On June 20, Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich raised $100,000 at a fundraiser at the all-white Elkridge country club. And he doesn’t see anything wrong with it. Here’s what Ehrlich had to say in a radio interview yesterday:
I don’t know what their membership is, and guess what? It’s not my business…It’s a private club, which we rented.
Just to be safe, Ehrlich added the decision to hold the fundraiser “was made by his campaign staff, not by him.” Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is an African-American, didn’t care about the club’s discriminatory policies either:
I don’t know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don’t play golf. It’s not an issue with me.
Under Maryland law private clubs are allowed “to exclude women, Jews, blacks and other minority groups if its members so desire.” That doesn’t mean the state’s leaders should patronize groups that institutionalize bigotry. Racial discrimination, no matter where it occurs, is everyone’s business.
UPDATE: Email Steele and Ehrlich.
It’s not like women, Jews and blacks are going to vote for him, right?
July 6th, 2005 at 9:48 amIf the golf club is claiming tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(7) as a social club, then it cannot have a written policy to discriminate on the basis of race, color, or religion. (See IRS training material here, at pages 14 and 15.)
An enterprising reporter should get a copy of the club’s Form 990 if it in fact is a tax-exempt entity.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:57 amOf course, some RNC boilerroom troll is going to invoke Robert Byrd’s having been a Klansman when he was a lad. Never mind that Byrd quit the group and repented decades ago, before most of us were born!
To counter this, let me remind everyone that Republicans like Mississippi’s Governor Haley Barbour — who is also a former Republican National Committee chair — are still affliated to this day with racist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens (aka the old White Citizens’ Council), which since it’s made up of the South’s power elite, was and is more politically powerful than the Klan, whose members traditionally come from poor or middle-class backgrounds.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:01 amArrrgh. Forgot the Barbour-CoCC link URL:
http://www.rickross.com/ reference/ hate_groups/ hategroups383.html
July 6th, 2005 at 10:04 amTim, the club doesn’t have a written policy excluding minorities, it just somehow manages to exclude them as a de facto matter. (They extend membership invitations through “family connections,” which, as an old Southerner, I can attest to as the old “Plantation Aristocracy” bit dressed up in new clothes.)
July 6th, 2005 at 10:07 amBabbler seems right, I doubt the club has a written policy regarding race, and all members that are invited are all friends of current members, as he said. Since most white people have mostly white friends, that’s probably why the club is all white.
How many African American members would be “enough” for the club? If they had some Asian members, would that end any negativity toward them? If so, how many exactly?
I guess my point is that a private club that only has whites is not harming any other person in any way, so what’s the problem?
July 6th, 2005 at 10:17 amPhoenix, down in Louisiana we always called them “the uptown Klan.” (N.B. — they were always the “Citizens’ Councils,” never the “White Citizens’ Councils.”)
I think the problem is that most people don’t really know the role the Citizens’ Councils played in segregation — if there ever was a backdoor conspiracy in American history, the Councils were it. As for their influence today, well, let me say that although Tom Brady’s writings have fallen out of fashion, many of the CCC leaders remain, to paraphrase Keynes, slaves to a defunct segregationist. And the suborganizations (such as the black voter suppression units) maintain some level of organizational integrity to this day.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:23 amYa know, as much as I would choose not to be a member of this club because of it’s membership policies, among other reasons, I don’t want to make them illegal either.
Just about every clan, tribe, community, economic stature level has bigotries of one sort or another. How do i choose to fight them? I won’t give them a dime of my money. I wouldn’t give a charity group or politician using it a dime of my money. I would try to make sure they weren’t tax exempt.
But I don’t think we can legislate the lack of grace and intelligence to force those who have none to get some. It doesn’t work. But economic boycots will have an impact, eventually.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:24 am“Since most white people have mostly white friends, thatÂ’s probably why the „
July 6th, 2005 at 10:43 amWhat a bunch of assholes. As if Marylanders needed any more reasons to send Ehrlich packing.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:48 amI don’t see anyone suggesting that clubs like this be illegal, just that any politician choosing to use one for a function has truly rotten judgment. The corollary is that voters should be free to use that information in choosing for whom to vote.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:48 amyeah, legality isn’t in question here. just that Ehrlich is a politician and knows who he’s supporting with his fundraising money.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:26 amPeople still join these kinds of clubs for status?
Wow. There are some messed-up people in America.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:36 am“I guess my point is that a private club that only has whites is not harming any other person in any way, so what’s the problem?”
Actually, they are harming the entire community. It is in these clubs where a great deal of business and political networking is done. When this social arena is denied to the entire African-American community (which, in the city of Baltimore, is the majority of the population), they are denied tools for business and political success. African-American elected officials are denied opportunities for networking with business leaders that white members of Elkridge have. This, in my opinion, hurts the entire community.
The Baltimore Sun has reported that the Elkridge club rejected tax-exempt status in order to keep their membership lists and rules secret.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:38 am“Racial discrimination, no matter where it occurs, is everyone’s business.”
Yes, like at the University of Michigan, for example. Oh, that’s right, liberals support that racial discrimination. Never mind…
July 6th, 2005 at 11:44 am. . . “to exclude women, Jews, blacks and other minority groups if its members so desire.�
Last time I checked women were not a minority, but in fact a majority.
July 6th, 2005 at 11:54 amYes, like at the University of Michigan, for example. Oh, that’s right, liberals support that racial discrimination. Never mind…
They don’t let white folks into the University of Michigan? I’m shocked!
