unduly criticized by the black community, and whomever else.
"Wallow?" Ms. Lanier, this man is truly hurt. He wants to be accepted, but
he is also a man who stands by his beliefs. This strong characteristic is
probably what got him to where he is, the ability to resist all attacks. I
don't fault the man for this. And come on, whose speesh is not a little
"self-serving?"
I'm just afraid that we are making enemies where there are none, and to me
this is the worst thing we can do. A hurt man will a hundred times more
likely to avenge his pain than a ordinary man in pursuing a cause. And, when
it's close to home, I would guess that the likelihood maybe an order of
magnitude higher.
I just impore you to rethink your position. We could be turning the our
greatest friend into out greatest enemy.
> Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
> >knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
> >theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
> >when the volume got turned up, we didn't hear this.
>
> Perhaps he has managed to convince himself of that, but it just doesn't
> ring true to me.
What? He is not a Black man? My goodness, what does he have to prove to make
himself be accepted by his own people? He knows where he comes from; he knows
the depth of struggle of our people. O.K. his politics are a little off the
beaten path. Why can't we just let him in and allow him to explain, freely,
without duress, without pre-judgement, without the insults.
I will be the first to say that I have said some terrible things about Justice
Thomas, perhaps more vicious than anyone here, but I think I was wrong, a bit
overzealous.
> I can't help but think
> >that in a way, we've hung this man out to dry. I know this may come as
> >strange coming from me, perhaps I'm feeling a little guilty or maybe it's
> >that time of year, but I think we should lay off the guy. Let him help in
> >his own way. If you give him a little space, maybe he'll give us a little
> >space. What am I talking about? He is us.
>
> >Just a few thoughts.
>
> [snip]
>
John Clarke
Wayne Johnson
>On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:06:10 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 21:50:27 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>>
>>>On the measures you judge him by. But there are others, who do have
>>>the interest of the Black community at heart, that believe different
>>>from you.
>>
>>Who?
>>
>>Ken Hamblin? Larry Elder? Armstrong Williams?
>
>Find one post by me where I support any of those three.
>
>[ This spot reserved for Wayne, or anyone, to find one post where
>darkstar@*cais.com, dark...@charm.net, edb...@radix.net, or
>dark...@flash.net has supported any of the names mentioned ]
Is this a joke, or what?
You claim that Thomas is supported by Black Americans. I ask who, and
name several Black Americans who do support Thomas.
Now, you want me to show where YOU support THEM?
What is this? You know as well as I do who Thomas' supporters are. I
don't know whether or not you support Thomas, since you're being so
coy about it, and I sincerely don't care whether you support the three
Thomas "fans" at all.
Now, take that space you reserved and give us your list of Black
people who support Thomas.
>>Are you sure they have our interests at heart? Why do you think so?
>
>Try former Black Panther members who don't like affirmative action, or
>Farrakhan, or Colin Powell who "is for outreach type of affirmative
>action, but not quotas."
This is the biggest non sequitir... Look, are you trying to say that
all of these people support Thomas? Farrakhan is a Thomas supporter?
And which Panthers are you talking about...you're not making much
sense here, Ed.
>>Who supports the man who made it his business to support the Reagan
>>plan for civil rights in America?
>
>So tell me...
>
>Who made the crack vs. cocaine sentencing differences permanent?
I thought we were talking about Thomas, not Clinton. Now, if you want
to compare the Reagan civil rights record with the Clinton civil
rights record, and you want to drag this silly issue back out as some
kind of "kicker", you're in for a rough time.
I need to ask: were you upset when I pointed out that Thomas was a hit
man for the racist right under Reagan, as head of the EEOC? I'm sure
that you remember, during the Thomas hearings where he was asked about
the EEOC's abysmal record of handling cases while he was in charge, in
comparison with previous Administrations.
He didn't want to use the power of the Federal government to fight
racism, as his bosses didn't think it was necessary. So he went
along.
This has nothing to do with cocaine. If you want to start a new
thread, be my guest. The short version? Crack cocaine was killing
our people, and I support tough sentencing for its sale and use.
There was nothing stopping Black people from switching to the lower
penalty powder form, which doesn't addict nearly as fast; so what the
hell is the problem with the sentencing?
>Who signed the welfare reform bill into law with 2 smiling Black women
>standing behind him?
I liked the welfare reform bill. It's working very well for Black
people. The two women behind Clinton are off welfare, working, and
doing fine, because they had the safety net of training to break the
cycle; what the hell is the problem with having welfare victims smile
when they get off of it?
>Who waited until the very last weekend before the election to speak
>out against the anti-AA prop in Cali, even though he was a frequent
>visitor to the state?
Ronald Reagan? No? How long do you think he would have waited to
oppose 209, Ed? It was Reagan that Thomas worked for...do you think
Reagan or Thomas would EVER have opposed it?
>>Wayne "Thomas was and is out for himself" Johnson
>>cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
>Ed "Clinton was and is out for himself" Brown
What about Thomas?
Wayne "Come on, now....is he changing into Thurgood Marshall, or not?"
Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 02:32:05 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
>> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> >But if the caring is lower down on the hierarchy than the pragmatism, he's
>> >not much different than most white people.
>>
>> True.
>> But the question still remains.
>
>Sure. And I still say that one can question Justice Thomas' caring at
>least as much as one can question William Clinton's.
Did I say no one could question it?
Nope.
>> There are people, Blacks included, who believe affirmative action is,
>> on balance, destructive, and their arguments are cogent, whether I
>> like the reasoning or not. So, even some of the decisions are up to
>> debate.
>
>Sure. There's always debate. But those who believe that affirmative action
>is necessary or at least desireable will see Justice Thomas as
>desctructive.
But that doesn't negate what I wrote, now does it?
>And I can't see there being very much debate about his stint with the
>eeoc.
There is and has been.
I think there's something at http://www.cnbl.org
J Lanier
>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 10:36:27 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>wrote:
[snip]
>>The problem with this attitude is that it allows people like Clarence Thomas to
>>claim identification with the community while acting to destroy it.
>The fact is, he is Black, claims he knows about discrimination, and
>claims he was once "a Black radical."
>Sorry, you can't overlook it.
So what that he claims these things? It's not a matter of overlooking or
not overlooking them. It's what he is actually *doing* now that counts.
>>Thomas'
>>record while handling civil rights complaints was enough to make most
>>thinking African-Americans with any knowledge of law to not want the man
>>on the Supreme Court, and to find his votes on the court and his self serving
>>rhetoric all too predictable.
>Then keep mentioning it.
>But saying he ain't really Black or has forgotten about being Black
>ain't gonna cut it.
However unpalatable a statement for Thomas to take, how is saying he seems
to have forgotten about being black, an *inaccurate* one when he
consistently advocates policies that are in direct opposition or undermine
blacks, especially given all the little anecdotes he treats us to in his
speeches?
Experiencing what he claims he has experienced as a black man in this
country should at least make him sensitive to the fact that there is the
possibility that hard work alone or one's own merit are not always enough
and that policies which attack systemic discrimination are also needed.
In fact, I don't see any any reason why an ideology that combines the two
positions and puts each in it's place cannot be advanced.
>> At what point can a community reject a
>>supposed member? I note that conservatives regularly proclaim the need
>>to shun and reject those who don't live up to their standards, why is it wrong
>>to shun and reject conservatives who don't live up to African-American
>>community?
>I ain't sayin' it's wrong.
>I'm saying the method used is counter-productive and stupid. Shoutin',
>yellin' and carryin' on don't make a bit a difference. His ass is
>still sitting in a seat as a judge for life.
Oh yeah, he is in one of the most powerful positions in this country for
life.
What exactly is he complaining about again?
DarkStar
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 10:47:12 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:06:10 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 21:50:27 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On the measures you judge him by. But there are others, who do have
>>>>the interest of the Black community at heart, that believe different
>>>>from you.
>>>
>>>Who?
>>>
>>>Ken Hamblin? Larry Elder? Armstrong Williams?
>>
>>Find one post by me where I support any of those three.
>>
>>[ This spot reserved for Wayne, or anyone, to find one post where
>>darkstar@*cais.com, dark...@charm.net, edb...@radix.net, or
>>dark...@flash.net has supported any of the names mentioned ]
>
>Is this a joke, or what?
>
>You claim that Thomas is supported by Black Americans. I ask who, and
>name several Black Americans who do support Thomas.
>
>Now, you want me to show where YOU support THEM?
Yeah, show me one post where I have supported Ken Hamblin.
You can't because I've written nothing positive about him.
Larry Elder?
You can't because I never comment on him because I've never heard him.
Armstrong Williams?
I posted that I think he's wrong.
>What is this? You know as well as I do who Thomas' supporters are. I
>don't know whether or not you support Thomas, since you're being so
>coy about it, and I sincerely don't care whether you support the three
>Thomas "fans" at all.
Care to keep on misstating Wayne?
My first post on Thomas was *WAY* back when I first starting posting
on SCAA. I stated that the Thomas nomination was Bush pissing in the
face of Black people and an insult to Marshall. I haven't backed off
one bit from that statement.
Find one post where I do.
[ this space reserved ]
>>>Are you sure they have our interests at heart? Why do you think so?
>>
>>Try former Black Panther members who don't like affirmative action, or
>>Farrakhan, or Colin Powell who "is for outreach type of affirmative
>>action, but not quotas."
>
>This is the biggest non sequitir... Look, are you trying to say that
>all of these people support Thomas? Farrakhan is a Thomas supporter?
>And which Panthers are you talking about...you're not making much
>sense here, Ed.
I'll let it stand on it's own. Because I damn sure didn't come close
to writing that they support Thomas.
>>>Who supports the man who made it his business to support the Reagan
>>>plan for civil rights in America?
>>
>>So tell me...
>>
>>Who made the crack vs. cocaine sentencing differences permanent?
>
>I thought we were talking about Thomas, not Clinton. Now, if you want
>to compare the Reagan civil rights record with the Clinton civil
>rights record, and you want to drag this silly issue back out as some
>kind of "kicker", you're in for a rough time.
>
>I need to ask: were you upset when I pointed out that Thomas was a hit
>man for the racist right under Reagan, as head of the EEOC? I'm sure
>that you remember, during the Thomas hearings where he was asked about
>the EEOC's abysmal record of handling cases while he was in charge, in
>comparison with previous Administrations.
You tell me Wayne. Anyone who has read me should know my views on
Thomas.
...
>>Who signed the welfare reform bill into law with 2 smiling Black women
>>standing behind him?
>
>I liked the welfare reform bill. It's working very well for Black
>people. The two women behind Clinton are off welfare, working, and
>doing fine, because they had the safety net of training to break the
>cycle; what the hell is the problem with having welfare victims smile
>when they get off of it?
This is where Art and Alice usually chime in.
>>Who waited until the very last weekend before the election to speak
>>out against the anti-AA prop in Cali, even though he was a frequent
>>visitor to the state?
>
>Ronald Reagan? No? How long do you think he would have waited to
>oppose 209, Ed? It was Reagan that Thomas worked for...do you think
>Reagan or Thomas would EVER have opposed it?
