I Told You So! Clarence Thomas
DarkStar
How long ago was it when I posted that Clarence Thomas was undergoing
a low key and low level image enhancement? I believed I called it a
public relations campaign.
Do you remember how many of you ripped me apart because I dared write
it? Despite the fact that I gave supporting evidence for why I wrote
it?
I'm going to provide some excerpts. But the article is *MUCH* longer.
Even if you just read the excerpts, and don't go to the article, even
if you don't read the excerpts, please go to the end of this post for
my closing thoughts.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/reports/thomas/day1main.html
The Clarence Thomas You Don't Know
By KEN FOSKETT
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Part 1 of 3
.....
On the court, Thomas is known for his rigid interpretation of the
Constitution and the rule of law. In private, Thomas can't say no. He
sees hundreds of schoolchildren every year, simply because they ask.
One year, he loaned a car to a clerk who couldn't afford to keep his
running.
Reviled by critics for his votes that affect minorities, Thomas' life
today is distinguished by the hours he spends helping black youths.
Thomas has arranged tens of thousands of dollars in financial aid for
these young people to attend private schools, but few people know
about the help because he discourages publicity about it.
.....
Trips home always evoke strong emotions for Thomas. He left Savannah
when he was 19, but he has returned many times, most recently in May
to speak at the bar association's annual Law Day luncheon.
Recalling the deaths of friends and relatives, Thomas startles the
audience at a recent speech with tears.
Thomas often arranges side trips on these visits to reconnect with
touchstones from his past. The morning of his speech, he dropped in at
the Savannah Public Library, where he spent many hours reading as a
young man.
....
Thomas has struggled with his emotions in public before. On the day of
his nomination, he choked back tears when he invoked the memory of his
late grandfather, who demanded Thomas work hard in school so one day
he might have a "coat-and-tie job."
Thomas cried suddenly in 1998 when he recalled his college friend Gil
Hardy, who had died in a scuba accident 10 years earlier.
.....
Stephen Smith, who clerked for Thomas in 1993 and 1994, recalled an
instance when Thomas, on a tour of the maritime courts in Washington,
was talking to a group of judges.
"There was this old woman standing there in one of those blue
janitor's uniforms and a bucket, a black woman," recalled Smith. "And
she was looking at him, wouldn't dare go up and talk to this important
guy. He left the judges there, excused himself and went over to talk
to her. He put out his hand to shake her hand, and she threw her arms
around him and gave him a big bear hug."
....
A willing role model
Thomas' interest in young people and education dates from his days at
Holy Cross College and Yale Law School, where he was known as a
bookworm.
Lester Johnson, a Savannah attorney who followed Thomas to Holy Cross,
recalls that Thomas sometimes returned to his alma mater to encourage
some of the black students.
"He said, 'If you think you want to go to law school, you better
buckle down,' " Johnson said.
.....
Since 1997, Thomas has met every year with a different group of
fifth-graders from Staunton, Va., who attend an after-school program
for promising minority students. Thomas generally reserves an ornate
conference room for the meetings, which can last up to two hours,
according to guidance counselor Pat Lynn.
Thomas tells the children about his childhood in Savannah and his
grandfather's role in keeping him focused on education.
"His whole message is that education is the key to the future and that
without an education you aren't going to make it," said Lynn.
Some months, Thomas meets a different group of schoolchildren every
week, far more often than any other Supreme Court justice.
Since 1993, Thomas has met every year with young people from Freedom
Village USA, a treatment program for young drug addicts. Last year, he
spoke candidly about his nephew's involvement with drugs, recalls Tom
Jipping, an adviser to the program.
"It was just an unbelievably moving experience," recalled Jipping. "I
am stunned to this day."
Akili West, a young Washington resident who met privately with Thomas
in 1994, said he left his 90-minute session with Thomas resolved to
apply to Atlanta's Morehouse College, where he ultimately attended
+++++++++++++++++++ END ++++++++++++++
Well, that's enough. But I need to say this:
I said Thomas was winning, and I still believe he is.
Look at the provided quotes.
When he talks to kids who tour the Supreme Court, those kids are going
to tell their parents what happened. Even if you are against his
idealogy, how can you tell your kid he's totally wrong when he's
encouraging kids to do well and school because that is the key to the
future? For white kids, when they tell their parents, it will be
another nail to say, "Those bad Blacks don't like success..." blah
blah blah, yada yada yada.
When he takes time to talk to Black kids/teens who have drug problems,
those who make it through will *ALWAYS* remember his encouraging
words.
He talks to Black *COLLEGE STUDENTS* and encourages them to succeed.
Does anyone honestly believe that these efforts, which are heartfelt,
won't start to bear fruit in about 5-10 years?
If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the
media. So, when I first mentioned the public relations campaign, think
about this: Do you believe a THREE part series, with quotes taken from
friends and family, could happen without him giving the "OK"?
---
"Corporatized or idealized, hip-hop is the American Dream and the African
American Nightmare rolled into one fat-ass blunt."
Charles Aaron Spin (Nov.1998)
Ed Brown - dark...@toad.net
http://www.toad.net/~darkstar
PubKey http://www.toad.net/~darkstar/public_key.html
trudogg®
> If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
> You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the
> media. So, when I first mentioned the public relations campaign, think
> about this: Do you believe a THREE part series, with quotes taken from
> friends and family, could happen without him giving the "OK"?
...can you blame him for guarding his privacy? No matter what anyone
thinks about his flava of politics, he was part of a high-tech
lynching. Clarence Thomas must have been the Democratic closet-racist's
wet-dream...a successful African-American male that could be put down
and harassed with no fear of being called on it...
Rich Thompson
>...can you blame him for guarding his privacy? No matter what anyone
>thinks about his flava of politics, he was part of a high-tech
>lynching.
F**k that s**t.
high-tech lynching my hairy white ass. He was the one who essentially
said that any accusation of racism by Black people was invalid. and what
does he do at the first sign of trouble?
mice_el...@yahoo.com
___________________________
"don't mess with Mother Nature."
-Koko Taylor
Art Clemons
<tru...@mindspring.com> writes:
>...can you blame him for guarding his privacy? No matter what anyone
>thinks about his flava of politics, he was part of a high-tech
>lynching. Clarence Thomas must have been the Democratic closet-racist's
>wet-dream...a successful African-American male that could be put down
>and harassed with no fear of being called on it...
>
Thomas came as close to being lynched as Steppin Fetchit did. He characterized
his treatment as such, when in fact, the issues raised about him were used to
justify lynching the character and reputation of Anita Hill. Funny thing about
his lynching too, the very folks most likely to discriminate against
African-Americans in terms of voting records in the Senate were some of his
biggest defenders, whether discussing Arlen Spector, former DA of Philadelphia,
Jesse H. or Strom T. In other words, his private life is best left hidden as
otherwise the details come sneaking out, including that the present Atty
General used to claim that Thomas joked about sex too often and was too overtly
interested in women in ways that said individual considered improper. Funny
thing though, no mention of that was made during the confirmation hearings
(which would have backed some of Hill's claims too).
-art clemons-
Andrew McMichael
> If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
> You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the
> media.
So does Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Andre Agassi, and most famous people.
Still, Thomas is a dog. But the privacy thing doesn't have anything to do
with it.
--
Andrew McMichael "The Internet [is] an uncontrolled medium where
Papers of Thomas Jefferson rumor-mongers, pedophiles, prostitutes and
Princeton University criminals [can] go about their business with
Impunity." Mme de Fontenay, Miss France Cmte.
DarkStar
forth:
>DarkStar wrote...
>
>> If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
>> You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the
>> media. So, when I first mentioned the public relations campaign, think
>> about this: Do you believe a THREE part series, with quotes taken from
>> friends and family, could happen without him giving the "OK"?
>
>...can you blame him for guarding his privacy?
No, but you missed the point.
My point was that, he is doing a media campaign to present a different
image of him. It's only then, that his friends will speak, and I'm
sure Thomas gave them the okay to do so.
>No matter what anyone
>thinks about his flava of politics, he was part of a high-tech
>lynching.
I believe he could have been opposed on different grounds.
DarkStar
<amcm...@Princeton.EDU> put forth:
>
>
>> If you read the article, you read how closely he guards his privacy.
>> You also read that he "punishes" friends and family for talking to the
>> media.
....
>
>Still, Thomas is a dog. But the privacy thing doesn't have anything to do
>with it.
My point was that, he is doing a media campaign to present a different
image of him. It's only then, that his friends will speak, and I'm
sure Thomas gave them the okay to do so.
He's only "private" when it's convient..
Roger Brown
>...can you blame him for guarding his privacy? No matter what anyone
>thinks about his flava of politics, he was part of a high-tech
>lynching. Clarence Thomas must have been the Democratic closet-racist's
>wet-dream...a successful African-American male that could be put down
>and harassed with no fear of being called on it...
The only reason that Clarence Thomas is a "successful"
African-American male is because he is a rare commodity; a black man
who is an extreme conservative and validates the most conservative
white views. That made him worth gold to the Republican party. Having
Clarence replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall is one of the most
cynical actions I've ever seen in politics. It consolidated a very
conservative position and side-stepped the issue of racism. It was a
reverse race card, if anything. It was a stupendous followup to his
term at the EEOC, as he ran an office whose purpose he didn't believe
in.
I think that the Anita Hill controversey was not the reason to reject
him for the postion on the court. I did think he was lying through his
teeth about that, however. He deserved rejection for his extreme
right-wing views, and his lack of a track record as a justice. He
appears completely out of his element on the court, never
participating in oral argument. He is clearly over his head.
I also think David Brock is complete scum for his piece of character
assasinaion of Anita Hill in his book, the so-called "The Real Anita
Hill", which he is now recanting like crazy, now that he has made
himself famous from it.
- Roger
trudogg®
> Thomas came as close to being lynched as Steppin Fetchit did. He characterized
> his treatment as such, when in fact, the issues raised about him were used to
> justify lynching the character and reputation of Anita Hill.
...Anita Hill was poorly used as a pawn. However truthful her testimony
was, it proved more damaging for her than for Thomas.
> Funny thing about
> his lynching too, the very folks most likely to discriminate against
> African-Americans in terms of voting records in the Senate were some of his
> biggest defenders, whether discussing Arlen Spector, former DA of Philadelphia,
> Jesse H. or Strom T.
...I think I can rest my case on the support of those individuals. At
the time of the hearings, I didn't know much about Clarence Thomas. But
if I can paraphrase..."you are known by the character of the people who
support you".
trudogg®
> I believe he could have been opposed on different grounds.
...as do I. But they played what they had at hand. And I damnsure can't
fault the man for wanting to change his image. It's badly needed. With
or without permission...
DarkStar
forth:
>DarkStar wrote...
True.
And like I said before. He's winning.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>True.
>And like I said before. He's winning.
Funny thing though, despite your claims about his winning, ole silent uncle C.
Thomas seems to be coming under fire. His wife is even coming out to defend
his behavior, and I'm waiting for folks to notice that Hill passed a polygraph
exam before a former FBI polygrapher, who at the time was still appearing for
the FBI in standing cases.
You also ignore that his record as "chairperson" (please note I usually refuse
to refer to any human as "person" for a variety of reasons, not least of which
is a certain clause of the Constitution) of the EEOC is also coming back to
haunt the man. His approval rating in the community isn't climbing even among
the young despite the media blitz on his behalf. It's past time we gave up on
Mr. Fetchit on the Court, and got down to getting a real voice on the Court.
-art clemons-
trudogg®
> The only reason that Clarence Thomas is a "successful"
> African-American male is because he is a rare commodity; a black man
> who is an extreme conservative and validates the most conservative
> white views. That made him worth gold to the Republican party. Having
> Clarence replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall is one of the most
> cynical actions I've ever seen in politics. It consolidated a very
> conservative position and side-stepped the issue of racism. It was a
> reverse race card, if anything. It was a stupendous followup to his
> term at the EEOC, as he ran an office whose purpose he didn't believe
> in.