July 6th, 2005 at 12:04 pmIt must have been “Overzealous Staffer” that booked the room!
July 6th, 2005 at 12:10 pmhttp://www.salon.com/ comics/ tomo/ 2005/ 04/ 25/ tomo/ index1.html
“Racial discrimination, no matter where it occurs, is everyone’s business.�
Yes, like at the University of Michigan, for example. Oh, that’s right, liberals support that racial discrimination. Never mind…
Just get your “quota” of token blacks, Jews, etc. at the Elkridge Club, and it will all be Kosher.
Where’s Fake but Accurate? He is a well known supporter of civil rights and warrior against all kinds of racism and race based bigotry.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:10 pmYes, like at the University of Michigan, for example. Oh, that’s right, liberals support that racial discrimination. Never mind…
Always fun to hear whites whining about discrimination …
… and the legality of this gentrified KKK isn’t at issue, but rather how fast we can tie it to Ehrlich, and use it as yet another instance of repub racism.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:11 pmnunya,
“They don’t let white folks into the University of Michigan? I’m shocked!”
So then you believe the only way to racially discriminate is to totally ban a group? Anything short of a ban is not discriminatory? You really believe that? That’s ridiculous.
The U of M discriminates based on race. Liberals generally support that discrimination.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:14 pm“Always fun to hear whites whining about discrimination …”
Now there’s a racist comment if there ever was one.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:16 pmI guess my point is that a private club that only has whites is not harming any other person in any way, so what’s the problem?
No problem. Howard Dean was right, although he should have used the term “psuedo-christian” because real Christians are plentiful in the liberal and Democratic camp. But we knew what he meant, and so did the GOP.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:16 pmSo then you believe the only way to racially discriminate is to totally ban a group? Anything short of a ban is not discriminatory? You really believe that? That’s ridiculous.
No, what’s ridiculous is your equating the preservation of an all white enclave with achieving a racial balance commensurate with real world. Judging from the source, your next move is to decry the use of statist force to achieve this. Look! There’s a communist under your bed! She’s singing L’Internationale!
July 6th, 2005 at 12:22 pmThis makes me want to buy some herbicide and paint swastikas on all the greens at Elkridge Nazi Golfkampfe. That would be satisfying.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:24 pmRacial discrimination is explicitly prohibited by the US Constitution. Even if you think the discrimination is for what you believe is a benevolent purpose, it’s still prohibited.
According to the Elkridge club, they have no policy of excluding minorities. If you have some evidence to the contrary, please post it.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:27 pm“This makes me want to buy some herbicide and paint swastikas on all the greens at Elkridge Nazi Golfkampfe. That would be satisfying.”
I’ll bet poor little Teapot Dome doesn’t even begin to see the irony of his comment. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 12:29 pm“Always fun to hear whites whining about discrimination …�
Now there’s a racist comment if there ever was one.
I’m white. I happen to live in a place that is almost exclusively older white people, like at the Elkridge Club. What a great pain in the ass most of them are. Disgusting human beings. If that makes me a racist, count me in.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:31 pmI’ll bet poor little Teapot Dome doesn’t even begin to see the irony of his comment. *L*
I’ll bet everyone here is laughing there asses off that you just made that last post. Kinda slow, ain’t ya? Are you an old white man?
July 6th, 2005 at 12:33 pmRadicals on all sides ED, quit yor cryin’.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:37 pmI’ll bet everyone here is laughing there asses off that you just made that last post. Kinda slow, ain’t ya? Are you an old white man?
Comment by nunya
Old white guys are usually smarter than this dingbat … I’m betting young republican.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:38 pmGov. Ehrlich can have his little party anywhere he wants, my problem is with the Governor of Maryland saying discrimination is “not my business.” Or the black Lt. Gov saying it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t play golf anyway. Sorry-assed lame.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:39 pmI can’t believe people have no problem with clubs like this, undoubtedly on the premise that objecting to it is some kind of restriction on the club’s “freedom”. Corporations and associations are not people (despite what the law says) therefore I don’t see how this is some an issue of personal liberty. I can think of no benefit to society to have insulated pockets of crusty old white people who have a problem sharing a golf course with someone of another skin color. Jesus Christ, it’s 2005, people.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:40 pmOld white guys are usually smarter than this dingbat … I’m betting young republican.
Either way, not very impressive, and you are absolutely right, Nads. But age has more to do with wisdom than smarts, and if you start out stupid, you never get wise.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:48 pmJuvenile name-calling from liberals, who would’ve guessed? *LOL*
July 6th, 2005 at 12:57 pmZookeeper, what discrimination? Where’s the evidence of discrimination? The club says they have no policy of discrimination. Do you have some evidence to the contrary? If so, then post it.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:58 pmUgh,
July 6th, 2005 at 1:03 pmCan I come into your house to hang out with you and your family? What!? No?! Well, now your “group” is discriminating against me!! :)
“Ugh,
Can I come into your house to hang out with you and your family? What!? No?! Well, now your “groupâ€? is discriminating against me!!”
Discrimination against smelly unwashed leftists is not illegal yet Tony. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:07 pmUgh,
Can I come into your house to hang out with you and your family? What!? No?! Well, now your “group� is discriminating against me!!
Make sure he has the golf course, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc., Tony, or what’s the point? Or are you just looking for free room and board? After that free lunch, after all, are you?