Nice try to twist words, but since I was referring to Clinton, which
is obvious by context, ....
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
wrote:
>In <368fd0b...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 16:02:23 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
>>wrote:
>
>>>In <36897d74...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
...
>>>What, the control on the spin of his "image"?
>
>>Yes.
>
>Well that is the problem with it and why people continue to criticize him,
>whether they do so in an effective manner or not. They understand his
>"gestures" for what they are. Shallow attempts to make himself look good,
>without the underlying substance that demonstrates a true caring and
>concern for people and the obstacles they face in being successful.
You think so, I see otherwise.
>>> And for how long?
>
>>If he keeps going for the kids, I'd say for a long time.
>
>In the short-term, but when reality starts creeping in as those kids grow
>up and some of them have experiences contrary to what they were told, then
>comes the backlash. And if there is one thing people have a hard time
>forgiving, is betrayal, as the today's current events should well
>demonstrate.
You think so, again, I disagree.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
>In article <368fea84...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
>writes:
...
> You can't have it both ways, either behavior outside some
>bounds deserves condemnation or none does. Clarence Thomas deserves
>condemnation for his actions and deeds, and gestures in this case just won't
>make him Soul Brother number 12 million.
I want you to show me where I wrote he should not be challenged.
Phil Nation
: In article <76j0c3$1...@panix.com>,
: jla...@panix.com (J Lanier) wrote:
: > In <76g9c0$upj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> quasi...@aol.com writes:
: >
: > [snip]
: >
: > >You know, in our rush to castigate Clarence Thomas and others like him
: > >for their views, in the back of my mind I've felt like it was a
: > >mistake. I mean, how can alienating someone do any do other than
: > >reinforce their defensive position?
: > Be charitable if you like, but IMO, Thomas has had opportunities to
: > respond to legitimate criticisms of the positions he's taken on their
: > merits and fails to do so, time and again. Instead, it seems to me that
: > he often uses such forums (such as his self-serving speech before the
: > Black lawyer's earlier this year) to wallow in his belief that he is
: > unduly criticized by the black community, and whomever else.
: "Wallow?" Ms. Lanier, this man is truly hurt.
I doubt that. I think she's right about his whining. Ed very
nicely broke down a lot of what he said several months ago regarding his
big speech, IMO. And as I've said before, the man is a liar and a
hypocrite.
: And come on, whose speesh is not a little "self-serving?"
That's a really weak excuse, IMO.
: I just impore you to rethink your position. We could be turning the our
: greatest friend into out greatest enemy.
I just don't see how a hypocrite and a liar might be anyone's greatest
friend. Thomas is both.
Phil Kasiecki
--
Philip T. Kasiecki
pkas...@ieee.org
http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/p/pkasieck/
"Life is not important except in the impact it has on others' lives."
-Jackie Robinson
morp...@my-dejanews.com
> I think a young black conservative is less of a threat
> to himself and our community than a young black
> gangbanger.
> If Thomas convinced a young man to turn aside from
> a path of crime, regardless of Thomas' true intentions,
> even if the young man's new path in life became one
> far to the right of mine, I wouldn't see that as a bad thing.
>
> Ray Wood
When you put it that way, I would have to agree.
Conservative views may be less destructive to
the black community than the violence and crime
a young man may succumb to had he no positive
influence whatsoever from anyone.
In addition, it is possible Thomas may inspire some of
the young men to be non conservative & reject
conservative views and seek to help instead of
hinder african american.
-morpheme-
Rich Thompson
> On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:06:10 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
> Johnson) wrote:
>
> >Wayne "Thomas was and is out for himself" Johnson
> >cia...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Ed "Clinton was and is out for himself" Brown
Okay, so you've established that they're about equivalent when it comes to
caring about the community.
I'm certainly no fan of either man, but isn't it telling that you're
comparing Clarence Thomas (and finding equivalence), with the (your words)
prototypical cracka in a suit?
J Lanier
>In article <76j0c3$1...@panix.com>,
> jla...@panix.com (J Lanier) wrote:
>> In <76g9c0$upj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> quasi...@aol.com writes:
>>
[snip]
>"Wallow?" Ms. Lanier, this man is truly hurt. He wants to be accepted, but
>he is also a man who stands by his beliefs.
I don't so much have a problem with his beliefs (and I doubt they are
going to change nor am I really looking for them to) as I do with his
unwillingness or inability to appreciate that his beliefs are likely to be
unpopular with certain constituences and they are not going to like him or
accept him for it. I think he needs to make a choice about what is more
important to him, accept the responsibilities and consequences of that
decision, and move on.
This strong characteristic is
>probably what got him to where he is, the ability to resist all attacks. I
>don't fault the man for this.
Please. Powerful people wanted him where he is and saw to it that it was
made so. But for that, I do not believe for an instant he would be where
he is, setting personal opinion aside, and considering the quality and
depth of his legal scholarship as compared with those who he now shares
the bench with (let alone other potential candidates that might have been
appointed at the time)
>And come on, whose speesh is not a little
>"self-serving?"
It is a matter of degree, and IMO the speech he gave before the lawyers
group was thick with it. Compare his comportment with that of Lani Guinier
and the way she has continued on with her life in the wake of The Debacle
of her would-be appointment. There's someone who stuck with and continues
to stick with her beliefs despite extreme, vicious personal and
professional criticism (many by those who had not made even a cursory
attempt to acquaint themselves with her work before denouncing it out of
hand). When I've heard her speak or read her writings she does not dwell
on the pain that whole situation caused her, but instead continues to
focus, explain and defend those same beliefs that previously got her into
difficulty with the Clinton Administration.
IMO, Thomas cannot even come close to achieving such composure.
>I'm just afraid that we are making enemies where there are none, and to me
>this is the worst thing we can do. A hurt man will a hundred times more
>likely to avenge his pain than a ordinary man in pursuing a cause. And, when
>it's close to home, I would guess that the likelihood maybe an order of
>magnitude higher.
And this tendency should persuade people to think positively of him?
>I just impore you to rethink your position. We could be turning the our
>greatest friend into out greatest enemy.
IMO, that ship sailed a long time ago.
>> Justice Thomas has stated repeatedly that he is a Black man, he
>> >knows his upbringing and heritage (perhaps even better than his accusers know
>> >theirs), and sincerely works for the best for Black people. But, somehow
>> >when the volume got turned up, we didn't hear this.
>>
>> Perhaps he has managed to convince himself of that, but it just doesn't
>> ring true to me.
>What? He is not a Black man?
No, that he sincerely works for the best for Black people.
My goodness, what does he have to prove to make
>himself be accepted by his own people? He knows where he comes from; he knows
>the depth of struggle of our people. O.K. his politics are a little off the
>beaten path. Why can't we just let him in and allow him to explain, freely,
>without duress, without pre-judgement, without the insults.
[snip]
DarkStar
[ posed and emailed ]
On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:30:09 CST, in
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:06:10 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>> Johnson) wrote:
>>
>> >Wayne "Thomas was and is out for himself" Johnson
>> >cia...@ix.netcom.com
>>
>> Ed "Clinton was and is out for himself" Brown
>
>Okay, so you've established that they're about equivalent when it comes to
>caring about the community.
Thank you.
>I'm certainly no fan of either man, but isn't it telling that you're
>comparing Clarence Thomas (and finding equivalence), with the (your words)
>prototypical cracka in a suit?
I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state I
support Thomas or where I state I like Thomas, or where I state I
believe he is a good model, or anything like that.
[ This spot reserved for Rich Thompson ]
This sh*t is wild. All I write is that he has a public relations
campaign in progress, and that it's working, and all of a sudden, I'm
a Thomas supporter.
J Lanier
>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:37:58 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>wrote:
>> You can't have it both ways, either behavior outside some
>>bounds deserves condemnation or none does. Clarence Thomas deserves
>>condemnation for his actions and deeds, and gestures in this case just won't
>>make him Soul Brother number 12 million.
>I want you to show me where I wrote he should not be challenged.
You know, perhaps you have not explicity written that, but when you imply
that all those who criticize him resort to negative criticism, I'm sorry
but I tend to get that impression.
Is there no one that comes to your mind who *has* raised any legitimate
criticisms of Thomas? Have you ever heard Thomas respond to any such
critcisms? Seems to me he only dwells on those that are negative and I
personally know a forum in which such criticisms were raised and he did
not respond. What do you say about that?
Rich Thompson
> [ posed and emailed ]
(likewise...and keeping everything for context....)
> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:30:09 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 5 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 4 Jan 1999 08:06:10 CST, in
> >> soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
> >> Johnson) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wayne "Thomas was and is out for himself" Johnson
> >> >cia...@ix.netcom.com
> >>
> >> Ed "Clinton was and is out for himself" Brown
> >
> >Okay, so you've established that they're about equivalent when it comes to
> >caring about the community.
>
> Thank you.
See, we're in agreement, thus far...
> >I'm certainly no fan of either man, but isn't it telling that you're
> >comparing Clarence Thomas (and finding equivalence), with the (your words)
> >prototypical cracka in a suit?
>
> I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state I
> support Thomas or where I state I like Thomas, or where I state I
> believe he is a good model, or anything like that.
>
> [ This spot reserved for Rich Thompson ]
I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state that Ed
supports Thomas, or likes Thomas, or that he believes he is a good [role]
model, or anything like that.
[Reserved for Ed]
> This sh*t is wild. All I write is that he has a public relations
> campaign in progress, and that it's working, and all of a sudden, I'm
> a Thomas supporter.
Who's a Thomas supporter?
I'm simply saying that his public relations campaign is no less
transparent than that of Clinton, that his gestures are recognised by most
as simply gestures, and that your (you, Ed) views are no different from
those of the average Black American. From where I sit, Clarence Thomas is
(deservedly) as much a target for cynicism as are most White politicians
(most of whom also engage in publicity campaigns, which are readily
recognized as publicity campaigns.)
I think the main point of disagreement between us is your assertion that
he is winning. Perhaps, but I don't see it.
Sorry if I didn't make my point clearly.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated jla...@panix.com (J Lanier)
wrote:
>In <368fea84...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Jan 1999 10:36:27 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>The problem with this attitude is that it allows people like Clarence Thomas to
>>>claim identification with the community while acting to destroy it.
>
>>The fact is, he is Black, claims he knows about discrimination, and
>>claims he was once "a Black radical."
>
>>Sorry, you can't overlook it.
>
>So what that he claims these things? It's not a matter of overlooking or
>not overlooking them. It's what he is actually *doing* now that counts.
People are saying Thoms "has forgotten" that he is Black. If he turns
around, and recalls his experiences, logically, there goes that
argument. And if people follow it through, as some will do, it helps
to build his case that he is "being punished for different thinking."
Once he gets people to think at that level, game, set and match; he
has delegitimized his opponents. And if you think back to some of the
op-ed pieces after the last set of opposition to Thomas, you saw
exactly that. People who opposed Thomas, publically, were writing in
support of him to at least speak, and saying that the opposition was
being irrational.
....