...there's nothing wrong with a little "fiscal" conservatism, if it's
being done for the right reasons. I'm not sure that is the case here.
Calling this one of the most cynical actions in politics, I can agree
with...but only because you said "one of". I have full confidence in
the American political system to pursue far more misanthropic actions
than this...
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <udg4ktorm46rg3a6j...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>True.
>>And like I said before. He's winning.
>
>Funny thing though, despite your claims about his winning, ole silent uncle C.
>Thomas seems to be coming under fire.
Yes, but it's fire that rehashes the same old stuff.
Look, he did an interview that appears in Harper's Magazine. In it, he
was quoted as saying that any c.v. that reaches his desk, get's thrown
in the trash, if the person's transcripts include Black studies
courses.
How much did you hear about that one? I heard about it from a Black
conservative who was pissed.
When he was invited, then disinvited, then re-invited to speak to kids
at a predominately Black elementary school, even his Black critics
said the reaction was too harsh.
....
>You also ignore that his record as "chairperson" (please note I usually refuse
>to refer to any human as "person" for a variety of reasons, not least of which
>is a certain clause of the Constitution) of the EEOC is also coming back to
>haunt the man.
I don't ignore his EEOC record, but as far as coming back to haunt
him, how?
The cases that he rushed through and shit canned, can't come back.
The man has a seat for life.
And to make matters worse, he's setting the ground work to
historically revise Brown v Board of Education, and no one seems to
give it much notice.
In a separate opinion for some case, he stated that he believed the
reasoning in Brown was wrong. I believe he stated that it was wrong to
say that just because schools were segregated, that Black schools were
inferior.
But, the arguments on Brown v Board of Education, wasn't that Black
schools were inheriently inferior, but that because of the funding,
they were inferior.
He's revising the context of the ruling, in the guise of killing
affirmative action because it "assumes Blacks are inferior."
He does that, and gets little notice, meanwhile, he has a media
campaign that shows that he is encouraging Black kids, teenagers, and
young adults, to succeed in education.
> His approval rating in the community isn't climbing even among
>the young despite the media blitz on his behalf. It's past time we gave up on
>Mr. Fetchit on the Court, and got down to getting a real voice on the Court.
Time is on his side, Art.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>Yes, but it's fire that rehashes the same old stuff.
If he isn't kept unde fire, he succeeds without any opposition.
>Look, he did an interview that appears in Harper's Magazine. In it, he
>was quoted as saying that any c.v. that reaches his desk, get's thrown
>in the trash, if the person's transcripts include Black studies
>courses.
Isn't it amusing that an African-American will reject anyone who studied about
other African-Americans? What does that say about him? Why not reject anyone
who took Celtic studies, or political science too?
>How much did you hear about that one? I heard about it from a Black
>conservative who was pissed.
It's just another piece of ammunition to use against him, just as his wife
speaking out in his behalf is a new low for a Justice, and a way of getting to
him too. I say treat him as an enemy, carry the fight everywhere he goes.
Forget how harsh it looks, he isn't going to improve.
>When he was invited, then disinvited, then re-invited to speak to kids
>at a predominately Black elementary school, even his Black critics
>said the reaction was too harsh.
No, only some critics said it was too harsh. I think they were too kind.
Letting him get away with his statements unchallenged is a horrible concept,
because then only his version of what happened stands.
>....
>
>>You also ignore that his record as "chairperson" (please note I usually
>refuse
>>to refer to any human as "person" for a variety of reasons, not least of
>which
>>is a certain clause of the Constitution) of the EEOC is also coming back to
>>haunt the man.
>
>I don't ignore his EEOC record, but as far as coming back to haunt
>him, how?
His record is more ammunition to attack him on. Just like reading and quoting
his written dissents, concurrences and opinions on the Court is.
>The cases that he rushed through and shit canned, can't come back.
No, they can't, but it also took six years to clean up the mess left behind.
It was so bad that even business entities complained about the tactics, since
it meant they didn't even have an arbitration method to try to use.
>The man has a seat for life.
Or until he's impeached. The republicans in the Clinton impeachment set an
interesting standard for impeachment. Clarence for example seems to have
demonstrably lied during his confirmation hearings, seems to have ignored what
would ordinarily have been sufficient justification to recuse himself on some
matters, and in other words apparently has done enough to at least schedule
hearings to investigate. Of course, we also need a democratic partisan
congress for that to happen too. Please note that the public seems to forget
stupidity in the impeachment process, or Alcee Hastings wouldn't have been
impeached and tried previously either.
>And to make matters worse, he's setting the ground work to
>historically revise Brown v Board of Education, and no one seems to
>give it much notice.
>
>In a separate opinion for some case, he stated that he believed the
>reasoning in Brown was wrong. I believe he stated that it was wrong to
>say that just because schools were segregated, that Black schools were
>inferior.
>
>But, the arguments on Brown v Board of Education, wasn't that Black
>schools were inheriently inferior, but that because of the funding,
>they were inferior.
>
>He's revising the context of the ruling, in the guise of killing
>affirmative action because it "assumes Blacks are inferior."
>
>He does that, and gets little notice, meanwhile, he has a media
>campaign that shows that he is encouraging Black kids, teenagers, and
>young adults, to succeed in education.
It's just a campaign, one that has little real effect, and the community as a
whole needs to begin shunning such things, not making excuses for the moral
equivalent of importing two boxcars each of cocaine and heroin into the
community in his legal reasoning.
As for returning to the logic in Plessy vs. Ferguson, that seems to already be
a fait accompli. Of course Nobody dares retire with the memory of what
happened to Thurgood Marshall being "forced" out and replaced by Thomas either.
If Marshall had held on, Thomas would be just another figure to hate, rather
than where he is. Of course, if democrats had not been afraid to vote against
the man when he claimed he was being lynched, his nomination should have been
tabled or rejected.
>> His approval rating in the community isn't climbing even among
>>the young despite the media blitz on his behalf. It's past time we gave up
>on
>>Mr. Fetchit on the Court, and got down to getting a real voice on the Court.
>
>Time is on his side, Art.
Only if we let it be. I'm reminding you that opposition to the man isn't
impossible. We should be demonstrating everywhere he goes, his vote on the
court is predictable and not in our best interest ever. That's an enemy, one
that should be shunned or railed against.
-art clemons-
Roger Brown
wrote:
>...there's nothing wrong with a little "fiscal" conservatism, if it's
>being done for the right reasons. I'm not sure that is the case here.
I speak only in the social conservative sense; I don't know that
Thomas ever wrote an opinion on any case that involved fiscal matters;
he has written few enough.
I've only heard him speak to social matters.
- Roger
F. Andrew McMichael
: Isn't it amusing that an African-American will reject anyone who studied about
: other African-Americans? What does that say about him? Why not reject anyone
: who took Celtic studies, or political science too?
This is more common that you'd think, and it also gets applied to
Latin American studies as well. And I've seen it done by pretty
liberal Latinos and African-Americans.
The reasoing seems to be that Latin American studies and
African American studies courses at many universities isn't very
rigorous, and that much of the "academic" work seems to be along
the lines of "whatever feels right" not "whatever can be proven
through evidence.
I've not had much experience with AA studies, but I've definitely
encountered this in LA studies.
--
Andrew McMichael "Today I learned that the
Assistant Editor History Channel is not
Papers of Thomas Jefferson always accurate."
Princeton University -- Joe Bruno in AFU
trudogg®
> I speak only in the social conservative sense; I don't know that
> Thomas ever wrote an opinion on any case that involved fiscal matters;
> he has written few enough.
> I've only heard him speak to social matters.
...which is why he is the darling of the right. Hindsight is always
better than 20/20...and the Supreme Court is not the end word. There
are still a large number of federal seats on different benches that
need to be addressed. If the wheel doesn't squeak, it may not get the
grease...
Pilar Quezzaire
: The reasoing seems to be that Latin American studies and
: African American studies courses at many universities isn't very
: rigorous, and that much of the "academic" work seems to be along
: the lines of "whatever feels right" not "whatever can be proven
: through evidence.
I'm a joint appointment at Boston University between African Studies and
and Art History, and have had the chance to look into the problem of
"ethnic studies" in general (being a token minority on any faculty kinda
prompts this sort of thing -- okay, sarcastic mode off).
In general, multi-discipline programs aren't well put-together, and these
programs, as well as the student's curriculum choices, should be examined
carefully. While I don't favor rejecting an application JUST by seeing a
major of that sort on a CV, I would want to know more specifically what
the student did within the major. It's inexcusable to me if the student's
resume is obviously well-rounded with experience and other mitigating
factors, the major shouldn't make any damn difference at all.
Most importantly, I think, is the school the student attended. If I saw
"African Studies" from a BU or Berkeley grad, I know how hard they worked.
If I saw it from oh, Stanford, I'd know how hard they didn't. I
personally love the flexibility ethnic studies can create, but you do have
to be suspicious of any major without clear definitions as to what was in
the curriculum. You also have to be a disciplined student to follow such a
curriculum.
I dunno about you guys, but I find "vocational" majors, like computer
science, psychology, or political science, to be subject to review as
well. In my experience, the quality and focus of these majors varies
wildly as well. I wouldn't want to hire a computer science major fresh out
of Harvard, for example. I know how little actual experience they have in
real-world technologies. It's largely a theoretical major here.
--
Just Pilar
DarkStar
<quez...@fas.harvard.edu> put forth:
....
>In general, multi-discipline programs aren't well put-together, and these
>programs, as well as the student's curriculum choices, should be examined
>carefully. While I don't favor rejecting an application JUST by seeing a
>major of that sort on a CV, I would want to know more specifically what
>the student did within the major. It's inexcusable to me if the student's
>resume is obviously well-rounded with experience and other mitigating
>factors, the major shouldn't make any damn difference at all.
Just to be clear, Justice Thomas stated he was trash the c.v., just
because he saw that the student had taken Black studies courses.
....
>I dunno about you guys, but I find "vocational" majors, like computer
>science, psychology, or political science, to be subject to review as
>well. In my experience, the quality and focus of these majors varies
>wildly as well. I wouldn't want to hire a computer science major fresh out
>of Harvard, for example. I know how little actual experience they have in
>real-world technologies. It's largely a theoretical major here.
Well, the thing with hiring undergrads out of college, is that most
DON'T have any experience. So, that shouldn't be an issue.
It's taken me 16 years to have the experience that I have. There is no
way that someone coming out of undergrad, without being a major s/w
weenie on his/her own, could know 1/2 of what I know.
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <sge6kt8gsqvn4ttu4...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
....
>>The man has a seat for life.
>
>Or until he's impeached.
Barring Thomas committing a crime, it will never happen. If it
happened because of "political" reasons, I would be one of the people
screaming bloody murder because I *KNOW* paybacks would be coming.
....
>Only if we let it be. I'm reminding you that opposition to the man isn't
>impossible. We should be demonstrating everywhere he goes, his vote on the
>court is predictable and not in our best interest ever. That's an enemy, one
>that should be shunned or railed against.
That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
those who don't like him.
It's time to move and and find another way.
Pilar Quezzaire
: Just to be clear, Justice Thomas stated he was trash the c.v., just
: because he saw that the student had taken Black studies courses.
I understood that, and thought I said I thought that was totally wrong.
: ....
:>I dunno about you guys, but I find "vocational" majors, like computer
:>science, psychology, or political science, to be subject to review as
:>well. In my experience, the quality and focus of these majors varies
:>wildly as well. I wouldn't want to hire a computer science major fresh out
:>of Harvard, for example. I know how little actual experience they have in
:>real-world technologies. It's largely a theoretical major here.