July 6th, 2005 at 1:08 pmI’m thinking that our very liberal tolerance for the intolerant is getting old. they’re playing us.
I don’t want to belong to/ play with anyone who is Red, Rightist, or intolerant, anymore.
The LT Gov’s comment is sad… he’s just looking at the color of the money. Hint Dude: playing ON the green is more fun that being played for your green. Now that we know where your loyalties lie.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:09 pm“liberal tolerance”? Now there’s a real oxymoron. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:10 pmDiscrimination against smelly unwashed leftists is not illegal yet Tony. *L*
Juvenile name-calling from liberals, who would’ve guessed? *LOL*
Old white guys are usually smarter than this dingbat … I’m betting young republican.
At least we are all in agreement that calling someone a “young Republican” is an ad hominem, and rightfully so.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:10 pmPoor little nunya, no sense of humor. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:14 pm…but anyone who wants to call me “young” I’ll take it… *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:16 pmPoor little nunya, no sense of humor. *L*
Since you have never served your country in an intemperate clime in time of war, (that’s obvious to a blind man), you have no idea how unfunny “smelly and unwashed” can be.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:18 pm“Since you have never served your country in an intemperate clime in time of war…”
We all await your proof of that out-of-leftfield comment. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:24 pmnunya-
July 6th, 2005 at 1:24 pmHe has tiddly winks, chinese checkers, and hungry-hungry hippos. His discrimination is preventing me from enjoying those activities.
Tiddlywinks? I’d think a liberal would be looking for a game of Twister.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:27 pm[…] This comes after his statement yesterday that he doesn’t have a problem renting space at a country club that limits its membership to those of the Caucasian persuasion. He says their policies aren’t his business. I know that I consider it my business who my money goes to. And, as a general rule, I try to steer it away from those would would create an American Apartheid. [link] […]
July 6th, 2005 at 1:30 pmWe all await your proof of that out-of-leftfield comment. *L*
That’s all the proof anyone here needs, not to mention the rest of your idiotic commentary.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:34 pm#36 — American Federalist Journal — super cranky. Last time I checked it was socially acceptable to give one’s opinion without evidence. Please refer to the title of the post for the word discrimination. Are you saying that just because the club SAYS they don’t have a policy of discrimination that it’s true? Ok, I’m saying they do — so it must be true. Go away f*cktard.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:45 pm“Go away f*cktard.”
That’s exactly the kind of tolerant, thoughtful, intellectual commentary one expects from the left. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:48 pmnunya-
He has tiddly winks, chinese checkers, and hungry-hungry hippos. His discrimination is preventing me from enjoying those activities.
I doubt it, Tony. You have all those toys in your mom’s basement. You just don’t have any playmates who will play with you. That’s why you come here, isn’t it?
July 6th, 2005 at 1:50 pm“Nunya is an al Qaeda collaborator”
That’s all the proof anyone here needs! *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 1:50 pmGuh? When did this degenerate into mud slinging? Anyhow. I agree it’s a bad move on the senators part. However since there is noting written in the club’s rules about barring minorities there’s nothing we can do about it legally.
However this is racism nonetheless. How you say? Well this is instutionalized racism. I’m sure the social policy of the club (and I’m just making an assumption) frowns deeply on inviting people of colour into the club and so the members act accordingly.
As for comments about white people being discriminated against that is hogwash because coloured people do not control the basic institutions of society and thus cannot bar whites from attaining prosperity if they so choose. This is where the concept of equity comes from. This is different from equality as equality assumes that everyone is equal. A laudible idea… if it were true. Equity states that in this society there are people on seperate rungs of society and moves to compensate that by bringing everyone to the same level. Thus you get affirmitive action programs (although badly handled… institutionalized racism once again). I think the only way to get this to change is for corageous people of colour to keep fighting the good fight.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:53 pm“As for comments about white people being discriminated against that is hogwash because coloured people do not control the basic institutions of society and thus cannot bar whites from attaining prosperity if they so choose. This is where the concept of equity comes from. This is different from equality as equality assumes that everyone is equal. A laudible idea… if it were true. Equity states that in this society there are people on seperate rungs of society and moves to compensate that by bringing everyone to the same level. Thus you get affirmitive action programs (although badly handled… institutionalized racism once again). I think the only way to get this to change is for corageous people of colour to keep fighting the good fight.”
Orwellian gibberish. White students were demonstrably discriminated against at the U of M. This was official government backed race-based discrimination, and liberals overwhelmingly supported it, as they do at institutions all over America.
No group is barred by society from attaining prosperity, Justin.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:07 pmSure they are (I have NO idea what to call you). I’ve seen it in practice. You can’t just label something “orwellian” and make it automatically wrong.
And you seem to miss the point of equity. Since most minorities in the stats are in the lower half of the economic scale, it makes it that much harder to gain levels of prosperity. Add to that people who throw away resumes at the sight of “Navin Mohammed” and you get a permanent second class. Equity which includes spaces for colour only are necessary because if you were white you could go to ANY OTHER university, that’s not necessairily the case for people of colour.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:12 pm“Orwellian gibberish” Tell us about Orwell. Please, educate us.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:13 pmYou can’t just label something “orwellian� and make it automatically wrong.
I think some idiot broke into the mail drop at some strip mall that is the office for the American Federalist Journal. This guy is a riot.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:16 pmI am surprised I have to tell you blog veterans this but, the way to stop idiots is to ignore them. Don’t answer their questions, don’t take their bait.
Here we have a valid issue that has been belittled by the egos run amuck.