>However unpalatable a statement for Thomas to take, how is saying he seems
>to have forgotten about being black, an *inaccurate* one when he
>consistently advocates policies that are in direct opposition or undermine
>blacks, especially given all the little anecdotes he treats us to in his
>speeches?
>
>Experiencing what he claims he has experienced as a black man in this
>country should at least make him sensitive to the fact that there is the
>possibility that hard work alone or one's own merit are not always enough
>and that policies which attack systemic discrimination are also needed.
>
>In fact, I don't see any any reason why an ideology that combines the two
>positions and puts each in it's place cannot be advanced.
No disagreement.
But he's already framed the discussion to his advantage.
Have you noticed, wrt affirmative action, he starts off saying, "Any
idea that states Blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me"? Well,
that frames the discussion his way, and then you have to battle *JUST*
to put it in the proper context. You are already behind.
...
>>I ain't sayin' it's wrong.
>>I'm saying the method used is counter-productive and stupid. Shoutin',
>>yellin' and carryin' on don't make a bit a difference. His ass is
>>still sitting in a seat as a judge for life.
>
>Oh yeah, he is in one of the most powerful positions in this country for
>life.
>
>What exactly is he complaining about again?
That's good.
Wayne Johnson
>>You claim that Thomas is supported by Black Americans. I ask who, and
>>name several Black Americans who do support Thomas.
>>
>>Now, you want me to show where YOU support THEM?
>
>Yeah, show me one post where I have supported Ken Hamblin.
Ed, this is a tiresome tactic, and you need to cut it loose.
You can't evade your own comments by kicking up this kind of dust all
the time. If you don't want to comment, fine, but you seem to be
incredibly eager to misstate someone else's position, and then run
around like you're being misquoted.
>>What is this? You know as well as I do who Thomas' supporters are. I
>>don't know whether or not you support Thomas, since you're being so
>>coy about it, and I sincerely don't care whether you support the three
>>Thomas "fans" at all.
>
>Care to keep on misstating Wayne?
I've already told you about this jive-ass accusation, and now I'm
calling you on it.
Show me where I've stated anything about your position, in your name.
You sound pretty desperate at this point, Ed. You come to
conclusions, and when you're busted on them, you take off screaming
about misstatements, whatever that is supposed to mean.
You're losing it. You claim Thomas is "winning", offer no evidence at
all, and then stand around hollering "he's being mean to me" when
you're called on it.
>My first post on Thomas was *WAY* back when I first starting posting
>on SCAA. I stated that the Thomas nomination was Bush pissing in the
>face of Black people and an insult to Marshall. I haven't backed off
>one bit from that statement.
>
>Find one post where I do.
>
>[ this space reserved ]
I've got a better idea. Fill that space with the names of people who
think Thomas is "winning".
Now, folks, I want you to take a look at one of Ed's odder comments,
and watch how he takes off running when asked to explain it. See if
you can follow his moves here.
Wayne said:
>>>>Are you sure they have our interests at heart? Why do you think so?
Then Ed said:
>>>Try former Black Panther members who don't like affirmative action, or
>>>Farrakhan, or Colin Powell who "is for outreach type of affirmative
>>>action, but not quotas."
Then Wayne, staggered by this comment, asks for some kind of
explanation:
>>This is the biggest non sequitir... Look, are you trying to say that
>>all of these people support Thomas? Farrakhan is a Thomas supporter?
>>And which Panthers are you talking about...you're not making much
>>sense here, Ed.
Then Ed mutters:
>I'll let it stand on it's own. Because I damn sure didn't come close
>to writing that they support Thomas.
Look, I can't figure out what Ed is getting at, here. Why mention
Black Panthers, or Farrrakhan, or Colin Powell, and then not be able
to come up with any connection to the discussion?
What's up with that? I hope I don't have to fill any spaces from Ed's
next post with that line.
Wayne "Well, if he asks, I'll use both comments and maybe he'll
explain it then" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Artclemons
>What is wrong with pointing out both the good and bad in
>a person? Why is it unacceptable to suggest that
>Thomas is a political threat _and_ that he also demonstrates
>empathy for the future of young black men?
Giving the "devil his due" is troublesome. Thomas has had numerous
opportunities while on the Court to VOTE on measures that would improve
the lives of the poor young men you're addressing. Not allowing police to
for example "investigate" and question people for hours without probable
cause for example would do wonders in some communities, or considering
his record at the EEOC, and the chance to improve the working lives of
the parents of the young men by just following what was accepted law at
the time might have done more than speeches. Clarence Thomas is not
a great motivational speaker, and I note that speeches in general don't
improve things for African-Americans ever, actions and deeds do.
Now as for Thomas' supposed sterling example, let's see, a man who
decries affirmative action whose whole career has benefitted from affirmative
action or other reach out programs and his dark skin, now just how many
speeches would you suggest the man make with positive material before
I and others who think should find his gestures appealing?
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <3692c210...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
I wrote:
>> You can't have it both ways, either behavior outside some
>>bounds deserves condemnation or none does. Clarence Thomas deserves
>>condemnation for his actions and deeds, and gestures in this case just won't
>>make him Soul Brother number 12 million.
>
>I want you to show me where I wrote he should not be challenged.
Ed either his actions deserve condemnation, in which case, his speaking
to small groups of youth in controlled settings is a joke and a means of
trying to give the impression to whites that he has lots of hidden African
heritage support, or I misunderstand the man and his actions. He's not
an either/or case, but someone whose history is open to challenge. If he's
hurt, or rejected, then I want see more than I saw recorded at the NBA
speech as an indication of his believing in the community. I don't mind
that I disagree with the man, but I do expect some respect for the portions
of the community that disagree with the man. If he's not castigated in
public and his speeches allowed to go forth without challenge it's
acceptance, or at least if for example one applies the same logic that most
whites apply to for example Louis Farrakhan or others who are more
nationalistic. If you say that he's winning, when in fact, his speeches reach
at best less than one tenth of one percent of the populace concerned, I must
be missing something too.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
>>Okay, so you've established that they're about equivalent when it comes to
>>caring about the community.
>
>Thank you.
>
>>I'm certainly no fan of either man, but isn't it telling that you're
>>comparing Clarence Thomas (and finding equivalence), with the (your words)
>>prototypical cracka in a suit?
>
>I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state I
>support Thomas or where I state I like Thomas, or where I state I
>believe he is a good model, or anything like that.
>
>[ This spot reserved for Rich Thompson ]
[This spot reserved for Ed Brown to stash more red herrings]
>This sh*t is wild. All I write is that he has a public relations
>campaign in progress, and that it's working, and all of a sudden, I'm
>a Thomas supporter.
Give us a list of names of people who agree with your assessment.
[This space reserved for Ed Brown to list anyone with a working brain
who thinks that Clarence Thomas is waging a successful campaign to
rework his cracka in a suit image]
Wayne "If that space winds up with more red herrings in it, I'm just
gonna toss it out before it stinks up the house" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Artclemons
>When you put it that way, I would have to agree.
>Conservative views may be less destructive to
>the black community than the violence and crime
>a young man may succumb to had he no positive
>influence whatsoever from anyone.
Something that often struck me when dealing with gangbangers is how
similar to capitalists they are when committing crimes. In fact, I often
thought
of drug dealers I met as the equivalent of used car salesmen or telephone
sellers of insurance with an illegal product instead. The dealers had
expenses, troubles with government (listen to almost any small capitalist
complain about government interference), and their hours were long and not
conducted in the most pleasant of conditions. There were also substantial
areas of risk. The gangbangers are in many ways conservative, and most
concerned with advancing themselves. The fact that most conservatives
would not find the comparison flattering is irrelevant, gangbangers into drugs
and other illegal activities are not liberal, nor are they so different from
let's
say robber barons in the U.S. in the late 1800's except that their activities
are
now illegal.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <76rfvl$mnq$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, quasi...@aol.com writes:
>Art, I do think we should reject conservative/Republican ideology. The
>complication here is that we are dealing with own of our own people, and a
>man who knows our experience. I can see if the guy came from some alien
>background treating him like we do, but he doesn't. Justice Thomas is a
>strong willed person. You can see it. The last thing you are going to
be
>able to do is to change this guy by brute force. I guarantee you that he can
>cause us alot more grief as a people than we can to him. I don't mean to
>state this obvious, but it's a fact. Why tackle this guy head-on by calling
>him a sell-out, etc., alienating him and just attracting his rage? I
>guarantee you that this man, if he hasn't already given into it, is saying to
>himself, "Why bother? They don't really care about me. So what if I'm a
>Black man? It don't mean shit. I should just f*** them as much as they're
>f***ing me. I don't care." It should not have to come to this, and if it
>does I think it's a shame because I really think this guy really wants to be
>of service to his community, and we are wasting our chance. I just ask you
>to take a moment and walk in the guys shoes. They may not fit, but just a
>moment.
I repeat one more time, Clarence Thomas is not going to change to better
recognizing his African heritage roots because African-Americans are
polite to him. Shun him for his deeds and collective words, shun him for
bringing forth limited number African-Americans during his confirmation
hearings and claiming on the basis of bogus poll data that he had widespread
support in the community. Where is the basis for supporting the man?
Where is the attachment to the community that he claims or the memory
that he claims. He has rejected the community rather openly, not just by
becoming a conservative but by his deeds and words and trying to reclaim
him just makes it more attractive to others to try to duplicate his actions
and words.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
>On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:21:14 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>>You claim that Thomas is supported by Black Americans. I ask who, and
>>>name several Black Americans who do support Thomas.
>>>
>>>Now, you want me to show where YOU support THEM?
>>
>>Yeah, show me one post where I have supported Ken Hamblin.
>
>Ed, this is a tiresome tactic, and you need to cut it loose.
Where do I support them.
Show me Wayne. You wrote I supported them, so post it.
....
>>>What is this? You know as well as I do who Thomas' supporters are. I
>>>don't know whether or not you support Thomas, since you're being so
>>>coy about it, and I sincerely don't care whether you support the three
>>>Thomas "fans" at all.
>>
>>Care to keep on misstating Wayne?
>
>I've already told you about this jive-ass accusation, and now I'm
>calling you on it.
>
>Show me where I've stated anything about your position, in your name.
>You sound pretty desperate at this point, Ed. You come to
>conclusions, and when you're busted on them, you take off screaming
>about misstatements, whatever that is supposed to mean.
*** START QUOTE ***
>>>What is this? You know as well as I do who Thomas' supporters are. I
>>>don't know whether or not you support Thomas, since you're being so
>>>coy about it, and I sincerely don't care whether you support the three
>>>Thomas "fans" at all.
**** END QUOTE****
When have I ever been coy about my position on Thomas?
>You're losing it. You claim Thomas is "winning", offer no evidence at
>all, and then stand around hollering "he's being mean to me" when
>you're called on it.
Misstatement.
>>My first post on Thomas was *WAY* back when I first starting posting
>>on SCAA. I stated that the Thomas nomination was Bush pissing in the
>>face of Black people and an insult to Marshall. I haven't backed off
>>one bit from that statement.
>>
>>Find one post where I do.
