Skip to main content

Bush's hacks

By Derrick Z. Jackson | September 14, 2005

THE SENATE confirmation hearings of John Roberts are in the eye of a perfect storm of American hypocrisy. It is largely assumed that Roberts will be confirmed despite his animus for affirmative action for people of color. In 1981 as a special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith, he wrote that affirmative action ''required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates."

Such sentiments will not sink his chances for the high court, not in a nation where affirmative action of inadequately prepared white men is so rampant that we let them manage our two worst disasters.


There is Hurricane Katrina, where Michael Brown resigned this week as the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Brown had no emergency management experience and did not know that the New Orleans convention center was reeking in squalor, despite media reports.

Days before the resignation, he was kicked out of New Orleans by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. That was the unqualified calling the unqualified ''unqualified." The natural-disaster-minded FEMA was rolled into the terrorist-minded Homeland Security two years ago but Chertoff had no experience in emergency management either. When National Public Radio asked Chertoff about CNN reports on conditions at the convention center, he said: ''If you talk to someone and you get a rumor, or you get someone's anecdotal version of something, I think it's dangerous to extrapolate it all over the place. . . . I have not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who don't have food and water."

Brown was at FEMA because of the old-boy network. He was hired as a general counsel by fellow Oklahoman and then-FEMA head Joe Allbaugh. Allbaugh had no qualifications for FEMA other than being a chief Bush operative for a decade. Allbaugh hired Brown even though Brown's last major job was an Arabian horse show commissioner.

With such incompetence in place for Katrina, Bush, a self-admitted academic underachiever who was a clear beneficiary of legacy admissions, followed up the stupid comments of his hacks with proclamations worthy of Ripley's Believe It Or Not. Despite years of scientific warnings and newspaper stories about the potentially catastrophic effects of a hurricane, Bush said, ''I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

This follows an amazing lack of anticipation over what would happen in Iraq, after an invasion and occupation where the architects were for the most part well-connected white men who never spent one day in combat. They gave no thought to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed in the invasion or to the nearly 1,900 US soldiers who have died.

There was Vice President Dick ''Five-Deferments" Cheney, who ballyhooed that we would be ''welcomed as liberators" and that the insurgency is in its ''last throes." There was Defense Secretary Donald ''We-Know-Where-the-Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction-Are" Rumsfeld. He flew jets for the Navy but never saw combat. There was former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul ''Wildly-Off-The-Mark" Wolfowitz, who trashed the assessment by the Army's chief of staff that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to stabilize Iraq.

Bush's idea of diversity in this affirmative action for no-combat military experts was his African-American former national security adviser, Condoleezza ''Those 16-Words-Are-A-Data-Point" Rice. Rice, now secretary of state, was in the lead of defusing criticism over Bush's discredited claim that Saddam was seeking nuclear weapons material from Africa.

Hardly by coincidence, the top player in the Bush administration who was the most reluctant to go to war was an African-American man who saw combat, former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It was Powell who urged his fellow Republicans at the 2000 Republican national convention to understand the cynicism of African-Americans when ''some in our party miss no opportunity to roundly and loudly condemn affirmative action that helped a few thousand black kids get an education, but you hardly hear a whimper when it's affirmative action for lobbyists who load our federal tax code with preferences for special interests."

Such cynicism is exploding again in America's face. While we are about to have a new chief justice who condemns affirmative action for black and brown kids, affirmative action for privileged white men has led to decisions that have cost this nation and the planet tens of thousands of lives. Of course Bush could not envision the breach of the levees. His form of affirmative action left him with no one of vision to show him the way.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

© MBM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

A little off topic but I was in a bookstore yesterday and paging through Tim Wise's book "Affirmative Action: Racial Preference In Black And White" published in January of 2005.

In this book he documents the wide spread practice of Universities and Colleges across the U.S. admitting the sons and daughters of alumni who would normally not qualify for admission. Many of these alumni parents have either made contributions to the institution's alumni association or contributions to other Universities and Colleges departments.