Having said that I will give my egos 2 cents. You don’t need to enshrine discrimination with a written law to have discrimination. Most of our societies taboos are the unwritten laws.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:21 pmJustin,
Blacks and other minorities who stay in school, study, stay away from drugs, gangs, and other criminal activity, avoid illegitimacy, etc., succeed. Those who engage in destructive behavior do not succeed.
Race-based discrimination under the law is wrong, even if you think it’s being done for a good reason.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:26 pm“You don’t need to enshrine discrimination with a written law to have discrimination. ”
True, but discrimination enshrined into the law is especially pernicious, and it is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. But that’s precisely the type of discrimination liberal Democrats support.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:29 pmEditors,
I’m sure that’s true in a perfect world. The reality is that there will always be people in positions of power who will want to bar someone because they are different or percieved as less. While I agree with you that legislation based on race is wrong (in a perfect world I’d rather be dealing with equality rather than equity), it is the only tool available right now to fight institutionalized racism.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:30 pmOn a side note. It is not possible to discriminate against the majority. They set all the rules. How do you discriminate against that?
July 6th, 2005 at 2:31 pmOh. I just thought up a perfect example of racism. According to you minorities who are perfect straight arrows succeed right? what about whites who are not. They still suceed. W Bush is a perfect example. He tried crack once did he not? And yet he’s the president and not in jail.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:33 pm“On a side note. It is not possible to discriminate against the majority. They set all the rules. How do you discriminate against that?”
Total nonsense. When the University of Michigan, or any university, picks one person over another based on race, that is by definition discrimination. It is equally possible to discriminate against an individual of any race.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:35 pmJustin, you have no evidence President Bush ever tried crack. You’re spreading slander. But no one said that a single mistake, or a particular number of mistakes, will cause an individual to fail in life. You managed to completely miss the point.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:38 pm“It is equally possible to discriminate against an individual of any race.” Sure it is, but is it racism? The motivation behind such discrimination is not a desire to see whites fail or to see them “stay where they are”. It’s not even active discrimination in the case of U of M, their goal is to help elevate as many minorities to equal status as possible. As I said before, the white students can go to any other post secondary institution in the world, can the coloured people say the same?
July 6th, 2005 at 2:39 pmI’m not going to argue the W. comment. It’s beside the point.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:39 pmJustin,
Racism is the idea that there are inherent differences between people of different races. A person of any race can hold that view. Some whites have racist views, some blacks have racist views, some of all groups have racist views.
Discrimination is the act of treating people differently. That is what the U of M does. That you think they’re doing so for a good reason doesn’t make it any less discriminatory.
Universities are clamoring for minority students, not trying to exclude them.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:45 pmBlacks and other minorities who stay in school, study, stay away from drugs, gangs, and other criminal activity, avoid illegitimacy, etc., succeed.
Of course you have some sort of hard proof or evidence to backup this monumentally ludicrous claim, or is this just another “feeling” you have based on nothing?
I wait with bated breath for the next edict issued forth from your sphincter.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:46 pmEditors,
You’re missing out on your definitions. Racism is the idea that there are fundamental differences in race AND that your particular race is somehow superior.
Discrimination is the act of denying someone a privilege or a right based on race/religion/sexual orientation/creed/disability… etc.
U of M is not acting discriminatory because the white students are not being denied priveleges that they can obtain elsewhere. Rather they are providing oppertunities to students who would not have them otherwise.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:49 pmRacism is the idea that there are inherent differences between people of different races.
Boy, you just like to make this stuff up as you go along, don’t you? According to a valid source for word definitions:
rac·ism n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
I guess you “accidentally” left out that last part about the belief in inherent differences culminating in a view of superiority, eh?
Thanks for the laughs, though.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:50 pmIf youns behave like a good boy Tyrone you can grows up to be very impotent like whitey.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:54 pm“U of M is not acting discriminatory because the white students are not being denied priveleges that they can obtain elsewhere. Rather they are providing oppertunities to students who would not have them otherwise.”
Then by that definition the Elkridge club is not discriminating because blacks can join clubs elsewhere. Restaurants in teh Jim Crow south didn’t discriminate becasue blacks could go to other restaurants. What you’re saying is asinine.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:54 pmJohn S.
US census data clearly backs up my assertions. A majority of black Americans are middle class or higher economically.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:55 pmAh but could they go to other restaurants? Look at your theory and look at reality. It’s all well and good to argue from your perfect world but in reality practicalities have to be taken.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:56 pmEditors could you link me to that census?
July 6th, 2005 at 2:57 pm#52 - If you say it, it must be true.
Kindness — Thanks, now ignoring…
July 6th, 2005 at 2:57 pmAlso. You still haven’t grasped the meaning of equity… Whites born in the states have a significantly better chance of success than their coloured counterparts. Why is that?
July 6th, 2005 at 2:58 pmJustin,
July 6th, 2005 at 2:58 pmThe reality is that universities, especially elite ones, are clamoring for minority students.
Yeah me too. I’m done here… there’s no point in arguing with someone who doesn’t see reality.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:59 pmAFJ A F’ing Joke
July 6th, 2005 at 2:59 pm“Also. You still haven’t grasped the meaning of equity… Whites born in the states have a significantly better chance of success than their coloured counterparts. Why is that?”
I reject your premise. Blacks who do not choose to engage in destructive behavior like I mentioned earlier do well in America. You have to compare apples to apples. Compare married whites who finished high school and have no criminal record to married blacks who finished high school and have no criminal record, for example.