: Well, the thing with hiring undergrads out of college, is that most
: DON'T have any experience. So, that shouldn't be an issue.
Actually, you are confusing a little what I am saying. I agree that lack
of experience is always a problem for new graduates, but some schools
don't teach APPLICATION of computer science, which means there are
graduates coming out of some schools who say, have never done serious
programming, never learned to fix a computer, etc. It's the difference a
vocational/practical approach and a theoretical one.
: It's taken me 16 years to have the experience that I have. There is no
: way that someone coming out of undergrad, without being a major s/w
: weenie on his/her own, could know 1/2 of what I know.
I'd just want them to have better basics. You get this depending on which
school you attend.
--
Just Pilar
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Please observe attributions.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>Barring Thomas committing a crime, it will never happen. If it
>happened because of "political" reasons, I would be one of the people
>screaming bloody murder because I *KNOW* paybacks would be coming.
Actually, folks expected paybacks over Alcee Hastings, and Bill Clinton. They
don't always happen, and when they do, they're part of the price of doing
something political. Nothing for example stopped the Supreme Court annointing
Dumbya for example, there's been no payback for that yet for example. Nobody
paid back Helms for holding up nominees to the courts over bogus
justifications, or trying to cut funding for judicial circuits in other states
as punishment. There's a whole list of actions I can name which have been
partisan, which have lead to no retaliation, and the list continues. I
wouldn't worry about Thomas getting the shaft, just as I wouldn't have found it
troubling that Thomas got rejected. It's telling how republicans vote against
middle of the road African-Americans for no apparent reason, and nobody worries
about it. Thomas never should have been on the Court, it's that simple, and
impeachment is the only legal means of removing him. Screaming bloody murder
over Thomas somehow just would never occur to me. Now if he got shot by a cop
during a drug stop, I might get a wee mite upset, but I'ld have a hard time not
busting my gut laughing if it did.
>....
>
>>Only if we let it be. I'm reminding you that opposition to the man isn't
>>impossible. We should be demonstrating everywhere he goes, his vote on the
>>court is predictable and not in our best interest ever. That's an enemy,
>one
>>that should be shunned or railed against.
>
>That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
>those who don't like him.
Only from some, and I note pointedly that attacks on Jackson, Sharpton et al go
on and on, or for that matter against Mfume, Bond and others. Which one can
make a statement without attack and partisanship? Why are their concepts
attacked so frequently? It's past time to begin paying attention to how things
work. Opposition to Thomas has to continue, virulent opposition to remind
folks because otherwise the greater society just ignores him despite polls
showing him being rated as one of the least competent Justices imaginable.
>It's time to move and and find another way.
No, it's not time to move on. It's time to ignore the critics and keep doing
what's working so far. It is working or the effort to clean up his supposed
image wouldn't be going on. It's also amusing to see that there is now an
effort to rehabiliate the image of Anita H, and that can't be done without
destroying Clarence T.
-art clemons-
F. Andrew McMichael
: There's a whole list of actions I can name which have been
: partisan, which have lead to no retaliation, and the list continues. I
It seems to me that if you have a whole list, then there must have
been retaliation. Otherwise there'd be no 'whole list.'
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <543hkto76dnfc2qkn...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>Barring Thomas committing a crime, it will never happen. If it
>>happened because of "political" reasons, I would be one of the people
>>screaming bloody murder because I *KNOW* paybacks would be coming.
>
>Actually, folks expected paybacks over Alcee Hastings, and Bill Clinton. They
>don't always happen, and when they do, they're part of the price of doing
>something political. Nothing for example stopped the Supreme Court annointing
>Dumbya for example,
You know nothing could have been done to stop that, Art. Try again.
>Nobody
>paid back Helms for holding up nominees to the courts over bogus
>justifications, or trying to cut funding for judicial circuits in other states
>as punishment.
That one is not entirely true. Do you remember the DAR resolution that
was stopped by either Mosley-Braun or Cynthia McKinney?
...
> Thomas never should have been on the Court, it's that simple,
Democrats controlled the senate. Democrat votes got him confirmed. Who
should be held accountable?
>and
>impeachment is the only legal means of removing him.
On what grounds?
The man isn't stupid enough to do anything that, if caught, will give
grounds for impeachment.
.....
>>That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
>>those who don't like him.
>
>Only from some, and I note pointedly that attacks on Jackson, Sharpton et al go
>on and on, or for that matter against Mfume, Bond and others. Which one can
>make a statement without attack and partisanship? Why are their concepts
>attacked so frequently? It's past time to begin paying attention to how things
>work. Opposition to Thomas has to continue, virulent opposition to remind
>folks because otherwise the greater society just ignores him despite polls
>showing him being rated as one of the least competent Justices imaginable.
I never wrote opposition should stop. But the manner of the opposition
must change. The fact is, he is writing more separate opinions. If
there is something wrong with those, then people should bring it up.
But instead, their silence.
>>It's time to move and and find another way.
>
>No, it's not time to move on. It's time to ignore the critics and keep doing
>what's working so far. It is working or the effort to clean up his supposed
>image wouldn't be going on. It's also amusing to see that there is now an
>effort to rehabiliate the image of Anita H, and that can't be done without
>destroying Clarence T.
Rich Thompson
>
> That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
> those who don't like him.
>
> It's time to move and and find another way.
What types of alternatives would you suggest? The Art Clemons method
seems to be more congruent with your personal style, if scaa is any
indication. (for the record, that would be close to my style too)
It still isn't clear to me that he's winning. Most even White analysts
see him as nothing more than an extra Scalia appendage.
DarkStar
Thompson) put forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<543hkto76dnfc2qkn...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
>> those who don't like him.
>>
>> It's time to move and and find another way.
>
>What types of alternatives would you suggest?
Do what Higgobothum (sp) did before he died: write articles that
object to his judicial positions.
....
>It still isn't clear to me that he's winning. Most even White analysts
>see him as nothing more than an extra Scalia appendage.
Many of those same analysts complained about the harsh treatment of
Justice Thomas when he was invited, then disinvited, then re-invited
to speak to a group of kids in a school.
Rich Thompson
>
> Do what Higgobothum (sp) did before he died: write articles that
> object to his judicial positions.
If this is a PR war, these articles would have to go to a fairly
widely-exposed outlet, no? I could be a barbarian, in fact, I am, but
I have only heard of Higginbottom (my attempt at sp.) a couple of
times, and never in connection to Thomas. And I'm sure there are some
people with even less access to popular media than I have.
> Many of those same analysts complained about the harsh treatment of
> Justice Thomas when he was invited, then disinvited, then re-invited
> to speak to a group of kids in a school.
Yes, but this doesn't necessarily translate into respect for the man.
DarkStar
forth:
....
>Thomas never should have been on the Court, it's that simple, and
>impeachment is the only legal means of removing him.
On what grounds?
Do you remember that Rehnquist and Scalia pimp smacked conserva-kooks
who want(ed) to impeach federal judges for decisions the
conserva-kooks didn't agree with?
DarkStar
Thompson) put forth:
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message news:<ao8nktk1nek5gadpn...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Do what Higgobothum (sp) did before he died: write articles that
>> object to his judicial positions.
>
>
>If this is a PR war, these articles would have to go to a fairly
>widely-exposed outlet, no?
It appeared in Emerge, but you make a point another member of the
ABA(?) made. Articles, ads, and op-ed pieces should be written for the
major papers and magazines. That's not being done.
....
>> Many of those same analysts complained about the harsh treatment of
>> Justice Thomas when he was invited, then disinvited, then re-invited
>> to speak to a group of kids in a school.
>
>Yes, but this doesn't necessarily translate into respect for the man.
I didn't say that it would.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>>Thomas never should have been on the Court, it's that simple, and
>>impeachment is the only legal means of removing him.
>
>On what grounds?
On the grounds Thomas lied during his confirmation hearings. No more, no less!
It's always an adequate ground for impeachment if both the house and senate
agree.
>Do you remember that Rehnquist and Scalia pimp smacked conserva-kooks
>who want(ed) to impeach federal judges for decisions the
>conserva-kooks didn't agree with?
Didn't mean that Alcee Hastings got his reputation back either did it?
Remember that Hastings won only because Congress had ignored the finding of a
jury, if it had claimed independent cause, in fact almost any cause, the
impeachment and removal would have stood. In fact, there is little check on
what happens during impeachment by the House, as the Clinton impeachment
proved.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <hv8nktg2cfqlhgapi...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>>Thomas never should have been on the Court, it's that simple, and
>>>impeachment is the only legal means of removing him.
>>
>>On what grounds?
>
>On the grounds Thomas lied during his confirmation hearings. No more, no less!
> It's always an adequate ground for impeachment if both the house and senate
>agree.
Don't hold your breath.
>>Do you remember that Rehnquist and Scalia pimp smacked conserva-kooks
>>who want(ed) to impeach federal judges for decisions the
>>conserva-kooks didn't agree with?
>
>Didn't mean that Alcee Hastings got his reputation back either did it?
I don't remember much about that situation, so I can't comment on it.
ksp...@umich.edu
DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:21:01 CST, mice_el...@yahoo.com (Rich
>Thompson) put forth:
>
>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message
>news:<543hkto76dnfc2qkn...@4ax.com>...
>>>
>>> That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
>>> those who don't like him.
>>>
>>> It's time to move and and find another way.
>>
>>What types of alternatives would you suggest?
>
>Do what Higgobothum (sp) did before he died: write articles that
>object to his judicial positions.
You are saying that this is not being done?
So if you had the time and resources to run a keyword search on him on
google, or on Lexis/Nexis you are saying that there would be no critical
articles except for Higginbotham's? Or that these articles would be
outweighed by their "uncle tom" counterparts?
The first position is false...and you know this. Emerge was notorious for
its scathing indictment of Thomas.
I think the second proposition would be interesting to test...but it seems
to me that you are neglecting the fact that it is possible to both call
Thomas a Tom AND still critique his record.
But besides this, I think that if we were to look at black newspaper
editorials, and major speeches of civil rights representatives and
activists, we'd see that as much as Thomas is called a tom, his record is
trashed. That activity helps produce a form of "collective memory" that
will burn Thomas and his record in effigy long after he has gone.
lks
DarkStar
>In article <ao8nktk1nek5gadpn...@4ax.com>,
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:21:01 CST, mice_el...@yahoo.com (Rich
>>Thompson) put forth:
>>
>>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message
>>news:<543hkto76dnfc2qkn...@4ax.com>...
>>>>
>>>> That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
>>>> those who don't like him.
>>>>
>>>> It's time to move and and find another way.
>>>
>>>What types of alternatives would you suggest?
>>
>>Do what Higgobothum (sp) did before he died: write articles that
>>object to his judicial positions.
>
>You are saying that this is not being done?
Before that article, how many other articles appeared in Emerge that
attacked Thomas' opinions in the same way? Sure, they had 2 infamous
articles that attacked Thomas, but neither broke down his opinions in
the way that the one Higgobothum (sp) article did.
During the ABA flare up over Thomas' appearance, some ABA members
challenged *THEMSELVES* to go after Thomas' opinions. That's why
Higgobothum (sp) wrote the article.
>So if you had the time and resources to run a keyword search on him on
>google, or on Lexis/Nexis you are saying that there would be no critical
>articles except for Higginbotham's? Or that these articles would be
>outweighed by their "uncle tom" counterparts?
The articles against Thomas would lean very heavily towards "uncle
Tom" attacks.
Again, how does that counter Thomas' appearances before Black kids?
Years ago, Thomas addressed a graduating HBCU class. I'm not sure, but
I believe it may have been Hampton. And, according to what I read,
some of the Black students came away with a higher opinion of Thomas.