Mr. Wise states that these "unqualified" whites take far more seats from more qualified whites than Affirmative Action admissions. Presumably, they also take seats from more qualified Blacks. Yet, opponents of Affirmative Action conveniently ignore this unjust practice when focusing on Affirmative Action.

I found this review on Amazon.com that states the case a little better than I have. I borrowed one paragraph of the review and altered it slightly to make it more readable.
.
.

"As a deafening blow to the "reverse discrimination" claim, Wise points to the overwhelming evidence that blacks' competence, once admitted to college, is often superior to their white counterparts with higher test scores.

(But he also points) to the fact that whites with lower test scores, admitted because of parent alumnus status, take far more seats from "more qualified whites" than all affirmative action admissions put together.

Yet, those who decry affirmative action on grounds of racial discrimination effectively ignore this fact. Even more bizarre is that it never enters the radar screen of their arguments.

If the argument against affirmative action is that unqualified blacks are admitted over their more qualified white counterparts based on test scores, (than) by definition decriers of affirmative action should be infuriated by the overwhelming number of "unqualified" white alumni admissions who take the seats of more "qualified" white students.

(In fact), the alumni status admissions have exceedingly more priority than affirmative action admissions. So much so that beneficiaries of affirmative action wouldn't even make the chart for a statistical comparison to the admission rate of children of alumni.

Yet, opponents of affirmative action condone this "unjust" admission policy, as if saying... "as long as the unqualified admit is white, he/she belongs there; if he/she is black, certainly a white student should be there in his/her place". This crippling discrepancy alone shows the inherent racism and dubious foundation of the reverse discrimination argument itself."


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/041595049...504?v=glance&s=books
.
.
Last edited {1}
Popcorn, you should google Tim Wise and look at either his own website or his Zmag.org site where a bunch of his commentaries are, if you don't already. I remember his whole breakdown of the UofM AA case but this is one of my favorite quotables from another source:

http://www.detnews.com/2000/schools/0011/12/a09-147250/htm

Anyway... 1,243 of the 2,661 students who were admitted with lower grades than the girl, Jenny "From The BLOCK" Gratz were WHITE. So that was like 47% of them. Blacks made up some 27% of the students admitted with lower grades/scores; other minorities some 26%.

And, it's funny how Colin Powell's own U.S. Military and all types of Businesses presented briefs in support of AA.
Well Nmaginate,

The bootlickers figure they can rail against me for the same positions ard arguments Colin and others present....but I do not hear anything from their self-loathing azzes....and between what we said and Tim Wise said......the anti-affirmative action proposition is racist on the part of whites....which makes it self-loathing on the part of house negro blkCONS, relatively speaking.......
"The bootlickers figure they can rail against me for the same positions ard arguments Colin and others present....but I do not hear anything from their self-loathing azzes....and between what we said and Tim Wise said......the anti-affirmative action proposition is racist on the part of whites....which makes it self-loathing on the part of house negro blkCONS, relatively speaking......." by Kevin41

"(a) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "state" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the state itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the state.

(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.

(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United State Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section."

******************************

The end of Affirmative Action within California, and/or other states has absolutely nothing to do with self-hating Black people, racist Caucasians, etc., etc. In the State of California Proposition 209 was passed by the majority of the voting public to ban preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin public employment, public education, or public contracting.

This being said, for any resident of the State of California, and/or any other State with similar state banned Affirmative Action policies, for those who seek to provide special privileges for an ethnic group, family, friends, etc.,.....

......then it would behoove you to obtain private financing, use the resources of private enterprise, and/or create your own private business entity to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.

.......because the use of taxpayer's revenue to discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin public employment, public education, or public contracting, has been banned and ruled un-Constitutional Affirmative Action policy within the State of California.

...This being said, the individuals who have the means, influence, financial resources to take risks in the Black community need to get busy, be it coming out of retirement, waking up from that deep sleep of ignorance,.......