A black kid who chooses to stay in school and earns good grades will have colleges begging for him to attend.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:03 pm” there’s no point in arguing with someone who doesn’t see reality.”
Projection.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:04 pm*sigh*
Once again. You are arguing from a perfect world standpoint. Sure they can have the oppertunity. Can their parents afford to pay for them? What about universities that only accept rich white students? There are many socioeconomic factors that contribute. We are just looking at the thinnest sliver.
Show me the stats that compare those two groups you mentioned. I’d like to see them.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:06 pmI cannot but think of the relevant words of Groucho:
“I would never join any club that would have me as a member.”
July 6th, 2005 at 3:09 pmhttp://www.newsday.com/ news/ columnists/ ny-opmcc304324656jun30,0,1221085.column
July 6th, 2005 at 3:13 pmEhrlich Minds His Own Business
Maryland Governor Ehrlich apparently used an all-white country club for a fundraiser to raise $100k last month (details here). Apparently he also said in a radio interview that it’s none of his business whom the club does and doesn’t allow to be a me…
July 6th, 2005 at 3:16 pmUS census data clearly backs up my assertions. A majority of black Americans are middle class or higher economically.
Too bad census data (which you didn’t bother to link to or cite in any way) doesn’t have any correlation to your duplicitous claims, sice you originally stated:
Blacks and other minorities who stay in school, study, stay away from drugs, gangs, and other criminal activity, avoid illegitimacy, etc., succeed.
So the fictional census report you claim that backs up your assertions shows:
- Study habits
- Drug usage
- Gang affiliation
- Criminal activity
- Illegitimacy (whatever the hell this means)
Man, that must be one HELL of a census report you got there!
Of course the census over in Fantasyland where you seem to dwell also doesn’t have much impact on reality here back in America, but that is another matter altogether…
July 6th, 2005 at 3:27 pmLet’s put the affirmative action argument in a context that Republicans can understand.
In the game of golf they use a handicap to level the playing field. The handicap allows those that have less experience and skill to compete with those golfers that are ahead of them in the game. Why don’t Republicans clamor for the elimination of the “handicap” in golf?
July 6th, 2005 at 3:30 pmJustin-
Don’t waste your time on this line of thinking:
Show me the stats that compare those two groups you mentioned. I’d like to see them.
Ed neither feels obligated nor willing to back up any of his amazingly scurrilous claims, either because he made them up, is too lazy to provide you with the information or is simply regurgitating third hand information he received inside the echo chamber.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:33 pmMammy always told me if’n I be good and bees patient, whitey would give me what I deserves. Thanx yous the editors of AFJ fo point’in that out.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:41 pm“What about universities that only accept rich white students?”
Like which one, for example?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:14 pmJohn S. doesn’t know the definition of the word “illegitimacy”? How sad. Any dictionary will help you.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:15 pmThere are a lot of claims of his that are suspect. Such as his assertaion that Major universities are clamoring for minority students. He fails to address how rich white universiities such as Yale et all are being discriminatory, and yet he has the nerve to rail on affirmitive action programs…
July 6th, 2005 at 4:16 pmYale, Harvard, Princeton. Priority is given to students with rich white backgrounds. Is that not discrimination?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:17 pmAlso Editors you have yet to give any evidence to back your claims up.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:18 pmEditors doesn’t know the proper usage of the term “illegitimacy”, and has already proven himself to be a selective editor of other terms he misuses (see racism in post #70) and improperly defines.
Sadly, there is no help for you short of a lobotomy.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:19 pmKlaus is a moron who believes only what he reads in the New York Post.
This line from the Zucker brothers movie Top Secret could easily apply to our pal Editors, except that since he has yet to cite anything that could pass for a bibliographical reference, we don’t know what he is reading to give him the ridiculous notions he possesses.
We do however know from his posts that he is, in fact, a moron.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:24 pmWell here’s a cite from the US census that prove my disparity point: http://www.census.gov/ Press-Release/ www/ releases/ archives/ income_wealth/ 002484.html
July 6th, 2005 at 4:27 pm“Yale, Harvard, Princeton. Priority is given to students with rich white backgrounds.”
That’s pure nonsense.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:28 pmJust because you say it’s nonsense does not make it so Editors. Care to disprove me with evidence?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:29 pm“Sadly, there is no help for you short of a lobotomy.”
“We do however know from his posts that he is, in fact, a moron.”
As opposed to that sort of intellectual rigor. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 4:29 pmJustin, you made the nonsensical charge that Yale, Harvard, etc. are discriminating agasint minorities, it’s up to you to prove it.
Well, actually, their affirmative action programs do tend to discriminate against Asian students. But liberals don’t care about all minorities apparently.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:32 pmAccording to your logic I can then discount everything you’ve asserted to this point. I want you to prove each an every one. Starting with black people have an equal oppertunity to succeed.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:34 pmI also once again assert that black people in this country are not doing as well as their non coloured counterparts. I have census evidence to back that up.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:36 pmJustin, from the source you linked to: ” Real median income did not change between 2002 and 2003 for non-Hispanic white households (about $48,000), black households (about $30,000) or Asian households (about $55,500).”
As I said before, you have to correct for marital status, school completion, etc., to compare apples to apples, but let’s set that aside for just a moment.