The one opinion that Thomas has actually taken the time to defend, as
far as I know, has to do with his ruling that a prisoner has no right
to sue if the prisoner is beaten by guards, even when the prisoner is
in chains.
>The first position is false...and you know this. Emerge was notorious for
>its scathing indictment of Thomas.
The scathing indictment had very little to do with his written court
opinions... "and you know this."
>I think the second proposition would be interesting to test...but it seems
>to me that you are neglecting the fact that it is possible to both call
>Thomas a Tom AND still critique his record.
Other than his past at the EEOC, which is fair game, and his stance
against affirmative actions, how many articles actually go after his
written opinions? And contrary to what is said, he has authored
separate opinions, while ruling with the conservative wing of the
court.
>But besides this, I think that if we were to look at black newspaper
>editorials, and major speeches of civil rights representatives and
>activists, we'd see that as much as Thomas is called a tom, his record is
>trashed.
Is EEOC record and his affirmative action record. But there is *MORE*
that needs to be addressed. Look, there are former members of the
Black Panther Party who don't like affirmative action.
IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
Brown v Board of Education.
In some of his speeches, he is saying that during segregation, there
are many examples of Black schools that turned out very well prepared
Black students, in spite of the funding and infrastructure inequities.
While he is saying that, he is also saying that majority minority
schools can succeed while staying majority minority. Who is going to
deny that? Now, combine that with funding disparities that seem to
happen when you compare majority minority schools vs majority white
schools, in the same system, and I start to see trouble.
Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
Here is an example.
I mentioned his opinion that a prisoner had no right to sue the state
for civil rights violations because he was beat by guards while he was
in restraints. What Thomas has said in later speeches was that his
opinion is not being read correctly. He stated that he wrote that the
beating was deplorable. But, he stated that the prisoner had the right
to sue the state in _state_ courts, and that option should have been
used, first, before going to the _federal_ courts. Now, combine that
explanation with something that happened in the last court session.
A person wanted to sue the state for civil rights violations because a
state prosecutor withheld evidence that would have cleared the person
who was found guilty. Earlier rulings said that the person had no
grounds to sue because the prosecutor had some sort of immunity
against lawsuits because it was state case. The Supreme Court turned
down the appeal, thus upholding the privious rulings. Thomas wrote a
public dissent saying since the state didn't provide for a legal
means of recourse, that the federal government *MUST* provide that
means.
If I explained that clearly, the 2 opinions are consistant. A person
should only sue in the federal system when all other options, if any,
have been used or denied.
_Logically_, that seems fine to me. _Legally_, I have no idea.
But calling him an Uncle Tom and hammering him on his opposition to
affirmative action, does nothing to explain the example I provided.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
> EEOC record and his affirmative action record. But there is *MORE*
>that needs to be addressed. Look, there are former members of the
>Black Panther Party who don't like affirmative action.
But how many BPP former members whose income/employment don't depend on
conservatives favor the man or praise him? I further note that many BPP
members were concept challenged when members, why would you expect more now?
>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>Brown v Board of Education.
>
>In some of his speeches, he is saying that during segregation, there
>are many examples of Black schools that turned out very well prepared
>Black students, in spite of the funding and infrastructure inequities.
>While he is saying that, he is also saying that majority minority
>schools can succeed while staying majority minority. Who is going to
>deny that? Now, combine that with funding disparities that seem to
>happen when you compare majority minority schools vs majority white
>schools, in the same system, and I start to see trouble.
He ignores that the results were so poor in so many different locales that it
was obvious that said schools were failing that one could look at a majority
African heritage school and assume failure for most of the students. The real
problem with integration is that it too fails to correct some of the obvious
flaws of racism and eduction for the community. Those same funding disparities
existed pre-Brown, that's part of the irony that conservatives now love to
point to private schooling as a solution ignoring just where students will go.
Don't forget the solution of closing the schools and giving a voucher as a
means of saving money.
>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
It may do nothing, but if you're correct, attacking his legal reasoning won't
do much good either, since his vote is lost already. I'm still waiting to see
any evidence that Thomas has ever been affected by legal argument in deciding
how to vote on a particular issue. That evidence is sorely lacking.
>And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
>of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
>some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
>and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
Uh what opinion is friendly towards the community?
>Here is an example.
>
>I mentioned his opinion that a prisoner had no right to sue the state
>for civil rights violations because he was beat by guards while he was
>in restraints. What Thomas has said in later speeches was that his
>opinion is not being read correctly. He stated that he wrote that the
>beating was deplorable. But, he stated that the prisoner had the right
>to sue the state in _state_ courts, and that option should have been
>used, first, before going to the _federal_ courts. Now, combine that
>explanation with something that happened in the last court session.
Historically, the protection of constitutional rights has been done in habeus
corpus review in federal courts for state prisoners. All Thomas is doing is
the legal equivalent of allowing time limits to run out as the state route is
pursued. I don't know of too many cases in state courts holding that a
prisoner's rights have been violated. Further raising the issue in state court
and a court ruling on the issue can be construed as waiving the right to pursue
the same issue in federal court review.
>A person wanted to sue the state for civil rights violations because a
>state prosecutor withheld evidence that would have cleared the person
>who was found guilty. Earlier rulings said that the person had no
>grounds to sue because the prosecutor had some sort of immunity
>against lawsuits because it was state case. The Supreme Court turned
>down the appeal, thus upholding the privious rulings. Thomas wrote a
>public dissent saying since the state didn't provide for a legal
>means of recourse, that the federal government *MUST* provide that
>means.
>
>If I explained that clearly, the 2 opinions are consistant. A person
>should only sue in the federal system when all other options, if any,
>have been used or denied.
>
>_Logically_, that seems fine to me. _Legally_, I have no idea.
There are logical flaws, but even worse, legally, the the two aren't even close
to equivalent. I also note that Thomas in the prisoner case in effect
precluded the prisoner ever being able to sue in federal court for
constitutional violations, since the state review existed in name only.
>But calling him an Uncle Tom and hammering him on his opposition to
>affirmative action, does nothing to explain the example I provided.
>
-art clemons-
ksp...@umich.edu
DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 13:15:19 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>
>>In article <ao8nktk1nek5gadpn...@4ax.com>,
>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 21:21:01 CST, mice_el...@yahoo.com (Rich
>>>Thompson) put forth:
>>>
>>>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote in message
>>>news:<543hkto76dnfc2qkn...@4ax.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>> That type of behavior has gotten Thomas sympathetic support from even
>>>>> those who don't like him.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's time to move and and find another way.
>>>>
>>>>What types of alternatives would you suggest?
>>>
>>>Do what Higgobothum (sp) did before he died: write articles that
>>>object to his judicial positions.
>>
>>You are saying that this is not being done?
>
>Before that article, how many other articles appeared in Emerge that
>attacked Thomas' opinions in the same way? Sure, they had 2 infamous
>articles that attacked Thomas, but neither broke down his opinions in
>the way that the one Higgobothum (sp) article did.
This isn't the entire question in my opinion. That is, the question isn't
simply how many other articles Emerge wrote that dealt with Thomas' record
in the way those PARTICULAR articles did. The question is FIRST, "How
many articles appeared in Emerge about Clarence Thomas, PERIOD."
Now if it turns out that say, ten articles were written that covered
Thomas, but only two of them were critical in the way you would like, then
this makes your point.
But I don't think this is the case. I think every article appearing in
Emerge, or at least a majority of them, were critical about the record
even as they were critical about the man.
It is also possible that you are making another argument...not so much
about the quality of Emerge's coverage, but rather the QUANTITY. So here
you'd be saying that Emerge should have covered Thomas MORE than it did.
So if you were to search Lexis/Nexis and only find two Emerge articles on
Thomas, then perhaps THIS would prove your point.
But even here there are other factors to consider.
>During the ABA flare up over Thomas' appearance, some ABA members
>challenged *THEMSELVES* to go after Thomas' opinions. That's why
>Higgobothum (sp) wrote the article.
I'm not sure what this means.
>>So if you had the time and resources to run a keyword search on him on
>>google, or on Lexis/Nexis you are saying that there would be no critical
>>articles except for Higginbotham's? Or that these articles would be
>>outweighed by their "uncle tom" counterparts?
>
>The articles against Thomas would lean very heavily towards "uncle
>Tom" attacks.
Ok. Prove it.
You know what I do...I'm a social scientist. This is how we roll. You've
set out the assertion...and we've come up with a way by which you can
quickly test your assertion. All we have to do now is come up with an
objective way of comparing the "uncle tom" v. "substantive criticism"
viewpoints and we can roll.
>Again, how does that counter Thomas' appearances before Black kids?
>Years ago, Thomas addressed a graduating HBCU class. I'm not sure, but
>I believe it may have been Hampton. And, according to what I read,
>some of the Black students came away with a higher opinion of Thomas.
"Some." What does this mean? Quantify it for me.
And also quantify "black kids." I've got three kids that he's never
spoken to...so I know this isn't ALL of them.
I sound facetious here, but I'm doing so to make a point. In making
arguments such as the one you are making, it is important that we be
precise and rigorous in our analysis. Let's say he's talked to 100 kids,
and 30 of them now have beneficial viewpoints of him.
How does this compare to the stats that say that literally thousands upon
thousands of black people have a lower opinion of him than anyone else
besides David Duke?
Hell...George Wallace at the height of his racism had black supporters,
and we know that over time this didn't necessarily endear him to black
people.
>The one opinion that Thomas has actually taken the time to defend, as
>far as I know, has to do with his ruling that a prisoner has no right
>to sue if the prisoner is beaten by guards, even when the prisoner is
>in chains.
I'm not surprised.
>>The first position is false...and you know this. Emerge was notorious for
>>its scathing indictment of Thomas.
>
>The scathing indictment had very little to do with his written court
>opinions... "and you know this."
No...I don't know this. I don't have the article in front of me, but I
learned more about his opinions from those pieces in Emerge than from any
other source. Am I wrong here?
>>I think the second proposition would be interesting to test...but it seems
>>to me that you are neglecting the fact that it is possible to both call
>>Thomas a Tom AND still critique his record.
>
>Other than his past at the EEOC, which is fair game, and his stance
>against affirmative actions, how many articles actually go after his
>written opinions? And contrary to what is said, he has authored
>separate opinions, while ruling with the conservative wing of the
>court.
Like I said, this is testable. I think that more articles go after his
record, than those that simply call him a Tom. And I know he's authored
separate opinions...but this doesn't matter much to my central argument
here.
>>But besides this, I think that if we were to look at black newspaper
>>editorials, and major speeches of civil rights representatives and
>>activists, we'd see that as much as Thomas is called a tom, his record is
>>trashed.
>
>Is EEOC record and his affirmative action record. But there is *MORE*
>that needs to be addressed. Look, there are former members of the
>Black Panther Party who don't like affirmative action.
No...I'm talking about his legal rulings. I didn't know anything about
his rulings on prisoner's rights for example, until I read the critique in
Emerge.
>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>Brown v Board of Education.
Yes he is.
>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
But you forget...YOU are arguing that people are calling him a Tom and
doing nothing else. I dispute this.
>And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
>of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
>some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
>and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
I dispute this idea as well....but even saying you are true here, you are
neglecting the fact that Thomas is only one person with a very busy
schedule. He can't possibly refute the vision of him created by a whole
host of indigenous institutions from churches to civic organizations, to
BARBERSHOPS. Black people are smarter than that.
Think about it this way. Bush has spoken to a number of black audiences,
and taken pictures with dozens of black kids. One of my fraternity
brothers is one of his SS entourage and says that Bush actually knows
about my fraternity by name and has a lot of friends in my fraternity.
Do you think that information is going to change my vote?
Better yet, do you think that the photo ops are going to significantly
increase the number of black voters in the next election?
If you do think this way, why?