....if the aim is to grant preferential treatment for Black people in the interest of hiring, promoting any gainful employment contractual agreement, etc., etc.

Again, this being said it is counter-productive to bash:

A. President George Bush.

B. Conservatives from all walks of life.

......since effective government, and/or private business investment starts on the locally level first......

.......again the question that should be raised is what are our own elected Black leaders, and/or other individuals in positions of influence doing to:

A. Help the Black community rise above the very bottom depth of poverty, to even a satisfactory level of economic, social, and/or political prosperity?

B. Strengthen the integrity of the traditional Black family structure?

C. Reduce or eliminate the tendency for so many Black people to be so heavily dependent on social welfare benefits for their survival?

D. Promote the ideals of free enterprise and business development as opposed to begging for government handouts, Affirmative Action benefits, doomed for failure poverty programs, etc., etc.?


E. Hold our own local elected representatives accountable, because far too many of them do not have a clue as to what it means to be an elected representative!

*************************

......and the Black community being but 13% of the total population, and even less when the actual voting percentage of Blacks is factored in, will not overrule the policy voted upon by the majority of voters, no matter how much they:

A. Beg for the continue of AA benefits.

B. Ridicule President Bush.

C. Ridicule the Bush Administration.

D. Ridicule conservatives who come from all walks of life, and various political affiliations.

E. Ridicule other Black people who do not follow their lead. This group of Black people is an even smaller segment of A, C, and/or D above, and/or an even smaller segment of the entire Black community in general.

F. Play the race card.

G. Play the blame game directed at everyone else but those from within the Black community who truly deserve condemnation over praise.

H. Etc., etc.
Last edited {1}
Hey, Affirmative Action Foes – Where's Your Outcry Over Political Patronage?

Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2005
By: Tonyaa Weathersbee, BlackAmericaWeb.com

Believe it or not, there's a new mission beckoning in the soggy devastation of Hurricane Katrina for Ward Connerly.

Most of you know the guy.

Connerly is a former University of California regent who, after spearheading the end of affirmative action in college admissions there, has somehow decided that his life's calling is to work to end any advantages that give black people like himself -- people who discrimination has historically left out of the progress loop -- a break. After failing miserably to get a racial privacy initiative passed in California, he has been rabidly running around trying to get Michigan to ban some affirmative action programs.

Homeboy just won't quit.

But I hope that Connerly, who decries affirmative action as an unjust system that favors race, gender and ethnicity over merit, is paying close attention to the Katrina debacle. Because if he is, he ought to turn his vitriol away from blacks, women and other minorities who benefit from what he believes are affirmative actions' special privileges, and turn it towards those who benefit from the privileges of political patronage.

Most of the time, those beneficiaries tend to be overwhelmingly white and male. Merit tends to be an afterthought if it's thought about at all. And nowhere was this problem more glaringly apparent than in the way that President George W. Bush -- an affirmative action foe himself -- stacked the Federal Emergency Management Agency with cronies rather than experts.

All were utterly unqualified. And a whole lot of black people in New Orleans wound up dead because of it.

According to The Washington Post, five of the eight top FEMA officials had virtually no experience in handling disasters. Besides not having any experience Michael D. Brown, the now-disgraced former head of FEMA, couldn't even handle his last job as commissioner of a horse sporting group. Yet those facts didn't stop Bush -- even in the wake of the unprecedented carnage of Sept. 11 -- from making him head of the nation's top emergency response agency.

All Brown needed for that job was for Joe M. Allbaugh, his college friend and Bush's 200 campaign manager, to put in a good word for him.

Apparently, Allbaugh did that. And the Bush cronies kept lucking out.

According to the Post, FEMA Chief of Staff Patrick J. Rhode's only claim to fame before joining that agency was as a television reporter. He wound up in the circle by dint of working with Bush's 2000 campaign, as did FEMA Deputy Chief of Staff Brooks D. Altshuler.