Can you please explain why the Racist White Power Structure is allowing Asians to make MORE money than themselves? Why would a bunch of racists do such a thing?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:36 pmAs opposed to that sort of intellectual rigor.
Oh, you mean like this?
John S. doesn’t know the definition of the word “illegitimacy�? How sad. Any dictionary will help you.
There is no way for me to type in how hard I am laughing at your bold-faced hypocrisy.
You are shining example for all on this board to see what rational people are up against: Folks who make rules that they won’t play by, ridicule others for the same gaffes that they make and cut & run when the slightest hint of their web of deceit begins to unravel.
There is nothing intellectual about your posts, or your inability to respond to questions posed to you, although your efforts to undermine your own credibility are proving to be very rigorous.
LOL
July 6th, 2005 at 4:39 pm“I also once again assert that black people in this country are not doing as well as their non coloured counterparts. I have census evidence to back that up.”
No one has disputed that. You have not offered a shred of proof that the cause of the disparity is white racism.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:39 pmPerhaps because you fail to take into account population. You assume that there are equal numbers of each population. You fail to see that Asians are a small minority int he states, and most of them are sourced for IT jobs or other high tech high paying jobs.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:39 pmJohn S.,
July 6th, 2005 at 4:40 pmI didn’t say anything hypocritical though. That’s just more name-calling from you.
And you have failed in turn to prove it’s because of crime and gangsta activities. However there is also an explanation for that… if you ever bother to cite evidence.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:41 pm“Perhaps because you fail to take into account population. You assume that there are equal numbers of each population. You fail to see that Asians are a small minority int he states, and most of them are sourced for IT jobs or other high tech high paying jobs.”
Huh? That makes no sense. Racist whites allow Asians to earn more than whites because there are fewer Asians than blacks? That’s totally illogical.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:42 pmJustin … So you think engaging in crime and drugs will tend to help one succeed? *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 4:43 pmJustin-
Before Ed tries to confuse you with more of his ramblings, remember what his original point was:
Blacks and other minorities who stay in school, study, stay away from drugs, gangs, and other criminal activity, avoid illegitimacy, etc., succeed.
If he can show any instance in the census report that shows:
- Study habits
- Drug usage
- Gang affiliation
- Criminal activity
And how after showing these statistics that they relate to some measure of “success” (which has yet to really be quantified, except monetarily), then I for one would be amazed.
But like you, I won’t be holding my breath.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:43 pmWho said the majority of humans were logical? There’s also the cultural influence of asian parents driving their children to overachieve despite setbacks, and sometimes even those people fail. The argument that I am making (that you keep sidestepping) is that there should be safety nets for minorities so that they don’t fall through the cracks and affirmative actions programs are a good way to do so.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:45 pmI didn’t say anything hypocritical though. That’s just more name-calling from you.
I thought people like you didn’t DO nuance?
I suppose implying that someone is stupid on the basis of their asking for a point of clarification isn’t tantamount to “name-calling” as you put it, but then again you don’t have to call someone a name to make it clear the utter contempt and ridicule you have for them.
Nicely done.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:45 pmJohn S.
One can easily find data comparing married whites to married blacks, for example, which would be a more apples-apples measure than comparing all blacks to all whites.
I have no interest in spoon-feeding you data. I don’t see how you’re at all worth the effort.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:46 pmNow that is very callous Editors. And you lose the argument for failing to cite data.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:46 pmIf you want to argue your points here and be respected it’s obligatory to show your data. if we’re not “at all worth it” then why are you here?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:48 pmJustin,
“There’s also the cultural influence of asian parents driving their children to overachieve despite setbacks,”
Bingo. Cultural values, not racism, determines success. Thank you for making my point.
“there should be safety nets for minorities”
Asians make more than whites, so they need a safety net? Why?
July 6th, 2005 at 4:48 pmYou missed my point entirely Editors. I said even with that they fail. So they need a safety net. But I’m done arguing with you.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:49 pmJohn S. was clearly being disingenuous. He knows what “illegitimacy” means. I’m not interested in your juvenile games.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:50 pmJustin, Your evidence that they fail due to racism is that they make MORE than whites on average. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 4:51 pmAnd I didn’t want to get into this but Black people have lived as second class citizens for centuries, the only reason that they’re doing so bad now is that systems were put in place to keep them down. Add to that the self cefeating cycle of poverty and hopelessness and you get what we have now. Asians do not face the same extent of discrimination. They’re seen as smart and polite overachievers.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:51 pmBut Editors you don’t argue with evidence so I’m done. Not all minorities are seen the same. take the blinders off.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:52 pmPoor delusional Editors…
Reorting to name-calling, now, are we? I thought you DESPISED that very type of behavior, and yet…
I have no interest in spoon-feeding you data. I don’t see how you’re at all worth the effort.
John S. was clearly being disingenuous.
It would seem as if I had you nailed right to begin with, as does Justin. Now that we know your baseless claims are just that, you cut and run, lashing out at those seeking further clarification because we will undermine your house of cards that you have built up.
You have yet to provide us with anything to back up our wild claims, you treat attempts to clarify your more ambiguous statements as “disingenuous” and now you seem to be getting quite hostile.
As the saying goes, the jig is up. Quit while you’re ahead, or go play on some Republican blog where fact-checking and clarity aren’t required.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:57 pmBy the way that’s MEDIAN income. Meaning half make more and half make less. Not average.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:58 pmI agree with John S. If you’re not going to argue fairly then you don’t belong here.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:59 pm“Not all minorities are seen the same.”