>>
>>[ this space reserved ]
>
>I've got a better idea. Fill that space with the names of people who
>think Thomas is "winning".
http://www.cnbl.org
http://www.project21.org
http://www.headwaymag.com
http://www.bampac.org
>Now, folks, I want you to take a look at one of Ed's odder comments,
>and watch how he takes off running when asked to explain it. See if
>you can follow his moves here.
>
>Wayne said:
>>>>>Are you sure they have our interests at heart? Why do you think so?
>
>Then Ed said:
>>>>Try former Black Panther members who don't like affirmative action, or
>>>>Farrakhan, or Colin Powell who "is for outreach type of affirmative
>>>>action, but not quotas."
>
>Then Wayne, staggered by this comment, asks for some kind of
>explanation:
>>>This is the biggest non sequitir... Look, are you trying to say that
>>>all of these people support Thomas? Farrakhan is a Thomas supporter?
>>>And which Panthers are you talking about...you're not making much
>>>sense here, Ed.
>
>Then Ed mutters:
>>I'll let it stand on it's own. Because I damn sure didn't come close
>>to writing that they support Thomas.
>
>Look, I can't figure out what Ed is getting at, here. Why mention
>Black Panthers, or Farrrakhan, or Colin Powell, and then not be able
>to come up with any connection to the discussion?
What I wrote is clear.
You can keep on misstating all you want to, but the point is clear.
Meanwhile, find any post where I support Hamblin or Armstrong
Williams. You won't find a post concerning Elders, because I've never
heard his show.
DarkStar
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 09:17:46 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
...
>>I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state I
>>support Thomas or where I state I like Thomas, or where I state I
>>believe he is a good model, or anything like that.
>>
>>[ This spot reserved for Rich Thompson ]
>
>[This spot reserved for Ed Brown to stash more red herrings]
>
>>This sh*t is wild. All I write is that he has a public relations
>>campaign in progress, and that it's working, and all of a sudden, I'm
>>a Thomas supporter.
>
>Give us a list of names of people who agree with your assessment.
>
>[This space reserved for Ed Brown to list anyone with a working brain
>who thinks that Clarence Thomas is waging a successful campaign to
>rework his cracka in a suit image]
http://www.cnbl.org
http://www.project21.org
http://www.bampac.org
Now, read Ray Wood's posts and what he had to write about Thomas'
messages to kids.
Now, go scan the editorial sections of newspapers concerning Thomas
and the Black lawgroup. Read how those writers who don't agree with
Thomas, started speaking out against his treatment.
You won't shut me down and you can't shut me down. I'm not a punk and
I'm going to state WTF I want to state.
Keep your head buried all you want to, but there are some everyday
Black people out there who don't find Thomas disagreeable.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> [ posed and emailed ]
>
>(likewise...and keeping everything for context....)
>
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 1999 11:30:09 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
>> <tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
...
>> >I'm certainly no fan of either man, but isn't it telling that you're
>> >comparing Clarence Thomas (and finding equivalence), with the (your words)
>> >prototypical cracka in a suit?
>>
>> I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state I
>> support Thomas or where I state I like Thomas, or where I state I
>> believe he is a good model, or anything like that.
>>
>> [ This spot reserved for Rich Thompson ]
>
>I want you to find, and post, any post that I made where I state that Ed
>supports Thomas, or likes Thomas, or that he believes he is a good [role]
>model, or anything like that.
Then why ask me the question about Thomas vs Clinton?
Not once did I write that he should not be disagreed with. Not once
did I write that I didn't understand why people don't like him. All I
wrote was that his P.R. campaign is working.
>> This sh*t is wild. All I write is that he has a public relations
>> campaign in progress, and that it's working, and all of a sudden, I'm
>> a Thomas supporter.
>
>Who's a Thomas supporter?
Wayne seems to think I am.
>I'm simply saying that his public relations campaign is no less
>transparent than that of Clinton,
Clinton's spin works, doesn't it? Yes or no?
>that his gestures are recognised by most
Most people don't even *KNOW* what's going on. When he had the tussle
with the Black lawyer group, op-ed pieces and newsarticles that I read
on the matter all followed the same theme: Thomas is finally leaving
his shell and speaking out.
*WRONG*
He left his shell some time ago. Not only did he address conservative
groups -- that's still in the shell -- but he started targeting kids.
*THAT* wasn't public knowledge.
Art seems to believe that it's only in the D.C. area.
*WRONG*.
>as simply gestures, and that your (you, Ed) views are no different from
>those of the average Black American. From where I sit, Clarence Thomas is
>(deservedly) as much a target for cynicism as are most White politicians
>(most of whom also engage in publicity campaigns, which are readily
>recognized as publicity campaigns.)
Cynicism doesn't mean squat, to the kids, when he connects to the
kids.
It doesn't mean squat because he's telling kids to work hard, study
hard, don't give up, set goals, stay on the straight and narrow. You
know, the same stuff their parents, hopefully, are telling them. Then
when he tells his stories of growing up, that's just icing on the
cake.
He knows he's lost to the adults, so he doesn't give a damn about us.
But with the kids he has a shot. And it's with them, that he's
winning.
Time is on his side.
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
What you are missing is that those children are going to grow up.
What you are missing is that he has *YEARS* of addressing new
children. They come to him when groups visit the Supreme Court.
What you keep ignoring is that he is addressing children, not only in
the D.C. area, but outside of it as well.
It's called indocrination.
Slow and steady wins the race, and he's doing it under the radar.
DarkStar
>In <3692c210...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
>
>>On Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:37:58 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>>wrote:
>
>>> You can't have it both ways, either behavior outside some
>>>bounds deserves condemnation or none does. Clarence Thomas deserves
>>>condemnation for his actions and deeds, and gestures in this case just won't
>>>make him Soul Brother number 12 million.
>
>>I want you to show me where I wrote he should not be challenged.
>
>You know, perhaps you have not explicity written that, but when you imply
>that all those who criticize him resort to negative criticism, I'm sorry
>but I tend to get that impression.
That's on you, not me.
Sorry.
>Is there no one that comes to your mind who *has* raised any legitimate
>criticisms of Thomas?
First, I never wrote that there are no legitimae criticisms of Thomas.
All I've written is the manner of responding to him, seems to be
mostly hollaring and screaming.
As a matter of fact, the last time he came up, it was during the Black
lawyer group stuff. Then, I mentioned, that I saw a panel of Black
lawyers who reacted to his speech. I mentioned that there were a
couple of the lawyers on that panel who raised concerns and problems
and addressed those concerns and problems.
During the question/answer portion of that panel, a woman spoke up and
said that she had been trying, for years, to get the group to mount a
counter-attack to Thomas, in the media, in a "scholarly" manner.
>Have you ever heard Thomas respond to any such
>critcisms?
Nope.
>Seems to me he only dwells on those that are negative and I
>personally know a forum in which such criticisms were raised and he did
>not respond. What do you say about that?
Like I said the last time you raised the point: I agree.
Next?
J Lanier
[snip]
>People are saying Thoms "has forgotten" that he is Black. If he turns
>around, and recalls his experiences, logically, there goes that
>argument.
Well, whether you call it "forgetting" or something else, there's *some*
kind of disconnect operating when, on the one hand, a person recalls
experiences (as Thomas conveniently does) and on the other, acts in ways
or otherwise implements and/or supports policies which minimize or deny
the implications of those same experiences, without somehow reconciling
the two or adequately explaining why or how he has come to his present
beliefs, inspite of those past experiences.
And if people follow it through, as some will do, it helps
>to build his case that he is "being punished for different thinking."
And IMO, here is where the logic falls apart. As many are often fond of
saying, the African American community is not a monolith, however Thomas
would have us believe just that. That "experience" wrt to
racism/discrimination and it's effects can uniformly be overcome simply by
hardwork and perserverance. However, such a stance downplays or ignores
the extent to which chance or luck (something that is not and cannot be
uniformly replicated) also contribute to the success of ones efforts, as
well as mitigating the obstacles that racism/discrimination can place in
the way.
Thomas, as a young boy might have worked hard in school, but a mitigating
factor, for which hardwork alone cannot claim credit is, his living with
his grandfather which to some extent facilitated his ability to even
attend school and get an education as opposed to having to work to help
support one's family. His sister's experience was quite different. I
believe she had to care of their mother or other relative which served to
prevent her from consistently attending school.
>Once he gets people to think at that level, game, set and match; he
>has delegitimized his opponents. And if you think back to some of the
>op-ed pieces after the last set of opposition to Thomas, you saw
>exactly that. People who opposed Thomas, publically, were writing in
>support of him to at least speak, and saying that the opposition was
>being irrational.
I hardly see that as necessarily reflecting a reversal in their
fundamental opinion. One can support the right of someone to speak without
agreeing with them ideologically.
[snip]
>>In fact, I don't see any any reason why an ideology that combines the two
>>positions and puts each in it's place cannot be advanced.
>No disagreement.
>But he's already framed the discussion to his advantage.
>Have you noticed, wrt affirmative action, he starts off saying, "Any
>idea that states Blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me"? Well,
>that frames the discussion his way, and then you have to battle *JUST*
>to put it in the proper context. You are already behind.
I disagree <shrug>.
>...
Rich Thompson
> Then why ask me the question about Thomas vs Clinton?
Because it shows how thin whatever support there is is. Because it shows
how transparent the publicity effort is. Because it shows how phantasmal
"winning" in this arena is.
> Clinton's spin works, doesn't it? Yes or no?
It works with people who agree with his politics. Sound familiar?
> Most people don't even *KNOW* what's going on. When he had the tussle
> with the Black lawyer group, op-ed pieces and newsarticles that I read
> on the matter all followed the same theme: Thomas is finally leaving
> his shell and speaking out.
>
> *WRONG*
Understood. But I'd question how reflective op-ed pieces are of the
general opinions of people.
> He left his shell some time ago. Not only did he address conservative
> groups -- that's still in the shell -- but he started targeting kids.
I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
arguments of his critics.
> Cynicism doesn't mean squat, to the kids, when he connects to the
> kids.
Well, talking to kids and connnecting to them are two diferent things, as
any sunday school teacher will tell you.
> It doesn't mean squat because he's telling kids to work hard, study
> hard, don't give up, set goals, stay on the straight and narrow.
Sure. That's no different that what Bill clinton, Bob Dole, George Bush,
Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, et cetera ad infinitum have been telling
kids for a long time.
> He knows he's lost to the adults, so he doesn't give a damn about us.
> But with the kids he has a shot. And it's with them, that he's
> winning.
I still think that Jill has a good point about them actually bucking up
against his policies.
Ray Wood
DarkStar wrote in message <36958828...@mail.flash.net>...
>Now, read Ray Wood's posts and what he had to write about Thomas'
>messages to kids.
. . .
>Keep your head buried all you want to, but there are some everyday
>Black people out there who don't find Thomas disagreeable.
You guys have been going at it pretty vigorously. Since my name
has come up, I will add a comment or two. Thomas' approach
of reaching out to troubled kids is winning him some points
in my book. I was impressed by Thomas' behaviour at the
Virginia Home for Boys and, yes, I believe he was being
sincere. I think he killed two birds with one stone. He made
a genuine heartfelt effort to turn the boys' lives around and he
also got in some image-enhancing PR work.