If you don't think this way, what's the difference btw Bush and Thomas?
>Here is an example.
[example deleted]
I deleted the example for reasons of space...but it was an excellent
example. If this is the type of nuanced critique you are looking for, I
would have to ask how often do we see that critique in newspapers or
magazines about Justice rulings period?
>
>But calling him an Uncle Tom and hammering him on his opposition to
>affirmative action, does nothing to explain the example I provided.
You are right...I simply disagree that this is what is occurring.
peace
lks
DarkStar
>In article <o62hmt8bg8vn4p2pk...@4ax.com>,
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
....
>>Before that article, how many other articles appeared in Emerge that
>>attacked Thomas' opinions in the same way? Sure, they had 2 infamous
>>articles that attacked Thomas, but neither broke down his opinions in
>>the way that the one Higgobothum (sp) article did.
>
>This isn't the entire question in my opinion. That is, the question isn't
>simply how many other articles Emerge wrote that dealt with Thomas' record
>in the way those PARTICULAR articles did. The question is FIRST, "How
>many articles appeared in Emerge about Clarence Thomas, PERIOD."
As the subject? Those two.
>Now if it turns out that say, ten articles were written that covered
>Thomas, but only two of them were critical in the way you would like, then
>this makes your point.
>
>But I don't think this is the case. I think every article appearing in
>Emerge, or at least a majority of them, were critical about the record
>even as they were critical about the man.
The record being affirmative action and his tenure at EEOC.
>It is also possible that you are making another argument...not so much
>about the quality of Emerge's coverage, but rather the QUANTITY. So here
>you'd be saying that Emerge should have covered Thomas MORE than it did.
>So if you were to search Lexis/Nexis and only find two Emerge articles on
>Thomas, then perhaps THIS would prove your point.
While I mentioned Emerge, it wasn't only Emerge I am concerned about.
>But even here there are other factors to consider.
>
>>During the ABA flare up over Thomas' appearance, some ABA members
>>challenged *THEMSELVES* to go after Thomas' opinions. That's why
>>Higgobothum (sp) wrote the article.
>
>I'm not sure what this means.
Higgobothum's(sp) article in Emerge was a direct result of ABA members
saying the criticism against Thomas need to be less personal and more
on points of law.
>>>So if you had the time and resources to run a keyword search on him on
>>>google, or on Lexis/Nexis you are saying that there would be no critical
>>>articles except for Higginbotham's? Or that these articles would be
>>>outweighed by their "uncle tom" counterparts?
>>
>>The articles against Thomas would lean very heavily towards "uncle
>>Tom" attacks.
>
>Ok. Prove it.
Will you give me access to Lexis/Nexus to do the search?
>You know what I do...I'm a social scientist. This is how we roll. You've
>set out the assertion...and we've come up with a way by which you can
>quickly test your assertion. All we have to do now is come up with an
>objective way of comparing the "uncle tom" v. "substantive criticism"
>viewpoints and we can roll.
Okay, can you get me access to Lexis/Nexus?
>>Again, how does that counter Thomas' appearances before Black kids?
>>Years ago, Thomas addressed a graduating HBCU class. I'm not sure, but
>>I believe it may have been Hampton. And, according to what I read,
>>some of the Black students came away with a higher opinion of Thomas.
>
>"Some." What does this mean? Quantify it for me.
I can't.
>And also quantify "black kids." I've got three kids that he's never
>spoken to...so I know this isn't ALL of them.
Well, we at least have a starting point of the elementary school in
Prince Georges County, Maryland. And I never wrote ALL of them.
>I sound facetious here, but I'm doing so to make a point. In making
>arguments such as the one you are making, it is important that we be
>precise and rigorous in our analysis. Let's say he's talked to 100 kids,
>and 30 of them now have beneficial viewpoints of him.
>
>How does this compare to the stats that say that literally thousands upon
>thousands of black people have a lower opinion of him than anyone else
>besides David Duke?
My argument isn't about how many favor him vs how many don't favor
him. My arguments are:
1. There is a publicity campaign going to improve Thomas' image, and
the focus of that campaign is kids. When he talks to impoverished
kids, years later, it's likely some of them will remember him talking
to them, but not Mfume or Jesse Jackson.
2. The comments against Thomas are more about affirmative action, then
anything else. It has to be more or else it's going to loose
effectiveness.
.....
>>>The first position is false...and you know this. Emerge was notorious for
>>>its scathing indictment of Thomas.
>>
>>The scathing indictment had very little to do with his written court
>>opinions... "and you know this."
>
>No...I don't know this. I don't have the article in front of me, but I
>learned more about his opinions from those pieces in Emerge than from any
>other source. Am I wrong here?
I learned more about Thomas' background and his rise "through the
ranks" from the Washington Post article on Thomas during the
confirmation process.
....
>>Other than his past at the EEOC, which is fair game, and his stance
>>against affirmative actions, how many articles actually go after his
>>written opinions? And contrary to what is said, he has authored
>>separate opinions, while ruling with the conservative wing of the
>>court.
>
>Like I said, this is testable. I think that more articles go after his
>record, than those that simply call him a Tom. And I know he's authored
>separate opinions...but this doesn't matter much to my central argument
>here.
It matters to mine.
....
>>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>>Brown v Board of Education.
>
>Yes he is.
I haven't read anything saying that it appears he is doing so.
>>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
>
>But you forget...YOU are arguing that people are calling him a Tom and
>doing nothing else. I dispute this.
I'm arguing that _not enough of the critical analysis_ is being done,
,so that it looks like it's only screaming Uncle Tom.
>>And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
>>of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
>>some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
>>and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
>
>I dispute this idea as well....but even saying you are true here, you are
>neglecting the fact that Thomas is only one person with a very busy
>schedule. He can't possibly refute the vision of him created by a whole
>host of indigenous institutions from churches to civic organizations, to
>BARBERSHOPS. Black people are smarter than that.
Thomas is one person, but I've mentioned the _media_ campaign that is
underway. Over time, it's going to increase.
>Think about it this way. Bush has spoken to a number of black audiences,
>and taken pictures with dozens of black kids. One of my fraternity
>brothers is one of his SS entourage and says that Bush actually knows
>about my fraternity by name and has a lot of friends in my fraternity.
>
>Do you think that information is going to change my vote?
Maybe not yours, but notice what your frat brother is saying.
>Better yet, do you think that the photo ops are going to significantly
>increase the number of black voters in the next election?
>
>If you do think this way, why?
According to polls, the Blacks polled are now favoring Bush more, now,
than they did before. I believe the approval rating was about 25%.
That's an improvement from 1 in 10 voting for Bush.
>If you don't think this way, what's the difference btw Bush and Thomas?
>
>>Here is an example.
>
>[example deleted]
>
>I deleted the example for reasons of space...but it was an excellent
>example. If this is the type of nuanced critique you are looking for, I
>would have to ask how often do we see that critique in newspapers or
>magazines about Justice rulings period?
If you are going to go after Thomas, IMO, you have to raise the bar
and attack him in this manner. This will be the only way, IMO, that
the ongoing media campaign will fail.
>>But calling him an Uncle Tom and hammering him on his opposition to
>>affirmative action, does nothing to explain the example I provided.
>
>You are right...I simply disagree that this is what is occurring.
>
>
>peace
>lks
---
ksp...@umich.edu
DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:15:24 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>
>>In article <o62hmt8bg8vn4p2pk...@4ax.com>,
>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>
>....
>
>
>>>Before that article, how many other articles appeared in Emerge that
>>>attacked Thomas' opinions in the same way? Sure, they had 2 infamous
>>>articles that attacked Thomas, but neither broke down his opinions in
>>>the way that the one Higgobothum (sp) article did.
>>
>>This isn't the entire question in my opinion. That is, the question isn't
>>simply how many other articles Emerge wrote that dealt with Thomas' record
>>in the way those PARTICULAR articles did. The question is FIRST, "How
>>many articles appeared in Emerge about Clarence Thomas, PERIOD."
>
>As the subject? Those two.
And both of them focused only on his record in the EEOC? How long after
he was appointed did the articles come out?
>>Now if it turns out that say, ten articles were written that covered
>>Thomas, but only two of them were critical in the way you would like, then
>>this makes your point.
>>
>>But I don't think this is the case. I think every article appearing in
>>Emerge, or at least a majority of them, were critical about the record
>>even as they were critical about the man.
>
>The record being affirmative action and his tenure at EEOC.
I'm going to see if I can find these articles on the web.
>>It is also possible that you are making another argument...not so much
>>about the quality of Emerge's coverage, but rather the QUANTITY. So here
>>you'd be saying that Emerge should have covered Thomas MORE than it did.
>>So if you were to search Lexis/Nexis and only find two Emerge articles on
>>Thomas, then perhaps THIS would prove your point.
>
>While I mentioned Emerge, it wasn't only Emerge I am concerned about.
Ok.
>>But even here there are other factors to consider.
>>
>>>During the ABA flare up over Thomas' appearance, some ABA members
>>>challenged *THEMSELVES* to go after Thomas' opinions. That's why
>>>Higgobothum (sp) wrote the article.
>>
>>I'm not sure what this means.
>
>Higgobothum's(sp) article in Emerge was a direct result of ABA members
>saying the criticism against Thomas need to be less personal and more
>on points of law.
And no other articles were critical of his record before this point?
>>>>So if you had the time and resources to run a keyword search on him on
>>>>google, or on Lexis/Nexis you are saying that there would be no critical
>>>>articles except for Higginbotham's? Or that these articles would be
>>>>outweighed by their "uncle tom" counterparts?
>>>
>>>The articles against Thomas would lean very heavily towards "uncle
>>>Tom" attacks.
>>
>>Ok. Prove it.
>
>Will you give me access to Lexis/Nexus to do the search?
Email me privately.
>>>Again, how does that counter Thomas' appearances before Black kids?
>>>Years ago, Thomas addressed a graduating HBCU class. I'm not sure, but
>>>I believe it may have been Hampton. And, according to what I read,
>>>some of the Black students came away with a higher opinion of Thomas.
>>
>>"Some." What does this mean? Quantify it for me.
>
>I can't.
If you can't then this means nothing to me...he could be talking to one,
he could be talking to one hundred thousand. He could just be talking to
his nephews. Without more information there is no way to interpret this.
>>I sound facetious here, but I'm doing so to make a point. In making
>>arguments such as the one you are making, it is important that we be
>>precise and rigorous in our analysis. Let's say he's talked to 100 kids,
>>and 30 of them now have beneficial viewpoints of him.
>>
>>How does this compare to the stats that say that literally thousands upon
>>thousands of black people have a lower opinion of him than anyone else
>>besides David Duke?
>
>My argument isn't about how many favor him vs how many don't favor
>him. My arguments are:
>
>1. There is a publicity campaign going to improve Thomas' image, and
>the focus of that campaign is kids. When he talks to impoverished
>kids, years later, it's likely some of them will remember him talking
>to them, but not Mfume or Jesse Jackson.
But given that we don't know how many kids he is speaking to, all we can
say is that he is speaking to kids. Now because we know what he does for
a living we can make assumptions about how many kids he is speaking to. I
would hazard that the number is not significant.
And again we have to remember that this campaign occurs in the face of an
anti-Thomas campaign that is long and deep.
>2. The comments against Thomas are more about affirmative action, then
>anything else. It has to be more or else it's going to loose
>effectiveness.
With whom?
>.....
>
>>>>The first position is false...and you know this. Emerge was notorious for
>>>>its scathing indictment of Thomas.
>>>
>>>The scathing indictment had very little to do with his written court
>>>opinions... "and you know this."
>>
>>No...I don't know this. I don't have the article in front of me, but I
>>learned more about his opinions from those pieces in Emerge than from any
>>other source. Am I wrong here?