I see all people the same. I don’t disriminate like you do.
July 6th, 2005 at 4:59 pmJohn S. So you weren’t being disingenuous? You really don’t know what “illegitimacy” means? How sad. Public schools?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:00 pmJustin, fairness has nothing to do with it, stop whining.
You’ve said nothing to help explain why racist whites allow Asians to earn MORE than themselves.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:02 pmOk that’s quite enough Editors. I’m not the one who practically implies that the “lasy blacks got there themselves” Isn’t that what you meant when you argue cultural values” against affirmitive actions? I never said I saw people differently personally. I said they were seen differently by others. So whatever.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:02 pmSo asians make more? What’s your point?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:04 pmAnd please try and cite evidence this time. I know it’s hard. But you can do it!
July 6th, 2005 at 5:04 pmEditors-
You have thoroughly discredited yourself, and you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Therefore, this “conversation” is over.
Anyone can follow your string of irrational posts and see exactly where you are coming from and what point you are driving at.
It’s too bad that you feel as if somehow the “whites” in this country are losing ground, and therefore must cling to the last few remaining bastions of segregated power that remain.
What’s even sadder is that your Republican party tries to put on a different public face than the one it wears in private, but a white guy in blackface is hardly proof of an ideology that embraces cultural diversity.
Feel free to keep up your angst-ridden ranting - much to the delight of the readers here.
And a good day to you, sir.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:09 pm“So asians make more? What’s your point?”
If, as you argue, a conspiracy of racist whites existed with the power to keep non-whites poor, then they could and would certainly hold down Asians as well as other minorities. But this racist cabal not only allows Asians to earn as much as whites, they actually allow them to earn MORE. This, to put it mildly, undercuts your premise.
It is nothing short of a bigoted slander to accuse whites in America of being racists who work to keep minorities down.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:12 pmJohn S.
You have thoroughly discredited yourself, and you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion. Therefore, this “conversation� is over.
Anyone can follow your string of irrational posts and see exactly where you are coming from and what point you are driving at.
Since I did not ever say that whites in this country are losing ground, you obviously will make up anything.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:14 pmEditors-
You prove only that you mimic others very well (which I suspect is where you get much of your regurgitated ‘talking points’ from).
Now go out and get an original thought for yourself.
Cheers.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:20 pmJohn S.
You’re completely right about this guy. He doesn’t seem to get that each minority is different with different circumstances facing them… He ignores my post on the stereotyping of blacks as whining and then he expects to be taken seriously. I agree. This conversation is over.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:21 pmJustin-
What actually is nice about all of this is that we are free to discuss these things in an open forum.
That is much more than you will get from the majority of conservative leaning websites that either do not allow people to post at all, or have an editorial review process prior to posting comments.
There is a lot to be said for an open exchange of ideas - even when you don’t agree with or entirely understand some of the views being expressed.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:32 pmJohn S.
I didn’t know that. In Canadian politics, even the conservative blogs seem to have an open forum. Why would someone want to sensor the free exchange of ideas? Isn’t that what democracy is all about?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:38 pmConservative forums that I’m aware of do not censor ideas. Conservative forums are more likely to need moderation to weed out all the profanity and spam. We welcome opposing views on our site, as long as they’re not filled with expletives and that sort of thing. Lots of liberals seem to have trouble forming a sentence without using the F-word or calling those they disagree with Nazis, etc.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:16 pm“He doesn’t seem to get that each minority is different with different circumstances facing them…”
But that’s the question you’re refusing to address. Why do Asians face different circumstances if whites are racists who want to hurt minorities. Why, in fact, do these racist whites allow Asians to do better than whites?
July 6th, 2005 at 6:19 pm“There is a lot to be said for an open exchange of ideas”
Then go ahead, post one.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:20 pmJustin-
This isn’t Canada. Welcome to America, my friend.
And FYI, the United States is not a Democracy. We are actually a Federal Republic with a strong tradition of Democracy. (see CIA World Fact Book)
The funny thing about traditions is that they can - and often do - change.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:24 pmThe problem is, the Democrats have contempt for democracy. That’s why they are so terrified that President Bush will appoint judges who will interpret the laws as written, rather than imposing their own policy views.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:28 pmJustin-
Notice how Editor (in typical fashion) first refutes my claim:
Conservative forums that I’m aware of do not censor ideas.
But then qualifies (essentially retracting) his refutation:
Conservative forums are more likely to need moderation to weed out all the profanity and spam.
And then blames the phenomenon on “liberals”:
Lots of liberals seem to have trouble forming a sentence without using the F-word or calling those they disagree with Nazis, etc.
And of course does it all the while without offering a shred of evidence (because linking to such supportive information is SO difficult) to justify his “opinion”.
Are you sensing a theme?
July 6th, 2005 at 6:29 pmJustin-
Again, Editor show us the fine stylings of his ilk by making counterintuitive statements:
The problem is, the Democrats have contempt for democracy.
Since one would surmise that Republicans favor a Republic while Democrats favor a Democracy (and accurately so if you look up the terms democracy and republic).
Then of course, he follows up with yet another brash and intentionally false claim:
That’s why they are so terrified that President Bush will appoint judges who will interpret the laws as written, rather than imposing their own policy views.
Since people who follow their history carefully know that the leading conservative groups all specifically want a judge that will overturn most of the social laws that have been enacted for the last century - particularly Roe vs. Wade.
Fascinating creatures these conservatives, aren’t they?