I recognize that he was perfectly aware the cameras were
him and picking up every word he uttered. Still, I am
convinced he made a difference in the lives of a number
of young men's lives that day which makes his efforts
a good thing in my book.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I find Thomas agreeable.
Most of the converage he has gotten from CSpan has
been his speeches before right wing audiences and I
really have a problem with black men who kiss up to
white folks the way Thomas, Connerly, and Sowell
are so fond of doing.
Art mentioned the similarities he sees between the
actions and motivations of drug dealers and
conservatives and I have noticed this also. Drug
dealers are capitalists in the true American sense
of the word.
Still, I suspect Art would agree with me that we would
rather run into Judge Thomas in a dark alley than a
drug dealer.
Ray Wood
Wayne Johnson
>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:30:55 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>Give us a list of names of people who agree with your assessment.
>>
>>[This space reserved for Ed Brown to list anyone with a working brain
>>who thinks that Clarence Thomas is waging a successful campaign to
>>rework his cracka in a suit image]
>
>http://www.cnbl.org
>http://www.project21.org
>http://www.bampac.org
These are websites, not names. I am not pushing you to come up with a
phone book full of names; just some recognizable ones, hopefully, so
that we can see what point you're trying to make.
>Now, read Ray Wood's posts and what he had to write about Thomas'
>messages to kids.
I did. I largely agreed with it. I also read JLanier's comments, and
those of Art Clemons, Rich Thompson, and others.
The general concensus is that while the immediate action of talking
with kids is good, it doesn't alter anyone's basic mistrust of
Clarence Thomas. No one seemed to think that Thomas is winning a PR
campaign on the basis of a small number of personal experiences.
In fact, the point seems to be that Black people are loathe to
ostracize one of their own, and try to continually publicly humiliate
the man. To take that observation and turn it into a political
victory for the arch-right wing Supreme Court Justice is stretching
it.
You don't care to substantiate your claim, and now you are asking me
to wander around finding substantiation for your point. If you don't
want to bother answering the question, I won't ask it any more, and
will take your reticence for what it is.
>Now, go scan the editorial sections of newspapers concerning Thomas
>and the Black lawgroup. Read how those writers who don't agree with
>Thomas, started speaking out against his treatment.
Hell, tell us yourself. You're eloquent, if not necessarily thorough.
I'm willing to listen.
>You won't shut me down and you can't shut me down. I'm not a punk and
>I'm going to state WTF I want to state.
Oh, for crying out loud. What is this? I don't moderate this group,
Ed; my electrons are no more potent than yours.
What the hell is this "you can't shut me down" stuff? Are you OK?
Are you saying I called you a name or something? Where? And at what
point have I told you not to post anything you please?
Ed, I look forward to your posts. There is no way I want to see you
"shut down", and the LAST thing you are is anybody's "punk".
I HOPE you say WTF you want. All I want you to do is make sure I
understand it.
>Keep your head buried all you want to, but there are some everyday
>Black people out there who don't find Thomas disagreeable.
I don't know any, is all, Ed. I know a lot of Black people, and none
I personally know - who know of Thomas - hold him in any regard.
The lukewarm "don't find Thomas disagreeable" is even more than I've
heard from people who know his history, especially in this newsgroup.
Probably Jerome is the only guy who actually has had some somewhat
supportive comments about him; and that wasn't any stirring
endorsement, either.
Wayne "Man, have a cold one, relax, then come on back and talk...I
ain't trying to getcha" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:07:19 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:30:55 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>Give us a list of names of people who agree with your assessment.
>>>
>>>[This space reserved for Ed Brown to list anyone with a working brain
>>>who thinks that Clarence Thomas is waging a successful campaign to
>>>rework his cracka in a suit image]
>>
>>http://www.cnbl.org
>>http://www.project21.org
>>http://www.bampac.org
>
>These are websites, not names. I am not pushing you to come up with a
>phone book full of names; just some recognizable ones, hopefully, so
>that we can see what point you're trying to make.
Read the websites.
BTW, add http://www.headwaymag.com to it.
>>Now, read Ray Wood's posts and what he had to write about Thomas'
>>messages to kids.
>
>I did. I largely agreed with it. I also read JLanier's comments, and
>those of Art Clemons, Rich Thompson, and others.
That's the PR campaign in progess and it demonstrates how a change in
attitude can occur. In Ray's case, that's *EXACTLY* what Armstrong
Williams stated they were shooting for.
[ Ray, sorry to bring up your name, but it goes straight to the heart
of the PR campaign ]
>The general concensus is that while the immediate action of talking
>with kids is good, it doesn't alter anyone's basic mistrust of
>Clarence Thomas. No one seemed to think that Thomas is winning a PR
>campaign on the basis of a small number of personal experiences.
They don't give a damn about adults, they are targeting kids. Aduts
are a bonus.
>In fact, the point seems to be that Black people are loathe to
>ostracize one of their own, and try to continually publicly humiliate
>the man. To take that observation and turn it into a political
>victory for the arch-right wing Supreme Court Justice is stretching
>it.
Since that's not what I'm saying, nor since that is not what I've ever
said....
>You don't care to substantiate your claim, and now you are asking me
>to wander around finding substantiation for your point. If you don't
>want to bother answering the question, I won't ask it any more, and
>will take your reticence for what it is.
Your statement is bogus.
>>Now, go scan the editorial sections of newspapers concerning Thomas
>>and the Black lawgroup. Read how those writers who don't agree with
>>Thomas, started speaking out against his treatment.
>
>Hell, tell us yourself. You're eloquent, if not necessarily thorough.
>I'm willing to listen.
The common theme was, "There are those Black people again, attempting
to stop Justice Thomas. Okay, so what if he really shouldn't be there?
Thomas holds a respectable position and it's about time those people
realize it. If they have a problem with him, what is it besides
calling him an Uncle Tom."
>>You won't shut me down and you can't shut me down. I'm not a punk and
>>I'm going to state WTF I want to state.
>
>Oh, for crying out loud. What is this? I don't moderate this group,
>Ed; my electrons are no more potent than yours.
>
>What the hell is this "you can't shut me down" stuff? Are you OK?
Shutting me down is you saying I'm moving to the right, when I've been
consistant throughout. I've gone after both Republicans and Democrats
and I've stated on numerous occassions I'm independent because I don't
like either party.
You know damn well this group goes after conservatives like Clinton
going after a pretty woman.
...
>>Keep your head buried all you want to, but there are some everyday
>>Black people out there who don't find Thomas disagreeable.
>
>I don't know any, is all, Ed. I know a lot of Black people, and none
>I personally know - who know of Thomas - hold him in any regard.
Fine, you don't know any. So does that mean they don't exist?
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> Then why ask me the question about Thomas vs Clinton?
>
>Because it shows how thin whatever support there is is. Because it shows
>how transparent the publicity effort is. Because it shows how phantasmal
>"winning" in this arena is.
Oh really?
Have you seen Clinton's poll numbers lately?
Have you seen how *HIS* PR campaign is working?
>> Clinton's spin works, doesn't it? Yes or no?
>
>It works with people who agree with his politics. Sound familiar?
If Ray has gone from not liking him, to be ambivalent, what does that
say?
Think about it for a bit Rich.
Is the point too subtle for you?
....
>> He left his shell some time ago. Not only did he address conservative
>> groups -- that's still in the shell -- but he started targeting kids.
>
>I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
>arguments of his critics.
He doesn't *NEED* to do that!
He has the job; for L-I-F-E.
And, unfortunately, he was *RIGHT* when he said WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH
THAT.
>> Cynicism doesn't mean squat, to the kids, when he connects to the
>> kids.
>
>Well, talking to kids and connnecting to them are two diferent things, as
>any sunday school teacher will tell you.
True, but my point is, I believe he is connecting with those who he
gets a chance to speak to.
....
>> He knows he's lost to the adults, so he doesn't give a damn about us.
>> But with the kids he has a shot. And it's with them, that he's
>> winning.
>
>I still think that Jill has a good point about them actually bucking up
>against his policies.
Stop and think about some of the posts here from Black people who say
they believe affirmative action stigmatizes them in the eyes of other
people. Now, since that is exactly what Thomas is saying....
J Lanier
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
[snip]
>Understood. But I'd question how reflective op-ed pieces are of the
>general opinions of people.
Not very reflective, according to a recent survery conducted by FAIR, the
results of which were reported in the Jul/Aug 1998 issue of their magazine
Extra! (see "Doublethink on the Editorial Page" by Janine Jackson, p.18.
You may even be able to link to it at their site
http://www.fair.org/extra/)
>> He left his shell some time ago. Not only did he address conservative
>> groups -- that's still in the shell -- but he started targeting kids.
>I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
>arguments of his critics.
I would agree.
[snip]
DarkStar
>In <36942a7d...@mail.flash.net> dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>People are saying Thoms "has forgotten" that he is Black. If he turns
>>around, and recalls his experiences, logically, there goes that
>>argument.
>
>Well, whether you call it "forgetting" or something else, there's *some*
>kind of disconnect operating when, on the one hand, a person recalls
>experiences (as Thomas conveniently does) and on the other, acts in ways
>or otherwise implements and/or supports policies which minimize or deny
>the implications of those same experiences, without somehow reconciling
>the two or adequately explaining why or how he has come to his present
>beliefs, inspite of those past experiences.
Again, no disagreement.
But take Farrakhan as an example. He is not a proponent of affirmative
action and states as a reason one of the same things that Thomas
states.
> And if people follow it through, as some will do, it helps
>>to build his case that he is "being punished for different thinking."
>
>And IMO, here is where the logic falls apart. As many are often fond of
>saying, the African American community is not a monolith, however Thomas
>would have us believe just that. That "experience" wrt to
>racism/discrimination and it's effects can uniformly be overcome simply by
>hardwork and perserverance. However, such a stance downplays or ignores
>the extent to which chance or luck (something that is not and cannot be
>uniformly replicated) also contribute to the success of ones efforts, as
>well as mitigating the obstacles that racism/discrimination can place in
>the way.
No disagreement.
>Thomas, as a young boy might have worked hard in school, but a mitigating
>factor, for which hardwork alone cannot claim credit is, his living with
>his grandfather which to some extent facilitated his ability to even
>attend school and get an education as opposed to having to work to help
>support one's family. His sister's experience was quite different. I
>believe she had to care of their mother or other relative which served to
>prevent her from consistently attending school.
True, and again no disagreement.
>>Once he gets people to think at that level, game, set and match; he
>>has delegitimized his opponents. And if you think back to some of the
>>op-ed pieces after the last set of opposition to Thomas, you saw
>>exactly that. People who opposed Thomas, publically, were writing in
>>support of him to at least speak, and saying that the opposition was
>>being irrational.
>
>I hardly see that as necessarily reflecting a reversal in their
>fundamental opinion. One can support the right of someone to speak without
>agreeing with them ideologically.