>
>I learned more about Thomas' background and his rise "through the
>ranks" from the Washington Post article on Thomas during the
>confirmation process.
I didn't learn about Thomas through the Post...don't know HOW I knew about
him actually. But the place I learned about his record was Emerge.
>>>Other than his past at the EEOC, which is fair game, and his stance
>>>against affirmative actions, how many articles actually go after his
>>>written opinions? And contrary to what is said, he has authored
>>>separate opinions, while ruling with the conservative wing of the
>>>court.
>>
>>Like I said, this is testable. I think that more articles go after his
>>record, than those that simply call him a Tom. And I know he's authored
>>separate opinions...but this doesn't matter much to my central argument
>>here.
>
>It matters to mine.
Why?
>>>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>>>Brown v Board of Education.
>>
>>Yes he is.
>
>I haven't read anything saying that it appears he is doing so.
This may be an angle that no one has covered...but doesn't dilute my
argument.
>>>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>>>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>>>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>>>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
>>
>>But you forget...YOU are arguing that people are calling him a Tom and
>>doing nothing else. I dispute this.
>
>I'm arguing that _not enough of the critical analysis_ is being done,
>,so that it looks like it's only screaming Uncle Tom.
Looks like to whom?
>>>And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
>>>of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
>>>some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
>>>and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
>>
>>I dispute this idea as well....but even saying you are true here, you are
>>neglecting the fact that Thomas is only one person with a very busy
>>schedule. He can't possibly refute the vision of him created by a whole
>>host of indigenous institutions from churches to civic organizations, to
>>BARBERSHOPS. Black people are smarter than that.
>
>Thomas is one person, but I've mentioned the _media_ campaign that is
>underway. Over time, it's going to increase.
Thomas is the most villified black person "in" black America. No media
campaign in the world could change that.
>>Think about it this way. Bush has spoken to a number of black audiences,
>>and taken pictures with dozens of black kids. One of my fraternity
>>brothers is one of his SS entourage and says that Bush actually knows
>>about my fraternity by name and has a lot of friends in my fraternity.
>>
>>Do you think that information is going to change my vote?
>
>Maybe not yours, but notice what your frat brother is saying.
That he's cool as shit...but he didn't vote for him.
>>Better yet, do you think that the photo ops are going to significantly
>>increase the number of black voters in the next election?
>>
>>If you do think this way, why?
>
>According to polls, the Blacks polled are now favoring Bush more, now,
>than they did before. I believe the approval rating was about 25%.
>That's an improvement from 1 in 10 voting for Bush.
What polls are you reading? From what I understand a full 85% still think
he is illegitimate.
>>If you don't think this way, what's the difference btw Bush and Thomas?
>>
>>>Here is an example.
>>
>>[example deleted]
>>
>>I deleted the example for reasons of space...but it was an excellent
>>example. If this is the type of nuanced critique you are looking for, I
>>would have to ask how often do we see that critique in newspapers or
>>magazines about Justice rulings period?
>
>If you are going to go after Thomas, IMO, you have to raise the bar
>and attack him in this manner. This will be the only way, IMO, that
>the ongoing media campaign will fail.
No. We actually don't have any proof that the campaign will succeed. We
have no idea how many kids he is speaking to, and no idea of how these
kids are in turn "innoculated" by their parents. He could already be
speaking to converts...which would mean that he isn't changing any
opinions at all. A LOT more has to happen for me to buy this argument.
peace
lks
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <o62hmt8bg8vn4p2pk...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>> EEOC record and his affirmative action record. But there is *MORE*
>>that needs to be addressed. Look, there are former members of the
>>Black Panther Party who don't like affirmative action.
>
>But how many BPP former members whose income/employment don't depend on
>conservatives favor the man or praise him?
I have no clue.
>I further note that many BPP
>members were concept challenged when members, why would you expect more now?
Okay.
....
>>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
>
>It may do nothing, but if you're correct, attacking his legal reasoning won't
>do much good either, since his vote is lost already. I'm still waiting to see
>any evidence that Thomas has ever been affected by legal argument in deciding
>how to vote on a particular issue. That evidence is sorely lacking.
This isn't about his vote, but about the view of the man and about how
he is going about changing that view.
>>And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
>>of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
>>some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
>>and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
>
>Uh what opinion is friendly towards the community?
He wrote a public dissenting opinion about the Supreme Court not
hearing an appeal. Evidently, a state prosecutor withheld evidence
that would have proven a person charged with a crime was innocent of
the crime. The person was found guilty, but later he was cleared. He
wanted to be able to sue the state. The state said no, so his lawyers
appealed to the federal courts. Thomas wrote that the appeal should
have been heard because the state options were exhausted, and the
federal courts was the only place where the person could seek redress.
Well, then the law behind why it's not even close should be published.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>This isn't about his vote, but about the view of the man and about how
>he is going about changing that view.
However the strategy being used isn't working. Thomas is still the lowest
rated inJustice on the Court, whether discussing conservatives or
African-Americans not inclined to support Dumbya. He's not getting favorable
press coverage, and he has resorted to having his wife defend him in public,
which is also a new tactic for the bench. His whole story falls apart whenever
logically analyzed or even low scrutiny is offered for his claims about himself
or his legal opinions.
>
ED:
>>>And, it does nothing for that Black person who is going to read some
>>>of the "public relations" articles that favor Thomas and who reads
>>>some of Thomas' opinions that may be read as friendly towards Blacks,
>>>and wonders what the hell the fuss is about.
>>
ac:
>>Uh what opinion is friendly towards the community?
>
>He wrote a public dissenting opinion about the Supreme Court not
>hearing an appeal. Evidently, a state prosecutor withheld evidence
>that would have proven a person charged with a crime was innocent of
>the crime. The person was found guilty, but later he was cleared. He
>wanted to be able to sue the state. The state said no, so his lawyers
>appealed to the federal courts. Thomas wrote that the appeal should
>have been heard because the state options were exhausted, and the
>federal courts was the only place where the person could seek redress.
That's not a friendly opinion towards the community, I also note that
conservatives have in effect on civil rights matters argued out of both sides
of their mouths, namely claiming that some things can be redressed in state
court, but barring suit in federal court if a federal issue was litigated in
state court, even if the state court totally ignored federal precedent or
obviously misinterpreted it. Thomas apparently agrees with that position, so I
hesitate to award brownie points for one Thomas dissent which can be
interpreted differently than you did.
..........................................
>>>If I explained that clearly, the 2 opinions are consistant. A person
>>>should only sue in the federal system when all other options, if any,
>>>have been used or denied.
>>>
>>>_Logically_, that seems fine to me. _Legally_, I have no idea.
>>
>>There are logical flaws, but even worse, legally, the the two aren't even
>close
>>to equivalent.
>
>Well, then the law behind why it's not even close should be published.
It's not law, it's analysis, which is a different concept. If one is suing on
a federal issue, normally one can theoretically choose to litigate the issue
either in federal court or in state court. To suddenly require a plaintiff to
litigate all issues in state court and in state administrative proceedings is a
new interpretation of what until then had been the concept that one could for
example sue in state court on state issues and in federal court on federal
issues, even if both were going on at the same time, and involved the same
incident. It would have been possible for example for the State of Oklahoma to
have tried McVeigh at the same time for the other murders and to have set an
execution date for him, despite the fact his crimes against federal officers
lead to him being tried in federal court just for those crimes. It of course
became a moot point when the feds executed him, however no federal judge could
have stopped a concurrent or closely following state trial on the state
charges. What Thomas is arguing is the equivalent of McVeigh having to be
first tried in state court before he could be brought to trial in federal
court, and only the issues not properly covered in state court could be tried
in federal court. The legal system didn't work that way previously, and as I
also previously pointed out, state judges are notoriously unwilling to find
civil rights violations or human rights violations by prison systems against
prisoners, and when they do, usually said judge or justice isn't around for
long.
That in simplified form was why Leon Higginbotham was so damned upset with
Thomas' vote on the issue, further note that there is a statute of limitations
on federal charges, which isn't tolled by state proceedings. Lengthy state
proceedings probably also would have the effect of allowing the statute of
limitations to expire, depriving some of the least protected members of society
of one of the few protections they have in theory. A prisoner has no right to
self defense legally according to one S. Court decision, and states offer
little to no protections against abuse by guards, or other prisoners, which
left the federal system, and that system reject most such claims unless there
was absolute proof and the injuries were so egregious they couldn't be ignored.
Opening a prisoner's mail from a lawyer for example has been ignored routinely
by many state courts, and and mail to lawyer is also often inspected despite a
supposed constitutional guarantee of confidentiality in said circumstances.
Having Thomas spout off in a dissent and then ignore reality when voting to bar
suit by a prisoner in federal court was an insult to the intelligence of almost
anyone familiar with how things are supposed to work legally.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
>In article <jssjmtoahf6tbn8pu...@4ax.com>,
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:15:24 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>>
>>>In article <o62hmt8bg8vn4p2pk...@4ax.com>,
>>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>
>>....
>>
>>
>>>>Before that article, how many other articles appeared in Emerge that
>>>>attacked Thomas' opinions in the same way? Sure, they had 2 infamous
>>>>articles that attacked Thomas, but neither broke down his opinions in
>>>>the way that the one Higgobothum (sp) article did.
>>>
>>>This isn't the entire question in my opinion. That is, the question isn't
>>>simply how many other articles Emerge wrote that dealt with Thomas' record
>>>in the way those PARTICULAR articles did. The question is FIRST, "How
>>>many articles appeared in Emerge about Clarence Thomas, PERIOD."
>>
>>As the subject? Those two.
>
>And both of them focused only on his record in the EEOC? How long after
>he was appointed did the articles come out?
They also touched on his position on affirmative action. The first
went into more details about Thomas' background and how he got to be
in the position that he now holds.
....
>>Higgobothum's(sp) article in Emerge was a direct result of ABA members
>>saying the criticism against Thomas need to be less personal and more
>>on points of law.
>
>And no other articles were critical of his record before this point?
The only attacks on his positions from the court, I saw, dealt with
his ruling concerning a prisoner being beaten while restrained.
....
>>>How does this compare to the stats that say that literally thousands upon
>>>thousands of black people have a lower opinion of him than anyone else
>>>besides David Duke?
>>
>>My argument isn't about how many favor him vs how many don't favor
>>him. My arguments are:
>>
>>1. There is a publicity campaign going to improve Thomas' image, and
>>the focus of that campaign is kids. When he talks to impoverished
>>kids, years later, it's likely some of them will remember him talking
>>to them, but not Mfume or Jesse Jackson.
>
>But given that we don't know how many kids he is speaking to, all we can
>say is that he is speaking to kids. Now because we know what he does for
>a living we can make assumptions about how many kids he is speaking to. I
>would hazard that the number is not significant.
That would be if you overlook the speeches that he gives off hours and
when the court is in recess. The former happens a lot, but his
requirements are that the press not be involved in anyway.
....
>>2. The comments against Thomas are more about affirmative action, then
>>anything else. It has to be more or else it's going to loose
>>effectiveness.
>
>With whom?
Those who want to make an assessment of the man's positions on the
court.
.....
>>>Like I said, this is testable. I think that more articles go after his
>>>record, than those that simply call him a Tom. And I know he's authored
>>>separate opinions...but this doesn't matter much to my central argument
>>>here.
>>
>>It matters to mine.
>
>Why?
Because it's easy to dismiss the criticism as being only about
affirmative action.
>>>>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>>>>Brown v Board of Education.
>>>
>>>Yes he is.
>>
>>I haven't read anything saying that it appears he is doing so.
>
>This may be an angle that no one has covered...but doesn't dilute my
>argument.
Actually, it does because if what I wrote is valid, the fact that no
one in law circles is picking up on it, makes it even more obvious
that the opposition to Thomas is based on affirmative action.