July 6th, 2005 at 6:36 pmJohn
Yes I agree this is interesting. He continues to misconstrue arguments in favor of what he wants the argument to be. Nevermind that the original point was that it’s wrong for a Govenor to endorse a tacitly bigoted organization and then state that it’s none of his business. I’d like to see how the conservatives stand on that one.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:59 pmJustin-
Man you couldn’t have hit the nail on the head any harder than you just did. This of course is the primary strategy of conservatives, to muddy the argument so much that one forgets what the actual point was in the first place.
And of course there are a number of tactics they employ to acheive this goal, including many we have seen here such as:
- The Straw Man
- Burden of Proof
- Appeal to Ridicule
- Ad Hominem
- Hasty Generalization
This is just a sampling, but if you want to see the full encyclopedia of fallacious arguments, all you need to do is sit back and watch a conservative like Editor in action.
It is truly a sight to behold.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:12 pmJohn S. Since censoring ideas and weeding out profanity are two different things, there’s no contradiction. Or do you believe posting the F word is an idea? That wouldn’t come as a surprise. *L*
Then John S. proves my point:
“Since people who follow their history carefully know that the leading conservative groups all specifically want a judge that will overturn most of the social laws that have been enacted for the last century - particularly Roe vs. Wade.”
Precisely. Roe was not democratically enacted by legislation. Overturning it would return the question to the democratic process. That’s exactly what you on the left oppose. Thanks for making my point.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:20 pmPost #152 = projection. *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 7:21 pmEditor’s Fallacious Follies
Post#153
Or do you believe posting the F word is an idea? That wouldn’t come as a surprise.
Classic Appeal to Ridicule
Then John S. proves my point:
Classic Straw Man
Post #154
Post #152 = projection.
This is a little bit Circumstancial Ad Hominem blended with a dash of Relativist Fallacy
Keep up the good work, Editor!
July 6th, 2005 at 7:31 pmJohn,
You missed the part where he said that decisions such as Roe Vs. Wade were not decided upon democratically despite the fact that it is not up to the judges to decide things according to popular demand, it is their job to interpret the law in the most impartial way. That is why we HAVE judges.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:38 pmQuestion: What proof do we have of racial segregation in the US.
Answer: Walk through any major US city at night and look at who is sleeping in the doorways and on the streets. Walk through any US suburb and you quickly realize the only blacks and hispanics are there to do the landscaping and the housework.
Americans have always fostered, sponsored and supported racial segregation. It is unlikely to ever change as long as fear, mistrust and racial stereotypes continue. Just because a group claims no racial bias, does not mean it does not exist.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:39 pmI wonder what these guys think about the affair between Bushie and Condi.
July 6th, 2005 at 7:47 pm*L*
Is this a little face? (L) Nose, mouth… (punch it). (* *) two eyes (well, we all know what goes right between the eyes, don’t we?)
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ 2005/ 06/ hunting-of-liberals.html
You don’t debate with them. You don’t apologize to them. You do what John S. does. Thank you, John S., and when the time comes, since they won’t fight in Iraq, we can see how much stomach they have for a fight here. My guess is, not much.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:20 pmJustin-
Good catch! As you can see, when one has to weed out SO many fallacies, it can be difficult to stay focused on the issues at hand.
Also, as an addendum to your point, I find it incredibly amusing that Editor seems to think that if abortion were handed to the Congress as a legislative issue, that the result would have to be that abortion is made illegal.
After all, as he puts it, “that’s exactly what you on the left oppose.” Which yet again is another misconception by conservatives like him, that somehow Democrats fear democracy. Which is hardly the case.
What I fear is that if SCOTUS overturned Roe vs. Wade, the Republicans would bury the issue and NEVER let any sort of democratic process on the matter see the light of day. All of a sudden, they would become fierce advocates of the respect for judicial decisions.
Much in the way they “blue-slipped” dozens of Clinton’s judicial nominees, until they decided to change the rules to prevent Democrats from doing the exact same thing to Bush. Just like they want to go with the “nuclear” option to stop filibusters which they enjoyed using themselves in the past. And exactly like their changeing of House Ethics Committee rules solely for the purpose of protecting Tom Delay, after they had spent years crowing about making those same rules tougher (on Democrats, anyway).
What I oppose is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:22 pmJustin,
” it is their job to interpret the law in the most impartial way.”
That’s not what the justices did in Roe. They didn’t follow the written words of the Constitution, they made policy from the bench, which is not their job, and not democratic.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:23 pmWow, John S. knows how to hyperlink! His mother must be so proud! *L*
July 6th, 2005 at 8:24 pm“What I fear is that if SCOTUS overturned Roe vs. Wade, the Republicans would bury the issue and NEVER let any sort of democratic process on the matter see the light of day. All of a sudden, they would become fierce advocates of the respect for judicial decisions.”
What this demonstrates is John has no idea what the Roe decision did. It took the issue away from legislatures. Overturning Roe would not ban abortion, it would return the issue to legislatures, who would be free to keep abortion legal, or to regulate it in various ways. In other words, democracy. That’s what the Democrats oppose.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:27 pmThanks for the support, KillCon. After all, you know you call someone who has openly declared themselves to be your enemy?
Your enemy.
However, unlike their horde of quasi-Christians, I prefer to practice the authentic Christian teaching of turn the other cheek…
They can slap the one above, and kiss the one below.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:30 pmEditors-
Yawn.
July 6th, 2005 at 8:31 pm