You misunderstood. And didn't say it was a reversal of their opinion
of the man. I was trying to point out how, like in the case of the
elementary school that invited Thomas to speak, the rush to have him
disinvited, can work to Thomas' advantage.
...
>>>In fact, I don't see any any reason why an ideology that combines the two
>>>positions and puts each in it's place cannot be advanced.
>
>>No disagreement.
>>But he's already framed the discussion to his advantage.
>
>>Have you noticed, wrt affirmative action, he starts off saying, "Any
>>idea that states Blacks are inferior is a non-starter with me"? Well,
>>that frames the discussion his way, and then you have to battle *JUST*
>>to put it in the proper context. You are already behind.
>
>I disagree <shrug>.
Okay.
Wayne Johnson
>Stop and think about some of the posts here from Black people who say
>they believe affirmative action stigmatizes them in the eyes of other
>people. Now, since that is exactly what Thomas is saying....
I'd like to see some of these posts, since I've written quite a few on
the topic over the years in discussions of AA.
I don't feel stigmatized, though at one time I was pressured to feel
that way by racists at the company I worked at. It took time for me
to realize their motivation for feeling that way, and for messing with
my mind.
I've described my experiences at Hughes Research Laboratory many times
over the years. I've heard other people discuss it, too. But I
haven't heard anyone say they were "stigmatized".
I've heard a lot of people say that their white co-workers/students
tried to make them feel that way, and made a lot of comments about it.
But most Black people seem able to deal with that nonsense.
Thomas obviously can't. His "non-starter" comment shows the man
couches AA in terms based on catering to racist privelege arguments,
and are immediately suspect.
All of the kids at the Virginia Home for Boys are going to face the
results of Thomas' stance when AA is disassembled by him and Connerly
and the rest, and they'll have to face racism with no safety net. How
do you think they're gonna like him then, Ed?
1. Tell us which Black people in this group feel stigmatized about
AA.
2. Tell us how these kids Thomas is "winning" are going to feel when
they encounter a world without an effective AA program, or an EEOC run
by another person like him.
Wayne "Take your time" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Artclemons
>Still, I suspect Art would agree with me that we would
>rather run into Judge Thomas in a dark alley than a
>drug dealer.
>
Don't bet on it!
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <3696ede4...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>
>Think about it for a bit Rich.
>Is the point too subtle for you?
>
May I respectfully note that the last time I saw poll numbers for Justices
of the Court, for the people who recognized names, Thomas had the least
favorable numbers. That of course proves nothing, most people don't know
who Scalia and others are either. The interesting thing I remembered though,
was that people recognized Thomas' name more than the others too.
-art clemons-
Artclemons
In article <369589a0...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
writes:
>It doesn't mean squat because he's telling kids to work hard, study
>hard, don't give up, set goals, stay on the straight and narrow. You
>know, the same stuff their parents, hopefully, are telling them. Then
>when he tells his stories of growing up, that's just icing on the
>cake.
>
>He knows he's lost to the adults, so he doesn't give a damn about us.
>But with the kids he has a shot. And it's with them, that he's
>winning.
>
>Time is on his side.
Thomas can ONLY WIN if the media and the community begin to accept him
as valid. He can't do enough speeches in the rest of his life to reach more
than 2% of the entire African-American youth populace, assuming he triples
the number of speeches that he does, and I note that Thomas also seems
to be quite in demand before conservative organizations, something he would
have to give up, and any monies generated by such speeches as a private
individual, since his salary as an Associate Justice is not incredibly large.
The fact that media portrays him in a less damaged light, and others find him
not as offensive as before is irrelevant. The truth is, is that most of the
community
still thinks of and condemns the man, and he's not involved enough with the
community to correct things. He can't win with children, unless the children
are
fooled, and the parents allow the nonsense to happen.
-art clemons-
Wayne Johnson
>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:22:42 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>What the hell is this "you can't shut me down" stuff? Are you OK?
>
>Shutting me down is you saying I'm moving to the right, when I've been
>consistant throughout. I've gone after both Republicans and Democrats
>and I've stated on numerous occassions I'm independent because I don't
>like either party.
We can all state what our opinions are, and we can all state what we
think of someone else's opinion. I've watched you do it, and I never
thought you had any ability to move someone off of this group.
When discussing Clarence Thomas and "victory", I was asking you to
tell me of someone who agrees with that assessment. You immediately
sent me elsewhere for the information, on a topic I have no interest
in researching at this time.
You make the claim; you can make at least a cursory attempt to
substantiate it. The way to do it is to state your information, then
provide sources for verification if asked - not just list a source and
say, "go find it yourself".
I was also asking for any public figure that the well-informed people
on this group would recognize, who seems to be willing to either
support Thomas or support the idea that his PR campaign is "winning".
I mentioned the names of well known people who support Thomas, and
would probably support the idea that he was "winning" - and you went
ballistic, knowing that these were all conservative folks.
If any Black names were on the list, they'd be the folks that most
Black people find distasteful, such as the radio shock jocks and
marginal cranks like Connerly, Keyes, and so on.
Since you have enough nerve to make a point like Thomas is winning a
PR campaign, I'm surprised you don't have enough nerve to admit that
your opinion on that particular issue is lock-step with people like
that.
>You know damn well this group goes after conservatives like Clinton
>going after a pretty woman.
Ed, I am an unabashed patriotic American, who salutes the flag,
defends the Constitution, believes in a strong military defense, and
worst of all, I am a Scoutmaster in the Boy Scouts.
My kids, with my support, spend over a thousand hours a year in
community service with the Los Angeles Police Department and the Boy
Scouts. I denounce racism for what it is, whether the racism comes
from a Klansman or a Muslim.
You know damned well people have come after me for as long as I've
been on Usenet, for these and many other reasons. I'm too
conservative; my wife is the wrong color; I'm an Uncle Tom, have some
mental disease, and so forth.
Tell me why I should give a damn. People have come after me a
thousand times, with all kinds of hard personal attacks. Do you think
I should complain about someone running me off of Usenet?
Is this a popularity contest, or a place where you make your stand and
state your convictions?
I am an unabashed conservative. Unlike the buzzards that claim the
name in current American politics, I honestly believe that EVERY
American should stand, as equals, under the Constitution. This is why
the bullshit Connerly/Thomas/Pat Buchanan style "conservatives" (who
would use the Constitution to support class privelege) burn me no end.
You need to stand up, speak your piece, and let the chips fall. Just
stand the f*ck up there, and when they come at you, knock 'em down and
tell 'em to bring along some home boys next time.
Stop crying about popularity. As long as you hold the popcorn/troll
detector concession, you'll never lack for friends.
>>>Keep your head buried all you want to, but there are some everyday
>>>Black people out there who don't find Thomas disagreeable.
>>
>>I don't know any, is all, Ed. I know a lot of Black people, and none
>>I personally know - who know of Thomas - hold him in any regard.
>
>Fine, you don't know any. So does that mean they don't exist?
Sure they do. But when I named them, you started leaving spaces
demanding quotes that said you supported the supporters, or some such
nonsense.
What was that all about? I named prominent Black conservatives who
supported Thomas and would readily agree with your assessment, and
this seemed to upset you a great deal.
Wayne "To be successfully provocative, you must develop an immunity to
provocation" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Ray Wood
DarkStar wrote in message <3696ede4...@mail.flash.net>...
>Stop and think about some of the posts here from Black people who say
>they believe affirmative action stigmatizes them in the eyes of other
>people. Now, since that is exactly what Thomas is saying....
Stephen Carter wrote quite a bit about this stigma in
his book "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby".
It should be noted, however, that just like Connelly and
Thomas, Carter didn't start criticizing affirmative action
until after he had got his.
Ray Wood
DarkStar
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:57:15 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>Stop and think about some of the posts here from Black people who say
>>they believe affirmative action stigmatizes them in the eyes of other
>>people. Now, since that is exactly what Thomas is saying....
>
>I'd like to see some of these posts, since I've written quite a few on
>the topic over the years in discussions of AA.
>
>I don't feel stigmatized, though at one time I was pressured to feel
>that way by racists at the company I worked at. It took time for me
>to realize their motivation for feeling that way, and for messing with
>my mind.
You don't, but in this newsgroup, people have posted they do. I don't
agree that they should, but that's how they feel and that's how it is.
So, address that point.
....
>Thomas obviously can't. His "non-starter" comment shows the man
>couches AA in terms based on catering to racist privelege arguments,
>and are immediately suspect.
But, he frames the discussion, dosn't he?
>All of the kids at the Virginia Home for Boys are going to face the
>results of Thomas' stance when AA is disassembled by him and Connerly
>and the rest, and they'll have to face racism with no safety net. How
>do you think they're gonna like him then, Ed?
Those who believe in AA won't like him. Those who feel that there is a
stigma associated with it, will.
>1. Tell us which Black people in this group feel stigmatized about
>AA.
Why don't you ask. If I recall, Alice exchanged a few posts with one
of them.
>2. Tell us how these kids Thomas is "winning" are going to feel when
>they encounter a world without an effective AA program, or an EEOC run
>by another person like him.
The EEOC doesn't work, *NOW*, for a good majority of people.
But since there are Black adults who don't like affirmative action,
and they are raising kids, tell me how Thomas is losing?
Rich Thompson
> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:05:55 CST, in
> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
> >Because it shows how thin whatever support there is is. Because it shows
> >how transparent the publicity effort is. Because it shows how phantasmal
> >"winning" in this arena is.
>
> Oh really?
> Have you seen Clinton's poll numbers lately?
> Have you seen how *HIS* PR campaign is working?
Sure. Most people think he's a dog-faced lying b*stard. And they also
think he's doing a good job of running the country.
I haven't seen any polls on perceptions of his caring, but I doubt they'd
be that stellar. most people see him as self-interested, from what I see.
It's PR victory in a certain sense, but not the kind of PR victory that
Thomas would need.
> If Ray has gone from not liking him, to be ambivalent, what does that
> say?
>
> Think about it for a bit Rich.
> Is the point too subtle for you?
I understand what you're saying, believe it or not. I just don't think
it's as widespread as you do.
> >I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
> >arguments of his critics.
>
> He doesn't *NEED* to do that!
> He has the job; for L-I-F-E.
> And, unfortunately, he was *RIGHT* when he said WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH
> THAT.
And yet he whines about how unfair the criticism of him is. He can't have
it both ways.
Jerome Walker
Artclemons <artcl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>In article <369589a0...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
>writes:
[ edit ]
>>He knows he's lost to the adults, so he doesn't give a damn about us.
>>But with the kids he has a shot. And it's with them, that he's
>>winning.
>>
>>Time is on his side.
>
>Thomas can ONLY WIN if the media and the community begin to accept him
>as valid.
Excuse me, but as a justice on the Supreme Court, he is already recognized
as valid.
>The fact that media portrays him in a less damaged light,
But doesn't that mean that he is considered as valid?
>and others find him
>not as offensive as before is irrelevant.
But doesn't thatmean that he is considered as valid?
>The truth is, is that most of the
>community
>still thinks of and condemns the man, and he's not involved enough with the
>community to correct things. He can't win with children, unless the children
>are fooled, and the parents allow the nonsense to happen.