>>>>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>>>>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>>>>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>>>>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>But you forget...YOU are arguing that people are calling him a Tom and
>>>doing nothing else. I dispute this.
>>
>>I'm arguing that _not enough of the critical analysis_ is being done,
>>,so that it looks like it's only screaming Uncle Tom.
>
>Looks like to whom?
Everyone who cares?
....
>>Thomas is one person, but I've mentioned the _media_ campaign that is
>>underway. Over time, it's going to increase.
>
>Thomas is the most villified black person "in" black America. No media
>campaign in the world could change that.
Really?
What about Clinton being "good" for Blacks? Or what about the Kennedy
family being "supporters" of civil rights? Or what about Lincoln
freeing the slaves?
The media has been at the lead of presenting those opinions, but the
record shows something vastly different.
>>>Think about it this way. Bush has spoken to a number of black audiences,
>>>and taken pictures with dozens of black kids. One of my fraternity
>>>brothers is one of his SS entourage and says that Bush actually knows
>>>about my fraternity by name and has a lot of friends in my fraternity.
>>>
>>>Do you think that information is going to change my vote?
>>
>>Maybe not yours, but notice what your frat brother is saying.
>
>That he's cool as shit...but he didn't vote for him.
But his opinion of Bush doesn't appear to be strongly anti.
>>>Better yet, do you think that the photo ops are going to significantly
>>>increase the number of black voters in the next election?
>>>
>>>If you do think this way, why?
>>
>>According to polls, the Blacks polled are now favoring Bush more, now,
>>than they did before. I believe the approval rating was about 25%.
>>That's an improvement from 1 in 10 voting for Bush.
>
>What polls are you reading? From what I understand a full 85% still think
>he is illegitimate.
See the thread I started on it.
>>>If you don't think this way, what's the difference btw Bush and Thomas?
>>>
>>>>Here is an example.
>>>
>>>[example deleted]
>>>
>>>I deleted the example for reasons of space...but it was an excellent
>>>example. If this is the type of nuanced critique you are looking for, I
>>>would have to ask how often do we see that critique in newspapers or
>>>magazines about Justice rulings period?
>>
>>If you are going to go after Thomas, IMO, you have to raise the bar
>>and attack him in this manner. This will be the only way, IMO, that
>>the ongoing media campaign will fail.
>
>No. We actually don't have any proof that the campaign will succeed. We
>have no idea how many kids he is speaking to, and no idea of how these
>kids are in turn "innoculated" by their parents. He could already be
>speaking to converts...which would mean that he isn't changing any
>opinions at all. A LOT more has to happen for me to buy this argument.
So, when he's speaking to kids, they are already converts?
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <uuhomt4k8mh3q7rap...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>This isn't about his vote, but about the view of the man and about how
>>he is going about changing that view.
>
>However the strategy being used isn't working. Thomas is still the lowest
>rated inJustice on the Court, whether discussing conservatives or
>African-Americans not inclined to support Dumbya. He's not getting favorable
>press coverage,
I started off this thread by showing the series that *IS* giving him
favorable press coverage. So, I don't see how you can say that.
....
>>He wrote a public dissenting opinion about the Supreme Court not
>>hearing an appeal. Evidently, a state prosecutor withheld evidence
>>that would have proven a person charged with a crime was innocent of
>>the crime. The person was found guilty, but later he was cleared. He
>>wanted to be able to sue the state. The state said no, so his lawyers
>>appealed to the federal courts. Thomas wrote that the appeal should
>>have been heard because the state options were exhausted, and the
>>federal courts was the only place where the person could seek redress.
>
>That's not a friendly opinion towards the community,
Saying that people should be allowed to sue state prosecutors when
they withhold evidence is not a friendly opinion?
>I also note that
>conservatives have in effect on civil rights matters argued out of both sides
>of their mouths, namely claiming that some things can be redressed in state
>court, but barring suit in federal court if a federal issue was litigated in
>state court, even if the state court totally ignored federal precedent or
>obviously misinterpreted it. Thomas apparently agrees with that position, so I
>hesitate to award brownie points for one Thomas dissent which can be
>interpreted differently than you did.
I'd like to know how it can be interpreted differently, when he
complained that the person involved was left with no form of redress.
....
>>Well, then the law behind why it's not even close should be published.
>
>It's not law, it's analysis, which is a different concept.
I meant to write that the legal reasoning behind why it's not even
close should be published.
.....
> It would have been possible for example for the State of Oklahoma to
>have tried McVeigh at the same time for the other murders and to have set an
>execution date for him, despite the fact his crimes against federal officers
>lead to him being tried in federal court just for those crimes. It of course
>became a moot point when the feds executed him, however no federal judge could
>have stopped a concurrent or closely following state trial on the state
>charges.
Of course no federal judge could have stopped it. They asked the state
of Oklahoma to hold off, and the state complied. State prosecutors
said that if McVeigh didn't get an appropriate sentence, they would
try him in state courts. I don't see how what you wrote applies.
> What Thomas is arguing is the equivalent of McVeigh having to be
>first tried in state court before he could be brought to trial in federal
>court, and only the issues not properly covered in state court could be tried
>in federal court.
But in the prisoner case, apparently the lawyers didn't consider state
options. I'm no expert but the issue of state vs federal court is one
that happens regularly.
>The legal system didn't work that way previously, and as I
>also previously pointed out, state judges are notoriously unwilling to find
>civil rights violations or human rights violations by prison systems against
>prisoners, and when they do, usually said judge or justice isn't around for
>long.
>
>That in simplified form was why Leon Higginbotham was so damned upset with
>Thomas' vote on the issue, further note that there is a statute of limitations
>on federal charges, which isn't tolled by state proceedings.
Higginbotham wrote a good piece against Thomas' opinion. I have no
problem with it. But it would be nice to see more approaches to
Thomas' opinion, and I don't see that happening.
ksp...@umich.edu
DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:02:08 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>
>>In article <jssjmtoahf6tbn8pu...@4ax.com>,
>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:15:24 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>>>
>>>>In article <o62hmt8bg8vn4p2pk...@4ax.com>,
>>>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>....
>
>>>saying the criticism against Thomas need to be less personal and more
>>>on points of law.
>>
>>And no other articles were critical of his record before this point?
>
>The only attacks on his positions from the court, I saw, dealt with
>his ruling concerning a prisoner being beaten while restrained.
When you say these were the only articles you saw, is it possible you
missed some?
>....
>>>>How does this compare to the stats that say that literally thousands upon
>>>>thousands of black people have a lower opinion of him than anyone else
>>>>besides David Duke?
>>>
>>>My argument isn't about how many favor him vs how many don't favor
>>>him. My arguments are:
>>>
>>>1. There is a publicity campaign going to improve Thomas' image, and
>>>the focus of that campaign is kids. When he talks to impoverished
>>>kids, years later, it's likely some of them will remember him talking
>>>to them, but not Mfume or Jesse Jackson.
>>
>>But given that we don't know how many kids he is speaking to, all we can
>>say is that he is speaking to kids. Now because we know what he does for
>>a living we can make assumptions about how many kids he is speaking to. I
>>would hazard that the number is not significant.
>
>That would be if you overlook the speeches that he gives off hours and
>when the court is in recess. The former happens a lot, but his
>requirements are that the press not be involved in anyway.
How do you know that "the former happens a lot" if the press isn't
involved in any way? What are you basing this statement on?
>....
>
>>>2. The comments against Thomas are more about affirmative action, then
>>>anything else. It has to be more or else it's going to loose
>>>effectiveness.
>>
>>With whom?
>
>Those who want to make an assessment of the man's positions on the
>court.
Are you referring to people who don't have an opinion of him one way or
the other, or people with opinions already? I'd hazard that there aren't
too many fence-sitters when it comes to Thomas or Scalia. Either you are
with them, or you are not. They are too conservative for people to take
any other position.
>.....
>
>>>>Like I said, this is testable. I think that more articles go after his
>>>>record, than those that simply call him a Tom. And I know he's authored
>>>>separate opinions...but this doesn't matter much to my central argument
>>>>here.
>>>
>>>It matters to mine.
>>
>>Why?
>
>Because it's easy to dismiss the criticism as being only about
>affirmative action.
But still if we know what his voting record is on other issues, why would
we care what he writes?
>>>>>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>>>>>Brown v Board of Education.
>>>>
>>>>Yes he is.
>>>
>>>I haven't read anything saying that it appears he is doing so.
>>
>>This may be an angle that no one has covered...but doesn't dilute my
>>argument.
>
>Actually, it does because if what I wrote is valid, the fact that no
>one in law circles is picking up on it, makes it even more obvious
>that the opposition to Thomas is based on affirmative action.
No. What it means is that you haven't seen anything in writing dealing
with this angle. THe rest is conjecture.
>>>>>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>>>>>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>>>>>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>>>>>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>>But you forget...YOU are arguing that people are calling him a Tom and
>>>>doing nothing else. I dispute this.
>>>
>>>I'm arguing that _not enough of the critical analysis_ is being done,
>>>,so that it looks like it's only screaming Uncle Tom.
>>
>>Looks like to whom?
>
>Everyone who cares?
I don't understand. Who would this population be? Blacks? Whites? Both?
Neither?
>....
>
>>>Thomas is one person, but I've mentioned the _media_ campaign that is
>>>underway. Over time, it's going to increase.
>>
>>Thomas is the most villified black person "in" black America. No media
>>campaign in the world could change that.
>
>Really?
>
>What about Clinton being "good" for Blacks? Or what about the Kennedy
>family being "supporters" of civil rights? Or what about Lincoln
>freeing the slaves?
All three suppositions were generated by black elites and then imbibed by
black people as a whole. The campaign you are talking about is
orchestrated by white conseravtives...with no links to the black comuninty
"organic" or otherwise. There is a significant difference...though I
agree that black elites got the three "positions" above wrong.
>The media has been at the lead of presenting those opinions, but the
>record shows something vastly different.
>
>>>>Think about it this way. Bush has spoken to a number of black audiences,
>>>>and taken pictures with dozens of black kids. One of my fraternity
>>>>brothers is one of his SS entourage and says that Bush actually knows
>>>>about my fraternity by name and has a lot of friends in my fraternity.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think that information is going to change my vote?
>>>
>>>Maybe not yours, but notice what your frat brother is saying.
>>
>>That he's cool as shit...but he didn't vote for him.
>
>But his opinion of Bush doesn't appear to be strongly anti.
Because he is SECRET SERVICE and has to protect this man's life. Not
because Bush has run game on black people as a whole to the point that
this brother is faked out.
>>>>Better yet, do you think that the photo ops are going to significantly
>>>>increase the number of black voters in the next election?
>>>>
>>>>If you do think this way, why?
>>>
>>>According to polls, the Blacks polled are now favoring Bush more, now,
>>>than they did before. I believe the approval rating was about 25%.
>>>That's an improvement from 1 in 10 voting for Bush.
>>
>>What polls are you reading? From what I understand a full 85% still think
>>he is illegitimate.
>
>See the thread I started on it.
I did. I replied to it as soon as I saw it. Did you read it?
>>>If you are going to go after Thomas, IMO, you have to raise the bar
>>>and attack him in this manner. This will be the only way, IMO, that
>>>the ongoing media campaign will fail.
>>
>>No. We actually don't have any proof that the campaign will succeed. We
>>have no idea how many kids he is speaking to, and no idea of how these
>>kids are in turn "innoculated" by their parents. He could already be
>>speaking to converts...which would mean that he isn't changing any
>>opinions at all. A LOT more has to happen for me to buy this argument.
>
>So, when he's speaking to kids, they are already converts?
We don't know. But like I said above, there is a lot more we don't know.