I have no idea what is going to happen, but I find this exchange
interesting. Whatever you believe, you have to take Thomas serioulsy. And
if he is being proactive with children, it should not be seen as a
waste of time.
--
"Ignorance is the thing that makes most men get into a political party and
shame is what keeps them from getting out of it." - George Savile
Jerome Walker
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
wrote:
>
>In article <369589a0...@mail.flash.net>, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar)
>writes:
...
>>Time is on his side.
>
>Thomas can ONLY WIN if the media and the community begin to accept him
>as valid. He can't do enough speeches in the rest of his life to reach more
>than 2% of the entire African-American youth populace, assuming he triples
>the number of speeches that he does, and I note that Thomas also seems
>to be quite in demand before conservative organizations, something he would
>have to give up, and any monies generated by such speeches as a private
>individual, since his salary as an Associate Justice is not incredibly large.
Thomas can also win when people don't recognize what he is doing. As
I've said before, *MOST* of his addresses to children have *NOT* been
advertised. And you keep saying he's only doing it in a limited area,
while I keep pointing he's doing more.
"You snooze you loose"
Jerome Walker
Wayne Johnson <cia...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[ edit ]
>You make the claim; you can make at least a cursory attempt to
>substantiate it. The way to do it is to state your information, then
>provide sources for verification if asked - not just list a source and
>say, "go find it yourself".
I find this exchange interesting, because I thought he did provide some
information that showed why he thinks the way he does. Of course, everyone
who has voiced an opinion, appears to disagree. And, from my reading,
he has been trying to make it clear that he doesn't support Thomas, but
that he believes the image re-building of Thomas is effective.
It seems, to me, that you are accusing him of being a Thomas supporter by
saying he's being "coy".
On 1/5/99, you wrote:
> What is this? You know as well as I do who Thomas' supporters are. I
> don't know whether or not you support Thomas, since you're being so
> coy about it, and I sincerely don't care whether you support the three
> Thomas "fans" at all.
[ edit ]
>Since you have enough nerve to make a point like Thomas is winning a
>PR campaign, I'm surprised you don't have enough nerve to admit that
>your opinion on that particular issue is lock-step with people like
>that.
What does this statement mean?
I've stated that I'm against affirmative action. David Duke has said
he is against affirmative action. What conclusion do yo want to draw?
>>You know damn well this group goes after conservatives like Clinton
>>going after a pretty woman.
*ROTFL*
[ edit ]
>I am an unabashed conservative.
Get the f*ck out of here!!!!!
Damn it! You've come after my ass with all sorts of fire power for
me saying the same thing!
You've gone after me for being a Republican!!!!!
And now you want to write this???????
[ edit ]
>Stop crying about popularity.
He's not crying about popularity, that's something that you are bringing
up. Stick to the topic at hand.
[ edit ]
>Wayne "To be successfully provocative, you must develop an immunity to
>provocation" Johnson
So he is being provocative for stating an opinion you do not agree with?
Ed can take care of himself, but I just had to jump in because I'm
seeing smoking heaps on the ground but I don't see any cows.
ClockWFT
>From: artcl...@aol.com (Artclemons)
>Date: 1/10/99 6:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <19990110065853...@ngol07.aol.com>
Now here's an example what a truely StreetWise person would not say...:(
wft
Wayne Johnson
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:55:27 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>Johnson) wrote:
>>I don't feel stigmatized, though at one time I was pressured to feel
>>that way by racists at the company I worked at. It took time for me
>>to realize their motivation for feeling that way, and for messing with
>>my mind.
>
>You don't, but in this newsgroup, people have posted they do. I don't
>agree that they should, but that's how they feel and that's how it is.
>So, address that point.
I would if you'd tell me who the heck I'm supposed to be addressing.
You're saying this sentiment exists, but don't give ANY names or
examples; I'm saying I haven't seen it, and I'm always in the middle
of such discussions.
What point am I supposed to address? The point that your statement
has no factual basis that either you or I can find?
What do you want me to say?
>>Thomas obviously can't. His "non-starter" comment shows the man
>>couches AA in terms based on catering to racist privelege arguments,
>>and are immediately suspect.
>
>But, he frames the discussion, dosn't he?
Sounds like he's responding to it with red herrings, not setting it
up.
I say, "AA".
He says, "That means Blacks are inferior".
You like to see that as HIM framing the argument? This is like Ward
Connerly calling Prop 209 a civil rights bill, and then someone claims
that this makes Connerly a champion of civil rights.
You might get Pat Buchanan or somebody to agree with you. But
Connerly wouldn't be "framing the discussion" on civil rights.
>>All of the kids at the Virginia Home for Boys are going to face the
>>results of Thomas' stance when AA is disassembled by him and Connerly
>>and the rest, and they'll have to face racism with no safety net. How
>>do you think they're gonna like him then, Ed?
>
>Those who believe in AA won't like him. Those who feel that there is a
>stigma associated with it, will.
So, who are these people with the stigma? Got any names yet? I have
time, I'll wait. Maybe they'll step up and talk about it.
>>1. Tell us which Black people in this group feel stigmatized about
>>AA.
>
>Why don't you ask. If I recall, Alice exchanged a few posts with one
>of them.
I won't ask, because I'm not making the claim. You should ask,
because you're making the claim.
Ed, we're back to you making unsupported statements, and then telling
someone else to substantiate them. Why is this such a pattern with
your posts?
>>2. Tell us how these kids Thomas is "winning" are going to feel when
>>they encounter a world without an effective AA program, or an EEOC run
>>by another person like him.
>
>The EEOC doesn't work, *NOW*, for a good majority of people.
Why not?
>But since there are Black adults who don't like affirmative action,
>and they are raising kids, tell me how Thomas is losing?
How many Black adults don't like affirmative action? Is it a
significant percentage of the population?
If you want to substantiate this claim, I invite you to find the poll
results of approval and disapproval of the Affirmative Action
propositions in California and Washington State.
Before you ask, I'm not going to do it for you. You make a claim, you
back it up. Just a hint: opposition to 209 in California, in polls
that measured by ethnicity, showed that when it was explained that the
"Civil Rights Initiative" was NOT for "civil rights", Blacks opposed
it overwhelmingly. Go look it up.
This shouldn't be too difficult for you. You claim that there are
Black adults who don't like AA, which is obviously true; Ward Connerly
and the Black woman in Washington State who let the anti-AA
proposition there doesn't like it. Clarence Thomas doesn't like it.
Alan Keyes doesn't like it, and so on, and so on.
None of these folks were elected by Black people, however.
So where is this opposition to AA? Is it significant? If it is, why
can't you name a single "stigmatized" person in this group?
Wayne "It really shouldn't be too difficult to find the stats, or a
person's name" Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
DarkStar
soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
<tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 12:05:55 CST, in
>> soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
>> >Because it shows how thin whatever support there is is. Because it shows
>> >how transparent the publicity effort is. Because it shows how phantasmal
>> >"winning" in this arena is.
>>
>> Oh really?
>> Have you seen Clinton's poll numbers lately?
>> Have you seen how *HIS* PR campaign is working?
>
>Sure. Most people think he's a dog-faced lying b*stard. And they also
>think he's doing a good job of running the country.
>I haven't seen any polls on perceptions of his caring, but I doubt they'd
>be that stellar. most people see him as self-interested, from what I see.
>
>It's PR victory in a certain sense, but not the kind of PR victory that
>Thomas would need.
Thomas has *TIME*, he doesn't need the knock out blow. Slow and
steady, that's all he has to be.
>> If Ray has gone from not liking him, to be ambivalent, what does that
>> say?
>>
>> Think about it for a bit Rich.
>> Is the point too subtle for you?
>
>I understand what you're saying, believe it or not. I just don't think
>it's as widespread as you do.
It doesn't have to be widespread for him to be winning.
First, it's more than Art claims.
Second, it's something that's happening that many people don't even
know is happening.
Third, is the target.
Fourth, he has time.
Fifth, the attitude of the media is changing.
Sixth, even some people who are against Thomas, are tired of the
reactions of some to not let him speak.
>> >I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
>> >arguments of his critics.
>>
>> He doesn't *NEED* to do that!
>> He has the job; for L-I-F-E.
>> And, unfortunately, he was *RIGHT* when he said WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH
>> THAT.
>
>And yet he whines about how unfair the criticism of him is. He can't have
>it both ways.
You're right. So what?
Marc Ramsey
>Stephen Carter wrote quite a bit about this stigma in
>his book "Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby".
>It should be noted, however, that just like Connelly and
>Thomas, Carter didn't start criticizing affirmative action
>until after he had got his.
This is one line of argument that I hear often, and I find
it hard to accept. It seems to suggest that criticism of
AA can only come from those who have never chosen
to participate in it. OTOH, I've heard those who state
that they have never personally benefitted from AA,
accused of being 'in denial'.
Is it so absolutely clear that affirmative action is a good
idea, that no one could ever legitimately change their
opinion at some later point in their lives?
__________________________
Marc Ramsey, ma...@ranlog.com
http://www.ranlog.com/ramsey/
DarkStar
[ Posted and emailed ]
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 12:52:05 CST, in
soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
Johnson) wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 12:53:56 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 15:22:42 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>What the hell is this "you can't shut me down" stuff? Are you OK?
>>
>>Shutting me down is you saying I'm moving to the right, when I've been
>>consistant throughout. I've gone after both Republicans and Democrats
>>and I've stated on numerous occassions I'm independent because I don't
>>like either party.
>
>We can all state what our opinions are, and we can all state what we
>think of someone else's opinion. I've watched you do it, and I never
>thought you had any ability to move someone off of this group.
>
>When discussing Clarence Thomas and "victory", I was asking you to
>tell me of someone who agrees with that assessment. You immediately
>sent me elsewhere for the information, on a topic I have no interest
>in researching at this time.
You asked and I provided the links. If you don't have the interest, so
be it.
I've also been the only person on this newsgroup to call Clinton a
cracka in a suit. Where was the request for substantiation then?
>You make the claim; you can make at least a cursory attempt to
>substantiate it. The way to do it is to state your information, then
>provide sources for verification if asked - not just list a source and
>say, "go find it yourself".
Let's see, I made an opinion and substantiated the opinion by telling
about the PR campaign and what I believe to be signs of a change in
direction. You or anyone else doesn't agree with my view, fine. But to
say I haven't substantiated the claim, is bullshit.
>I was also asking for any public figure that the well-informed people
>on this group would recognize, who seems to be willing to either
>support Thomas or support the idea that his PR campaign is "winning".
>I mentioned the names of well known people who support Thomas, and
>would probably support the idea that he was "winning" - and you went
>ballistic, knowing that these were all conservative folks.
No Wayne. Art stated that Thomas fails a test of caring for the
community. I stated that by Art's standards -- WHICH ARE OBJECTIVE --
Thomas fails, but not to others.
You asked who and then gave a list, in the same post.
I "went ballistic," not just because of the names given, but because
in previous posts, you accuse me of being right-wing. I'll be damned
if I'm going to let you pin that label on me.
....
>Since you have enough nerve to make a point like Thomas is winning a
>PR campaign, I'm surprised you don't have enough nerve to admit that
>your opinion on that particular issue is lock-step with people like
>that.
You're damn right I have nerve to say he has a PR campaign. You're
damn right I have nerve to say that PR campaign is targeted towards
children. You're damn right I have nerve to say that to the children
he has addressed, he's giving a good image, one that is totally
different from what is seen in the press. You're damn right I have the
nerve to say that he's been doing this under the radar for longer than
people know. You're damn right I had the nerve to say he is winning.
And guess what? I have the damn nerve to say the anti-AA crowd is
wining as well.
Now, tell me when pointing out that a strategy is wining is the same
as aligning yourself with it.
Now, tell me you now think I'm against AA.
*THAT'S* what I deem to be misrepresentation on your part, and I'll be
*DAMNED* if I'm going to cower like some punk and let you do it.
You're smart enough to know that what your doing is intellectual
bullshit.
....
>Is this a popularity contest, or a place where you make your stand and
>state your convictions?
I state my convictions.
But not *ONCE* have I intentionally misstated *ANYONE'S* position.
>I am an unabashed conservative.
And anyone who has read you over the years *KNOWS* that *YOU HAVE
NEVER, EVER* stated that point.
NOT ONE TIME.
No, Wayne, I'm not having it.
And I don't give a rat's ass about popularity.
...
>>>>Keep your head buried all you want to, but there are some everyday
>>>>Black people out there who don't find Thomas disagreeable.
>>>
>>>I don't know any, is all, Ed. I know a lot of Black people, and none
>>>I personally know - who know of Thomas - hold him in any regard.
>>
>>Fine, you don't know any. So does that mean they don't exist?
>
>Sure they do. But when I named them, you started leaving spaces
>demanding quotes that said you supported the supporters, or some such
>nonsense.
Nonsense my ass. Above, you state I'm in lock step with people I find
objectionable. And now you want to call it nonsense.
No, I'm calling your tactics out.
Rich Thompson
> Thomas has *TIME*, he doesn't need the knock out blow. Slow and
> steady, that's all he has to be.
Assuming all else stays the same.
But one can hope (or predict) that his critics also have time, and that if
they make the tactical changes you're suggesting, well, they don't need a
knock-out blow, either. They already have more than enough material, if
they use it effectively.
> First, it's more than Art claims.
I don't know enough to agree or disagree with this.
> Second, it's something that's happening that many people don't even
> know is happening.
Not if you keep getting the word out... ;-)
> Third, is the target.
Not sure what this means.
> Fourth, he has time.
True.
> Fifth, the attitude of the media is changing.
That is definitely true, although I'm not sure how much against him it has
ever been.
> Sixth, even some people who are against Thomas, are tired of the
> reactions of some to not let him speak.
True. And one can think that this indicates a tactical change on their
part. A good thing from the point of view of a critic.
(regarding Thomas whining about his critics.
> You're right. So what?
Truth will out.
J Lanier
[snip]
>> >I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
>> >arguments of his critics.
>>
>> He doesn't *NEED* to do that!
>> He has the job; for L-I-F-E.
>> And, unfortunately, he was *RIGHT* when he said WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH
>> THAT.
Yes.
>And yet he whines about how unfair the criticism of him is. He can't have
>it both ways.
AFAIC, that's sums it up in a nutshell.
Explain it to me like I'm a two-year old. What exactly is it that Thomas
*wants*?
--
Jill
----
"Don't let anybody break your spirit." -- Sojourner Truth
J Lanier
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:25:46 CST, in
>soc.culture.african.american.moderated Rich Thompson
><tho...@ego.psych.mcgill.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>>> >I'd argue he'll be in his shell until he addresses the substantive
>>> >arguments of his critics.
>>>
>>> He doesn't *NEED* to do that!
>>> He has the job; for L-I-F-E.
>>> And, unfortunately, he was *RIGHT* when he said WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH
>>> THAT.
>>
>>And yet he whines about how unfair the criticism of him is. He can't have
>>it both ways.
>You're right. So what?
That's what I want to know.
You keep saying he's *winning*, but it appears that he won 7 years ago
when he was confirmed in the first place. If he never gave another speech
before another group in his life, what would change for him?
Now if by winning you are going to tell me that more people will begin to
think like him, that is conservatively, I don't think he can take the
entire credit for that since that would probably happen with or
without him for the simple reason that conservatives spend far greater
resources on promoting their spin, and despite the myth of the liberal
press, get the lion's share of media ink and air time.
DarkStar
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, DarkStar wrote:
>
>> Thomas has *TIME*, he doesn't need the knock out blow. Slow and
>> steady, that's all he has to be.
>
>Assuming all else stays the same.
>But one can hope (or predict) that his critics also have time, and that if
>they make the tactical changes you're suggesting, well, they don't need a
>knock-out blow, either. They already have more than enough material, if
>they use it effectively.
By saying he should not be heard, people are not being effective, IMO.
It's backfiring.
....
>> Second, it's something that's happening that many people don't even
>> know is happening.
>
>Not if you keep getting the word out... ;-)
I'll keep doing it, even if I'm trashed for doing it.
>> Third, is the target.
>
>Not sure what this means.
He's targeting the future; children;
....
>> Fifth, the attitude of the media is changing.
>
>That is definitely true, although I'm not sure how much against him it has
>ever been.
Damn, now a Canadian sees this, but not Americans?
>> Sixth, even some people who are against Thomas, are tired of the
>> reactions of some to not let him speak.
>
>True. And one can think that this indicates a tactical change on their
>part. A good thing from the point of view of a critic.
You mean that a tactical change is needed?
DarkStar
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:22:54 CST, dark...@flash.net (DarkStar) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 9 Jan 1999 14:55:27 CST, in
>>soc.culture.african.american.moderated cia...@ix.netcom.com (Wayne
>>Johnson) wrote:
>
>>>I don't feel stigmatized, though at one time I was pressured to feel
>>>that way by racists at the company I worked at. It took time for me
>>>to realize their motivation for feeling that way, and for messing with
>>>my mind.
>>
>>You don't, but in this newsgroup, people have posted they do. I don't
>>agree that they should, but that's how they feel and that's how it is.
>>So, address that point.
>
>I would if you'd tell me who the heck I'm supposed to be addressing.
>You're saying this sentiment exists, but don't give ANY names or
>examples; I'm saying I haven't seen it, and I'm always in the middle
>of such discussions.
Then you can't be in the middle, huh?
What about Jerome?
>>>Thomas obviously can't. His "non-starter" comment shows the man
>>>couches AA in terms based on catering to racist privelege arguments,
>>>and are immediately suspect.
>>
>>But, he frames the discussion, dosn't he?
>
>Sounds like he's responding to it with red herrings, not setting it
>up.
>
>I say, "AA".
>
>He says, "That means Blacks are inferior".
No, he says any policy that says Blacks aren't equal is a non-starter.
AA is such a policy.
He started it.
And even if he didn't start it, he ends it. He's on the Supreme Court.
But hey, you say red-herring? Why is so much effort being expended to
fight that red-herring?
I've mentioned a debate on affirmative action that I saw on PBS many
times. I've mentioned that Lani Guiner pointed out that in the Hopwood
vs Texas Univ. Law School case, over 100 white men had scores lower
than Hopwood. But the cry of "unqualified" still won the day, didn't
it?
George Curry, of Emerge magazine and Lead Story, has stated something
similar concerning affirmative action. He's stated that the opposition
to affirmative action has framed the debate and the proponents of
affirmative action are left to respond.
Try Jerome as one person who mentioned the stigma argument.
Or what about this one?
*** Start Quote ***
Re: Affirmative Action and Logic
Author: Rose Marie Holt
Email: rmh...@micron.net
Date: 1998/11/04
Forums: soc.culture.african.american.moderated
more headers
In article <71nth1$bsj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, quasi...@aol.com
wrote:
> In article <19981101080644...@ng63.aol.com>,
> user6...@aol.com (User643249) wrote:
> >
> > "Affirmative Action is discrimination. Discrimination is
> > (now) wrong. Therefore affirmative action is wrong."
>
>
> I think the reason why we are seeing so many attacks on Affirmative Action is
> because the one person who could argue it's points is gone, Supreme Court
> Justice Thurgood Marshall, and has been replaced with a decidedly
> Anti-Affirmative Action Black Justice, Clarence Thomas.
I disagree. I think it is the converse, the structures of our society
reflecting society. I personally would be OK with affirmative action
if a majority of Blacks think it will help. However, I do not *agree*
that it would help, and I dont want it for myself anymore. Now that
it has gone down to defeat in Washington and somewhere else (?), I
think all Blacks who get jobs or college spots will find it a relief
not to have to worry that people will think they got the job without
the requisite merit. I know I prefer not to have to constantly fight
the battle of prejudgement as a woman in my heavily male workplace.
Fortunately my coworkers and those who hired me are almost anti-woman,
so I only have to fight sexism, not the additional battle of reverse
anti-anti-discrimination ;')
prejudice.
I think there is not total equality but it's close enough that aff act
is not going to fly any more. We'd do better to let it go and go after
Head Start funding, college diversity programs, individual and
class-action lawsuits for race-based discrimination, etc. These
anti-affirmative action laws are also anti-discrimination and they can
be used the way Justice Ginsberg used the antigender discrimination
laws to help men. Fair is fair. It's time we were all judged on
merit.
*** End Quote ***
...
>So, who are these people with the stigma? Got any names yet? I have
>time, I'll wait. Maybe they'll step up and talk about it.
BTW, why do I need to provide names?
Do you ask for names when the press published polls saying most
Americans wanted the Clinton mess to be over?
...
>Ed, we're back to you making unsupported statements, and then telling
>someone else to substantiate them. Why is this such a pattern with
>your posts?
Care to keep on misstating?
Hell, blatantly lying?
>>>2. Tell us how these kids Thomas is "winning" are going to feel when
>>>they encounter a world without an effective AA program, or an EEOC run
>>>by another person like him.
>>
>>The EEOC doesn't work, *NOW*, for a good majority of people.
>
>Why not?
You tell me.
Clinton has been running things for the last 6 years.
>>But since there are Black adults who don't like affirmative action,
>>and they are raising kids, tell me how Thomas is losing?
>
>How many Black adults don't like affirmative action? Is it a
>significant percentage of the population?
>
>If you want to substantiate this claim, I invite you to find the poll
>results of approval and disapproval of the Affirmative Action
>propositions in California and Washington State.
I've seen polling numbers that range from 20-40%, but the higher
numbers never mentioned AA specifically.
....
>This shouldn't be too difficult for you. You claim that there are
>Black adults who don't like AA, which is obviously true;
So why give me a rash of trash for saying it?
>Ward Connerly
>and the Black woman in Washington State who let the anti-AA
>proposition there doesn't like it. Clarence Thomas doesn't like it.
>Alan Keyes doesn't like it, and so on, and so on.
>
>None of these folks were elected by Black people, however.
So what? Only those who are elected are allowed to have opinions?