Like how many kids, like what their parents' ideology is...a whole host of
questions.
peace
lks
DarkStar
>In article <upqqmtg1fml1q0tbt...@4ax.com>,
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 07:02:08 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>>
>>>In article <jssjmtoahf6tbn8pu...@4ax.com>,
>>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 17:15:24 CST, ksp...@umich.edu put forth:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <o62hmt8bg8vn4p2pk...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>....
>>
>>>>Higgobothum's(sp) article in Emerge was a direct result of ABA members
>>>>saying the criticism against Thomas need to be less personal and more
>>>>on points of law.
>>>
>>>And no other articles were critical of his record before this point?
>>
>>The only attacks on his positions from the court, I saw, dealt with
>>his ruling concerning a prisoner being beaten while restrained.
>
>When you say these were the only articles you saw, is it possible you
>missed some?
Where he was the main topic of the article? I don't believe so.
....
>>That would be if you overlook the speeches that he gives off hours and
>>when the court is in recess. The former happens a lot, but his
>>requirements are that the press not be involved in anyway.
>
>How do you know that "the former happens a lot" if the press isn't
>involved in any way? What are you basing this statement on?
Conservative defenders of Thomas, with Thomas' blessing, letting the
media know after the fact.
Did you read the article links I posted to start this thread off?
>>....
>>
>>>>2. The comments against Thomas are more about affirmative action, then
>>>>anything else. It has to be more or else it's going to loose
>>>>effectiveness.
>>>
>>>With whom?
>>
>>Those who want to make an assessment of the man's positions on the
>>court.
>
>Are you referring to people who don't have an opinion of him one way or
>the other, or people with opinions already? I'd hazard that there aren't
>too many fence-sitters when it comes to Thomas or Scalia. Either you are
>with them, or you are not. They are too conservative for people to take
>any other position.
Those who have no opinion, those who want to form their own opinion,
and those who "are willing to listen with an open mind."
>
>>.....
>>
>>>>>Like I said, this is testable. I think that more articles go after his
>>>>>record, than those that simply call him a Tom. And I know he's authored
>>>>>separate opinions...but this doesn't matter much to my central argument
>>>>>here.
>>>>
>>>>It matters to mine.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>Because it's easy to dismiss the criticism as being only about
>>affirmative action.
>
>But still if we know what his voting record is on other issues, why would
>we care what he writes?
Because it actually helps to know the facts behind his voting record.
A lawyer, who was Black, defended a member of the KKK, who was being
forced by prosecutors to turn over a subscription list to his racist
tabloid. The lawyer, a member of the NAACP, was widely attacked for
defending the KKK member. But, it turned out, that he was defending
the KKK member for the same reason that the privacy of the NAACP's
membership list was defended years ago.
When that was explained, it turned out that people who were against
the lawyer's actions, changed their minds.
I'm not saying that his rulings will change opinions, but it doesn't
hurt to be informed.
>>>>>>IMO, the man is starting to provide a roadmap for a legal challenge to
>>>>>>Brown v Board of Education.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes he is.
>>>>
>>>>I haven't read anything saying that it appears he is doing so.
>>>
>>>This may be an angle that no one has covered...but doesn't dilute my
>>>argument.
>>
>>Actually, it does because if what I wrote is valid, the fact that no
>>one in law circles is picking up on it, makes it even more obvious
>>that the opposition to Thomas is based on affirmative action.
>
>No. What it means is that you haven't seen anything in writing dealing
>with this angle. THe rest is conjecture.
Okay, point out the writings that appeared in Ebony, Jet, Black
Enterprise, Essence, or other Black media.
>>>>>>Calling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to anticipate how his speeches
>>>>>>and rulings may be analyzed by conserva-kooks lawyers to attack civil
>>>>>>rights. Callling him an Uncle Tom does nothing to formulate a legal
>>>>>>response *BEFORE* the challenges get to the Supreme Court.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you forget...YOU are arguing that people are calling him a Tom and
>>>>>doing nothing else. I dispute this.
>>>>
>>>>I'm arguing that _not enough of the critical analysis_ is being done,
>>>>,so that it looks like it's only screaming Uncle Tom.
>>>
>>>Looks like to whom?
>>
>>Everyone who cares?
>
>I don't understand. Who would this population be? Blacks? Whites? Both?
>Neither?
The population of the U.S.
>>....
>>
>>>>Thomas is one person, but I've mentioned the _media_ campaign that is
>>>>underway. Over time, it's going to increase.
>>>
>>>Thomas is the most villified black person "in" black America. No media
>>>campaign in the world could change that.
>>
>>Really?
>>
>>What about Clinton being "good" for Blacks? Or what about the Kennedy
>>family being "supporters" of civil rights? Or what about Lincoln
>>freeing the slaves?
>
>All three suppositions were generated by black elites and then imbibed by
>black people as a whole. The campaign you are talking about is
>orchestrated by white conseravtives...with no links to the black comuninty
>"organic" or otherwise. There is a significant difference...though I
>agree that black elites got the three "positions" above wrong.
And that's where you are wrong. The campaign does have links to the
Black community, because some of the kids he is speaking to, are
disadvantaged Black kids that are "in the social system." That system
is Black controlled in some areas. When he spoke at Hampton, are you
saying that had no links to the Black community?
>>The media has been at the lead of presenting those opinions, but the
>>record shows something vastly different.
>>
>>>>>Think about it this way. Bush has spoken to a number of black audiences,
>>>>>and taken pictures with dozens of black kids. One of my fraternity
>>>>>brothers is one of his SS entourage and says that Bush actually knows
>>>>>about my fraternity by name and has a lot of friends in my fraternity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Do you think that information is going to change my vote?
>>>>
>>>>Maybe not yours, but notice what your frat brother is saying.
>>>
>>>That he's cool as shit...but he didn't vote for him.
>>
>>But his opinion of Bush doesn't appear to be strongly anti.
>
>Because he is SECRET SERVICE and has to protect this man's life. Not
>because Bush has run game on black people as a whole to the point that
>this brother is faked out.
Secret Service may have to protect is life, but they don't have to
like him or respect him on a personal level.
....
>>>No. We actually don't have any proof that the campaign will succeed. We
>>>have no idea how many kids he is speaking to, and no idea of how these
>>>kids are in turn "innoculated" by their parents. He could already be
>>>speaking to converts...which would mean that he isn't changing any
>>>opinions at all. A LOT more has to happen for me to buy this argument.
>>
>>So, when he's speaking to kids, they are already converts?
>
>We don't know. But like I said above, there is a lot more we don't know.
>Like how many kids, like what their parents' ideology is...a whole host of
>questions.
>
>
>peace
>lks
---
DarkStar
This seems to be a re-print of the article in another newspaper.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-oped-clarence081201.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
Now, look at this link and read the text.
Again: will these kids think that Thomas should be "the most hated man
in Black America"?
ksp...@umich.edu
DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>This seems to be a re-print of the article in another newspaper.
>
>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-oped-clarence081201.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
>
>Now, look at this link and read the text.
>
>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-oped-thomaspic0812.photo?coll=orl%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines
>
>
>Again: will these kids think that Thomas should be "the most hated man
>in Black America"?
>
Again a number of questions come to mind:
1. How many kids are we talking about?
2. What are the political orientations of their teachers? Of their
parents? Of their pastors? Of their barbers?
3. What type of shows do they watch? Do they watch BET? Do they read
black newspapers? Do they read black magazines? Do they go to black
barbershops or beauty salons to get their hair done?
4. Is their school integrated or segregated? Are their teachers black or
white?
What you've done is said...Thomas has spoken to some kids, and some people
have written about it.
So what?
You've said nothing about how such writings and speeches will counter the
black information networks that basically state that Thomas is a pariah.
Thomas speaks to my kids, you know what I'm going to say when they get
home? DON'T LISTEN...HE'S A SELL OUT. You don't think that will happen
in this case? Come on...this is how black ideology is CREATED!!! Through
information networks that counter prevailing anti-black notions. If all
someone had to do was speak to black kids to change our minds, there's no
way in hell we'd even be able to write english well enough to communicate
here...much less be on here in the first place. We'd still be in the Deep
South somewhere picking cotton....
peace
lks
DarkStar
>In article <l7gjntk7h9p1qu69q...@4ax.com>,
>DarkStar <dark...@toad.net> wrote:
>>This seems to be a re-print of the article in another newspaper.
>>
>>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-oped-clarence081201.story?coll=orl-opinion-headlines
>>
>>Now, look at this link and read the text.
>>
>>http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-oped-thomaspic0812.photo?coll=orl%2Dopinion%2Dheadlines
>>
>>
>>Again: will these kids think that Thomas should be "the most hated man
>>in Black America"?
>>
>
>Again a number of questions come to mind:
>
>1. How many kids are we talking about?
Don't know.
>2. What are the political orientations of their teachers? Of their
>parents? Of their pastors? Of their barbers?
If the kids weren't labeled "disadvantaged," I would be in agreement
with you that the question you asked is valid. Given the labeled
placed on the kids, I don't think the question matters.
>3. What type of shows do they watch? Do they watch BET? Do they read
>black newspapers? Do they read black magazines? Do they go to black
>barbershops or beauty salons to get their hair done?
Black "disadvantaged" kids.
>4. Is their school integrated or segregated? Are their teachers black or
>white?
Black "disadvantaged" kids.
>What you've done is said...Thomas has spoken to some kids, and some people
>have written about it.
>
>So what?
>
>You've said nothing about how such writings and speeches will counter the
>black information networks that basically state that Thomas is a pariah.
When those writings say that he is a pariah, but those kids remember
him taking the time to talk to them, and encourage them, then what?
Come on, I keep asking that question. Give it a try.
Art Clemons
<dark...@toad.net> writes:
>When those writings say that he is a pariah, but those kids remember
>him taking the time to talk to them, and encourage them, then what?
>
>Come on, I keep asking that question. Give it a try.
Ed, what you seem to ignore is that even assuming that Thomas spoke every day
to a new school, with some new fool willing to invite him to speak at the risk
of having protesters around and in front of the school, Thomas would be able to
reach what percentage of the school age population? I also note from personal
experience that speakers don't always have quite the impression you expect said
speakers to have. If you ask almost any group of students who have heard
someone speak, what said students think, you'll get positive responses about
the speaker. Matter of fact, I have a test for you, do you remember the words
of your commencement speaker.
Finally, note that the more folks remember to protest and demonstrate when he
shows up, the fewer school officials should be willing to bring the man out to
speak. He's not uncontroversial, and quite frankly, he's going to be vilified,
attacked and called infamous by most folks who think in the community for as
long as he lives, and probably past that. In other words, I don't think that
Clarence is going to be a popular name in the community for new born males.
-art clemons-
DarkStar
forth:
>In article <19tont0d9st6o05s1...@4ax.com>, DarkStar
><dark...@toad.net> writes:
>
>>When those writings say that he is a pariah, but those kids remember
>>him taking the time to talk to them, and encourage them, then what?
>>
>>Come on, I keep asking that question. Give it a try.
>
>Ed, what you seem to ignore is that even assuming that Thomas spoke every day
>to a new school, with some new fool willing to invite him to speak at the risk
>of having protesters around and in front of the school, Thomas would be able to
>reach what percentage of the school age population?
I don't ignore that, and that's where the selected media stories about
his visits come in.
>I also note from personal
>experience that speakers don't always have quite the impression you expect said
>speakers to have. If you ask almost any group of students who have heard
>someone speak, what said students think, you'll get positive responses about
>the speaker. Matter of fact, I have a test for you, do you remember the words
>of your commencement speaker.
No. But they didn't help fund my education, either. Did you read the
story?
>Finally, note that the more folks remember to protest and demonstrate when he
>shows up, the fewer school officials should be willing to bring the man out to
>speak.
Evidently, they aren't showing up in these instances.