Put together, these guys didn't have enough emergency management expertise to rescue a baby from a bathtub, much less a major American city inundated by floods. But here, being able to save lives -- or even caring about saving lives -- didn't get them their jobs.

Their connections did.

Of course, I'm not shocked that Bush was able to get away with this. Over the years, the right wing has been able to capitalize on the public's short memory and its denial of racial injustice to the point where the faces of white males like Brown have been emerging as the faces of victims; victims who are up against a system of political correctness that plays on white guilt to grant college slots, contracts and jobs to incompetent minorities. The question is no longer whether affirmative action is a tool for giving minorities a chance to prove they have the right stuff, but whether it endangers lives if, say, a black surgeon who entered medical school with lower test scores gets to operate on someone. Never mind that the black surgeon had to pass a huge number of tests while in school, and qualifying experiences to get a license to take people's lives into his hands.

Obviously, that's something that Brown and his boys didn't have to worry about.

So in the wake of Katrina, here lies a new mission for Connerly. If he and his minions so fervently believe that it's abhorrent to consider race, gender or ethnicity in considering whether someone gets into a college, or gets a contract or a job, they ought to believe that it's just as abhorrent for woefully unqualified white men like Brown to get top government jobs based on who they know rather than their qualifications. He ought to start petition drives to put an end to that practice.

Because while affirmative action may disappoint a few misguided white people who believe they are owed all the opportunity, so far as I know, no one has died from it.

That's more than I can say for the system that got Brown his job.
Louisiana Officials Indicted Before Katrina Hit
Federal audits found dubious expenditures by the state's emergency preparedness agency, which will administer FEMA hurricane aid.
By Ken Silverstein and Josh Meyer
Times Staff Writers

September 17, 2005

WASHINGTON "” Senior officials in Louisiana's emergency planning agency already were awaiting trial over allegations stemming from a federal investigation into waste, mismanagement and missing funds when Hurricane Katrina struck.

And federal auditors are still trying to track as much as $60 million in unaccounted for funds that were funneled to the state from the Federal Emergency Management Agency dating back to 1998.

In March, FEMA demanded that Louisiana repay $30.4 million to the federal government.

The problems are particularly worrisome, federal officials said, because they involve the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, the agency that will administer much of the billions in federal aid anticipated for victims of Katrina.

Earlier this week, federal Homeland Security officials announced they would send 30 investigators and auditors to the Gulf Coast to ensure relief funds were properly spent.

Details of the ongoing criminal investigations come from two reports by the inspector general's office in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA, as well as in state audits, and interviews this week with federal and state officials.

The reports were prepared by the federal agency's field office in Denton, Texas, and cover 1998 to 2003. Improper expenditures previously identified by auditors include a parka, a briefcase and a trip to Germany.

Much of the FEMA money that was unaccounted for was sent to Louisiana under the Hazard Mitigation Grant program, intended to help states retrofit property and improve flood control facilities, for example.

The $30.4 million FEMA is demanding back was money paid into that program and others, including a program to buy out flood-prone homeowners. As much as $30 million in additional unaccounted for spending also is under review in audits that have not yet been released, according to a FEMA official.

One 2003 federal investigation of allegedly misspent funds in Ouachita Parish, a district in northern Louisiana, grew into a probe that sprawled into more than 20 other parishes.

Mark Smith, a spokesman for the Louisiana emergency office, said the agency had responded to calls for reform, and that "we now have the policy and personnel in place to ensure that past problems aren't repeated."

He said earlier problems were largely administrative mistakes, not due to corruption.

But federal officials disagreed. They said FEMA for years expressed concerns over patterns of improper management and lax oversight throughout the state agency, and said most problems had not been corrected.

They point to criminal indictments of three state workers as evidence the problem was more than management missteps. Two other state emergency officials also were identified in court documents as unindicted co-conspirators.

"The charges were made after some very extensive reviews by FEMA investigators and other authorities, who identified issues they felt were of the severity and magnitude to refer them to the U.S. attorney's office," said David Passey, the spokesman for FEMA's regional office in Texas.

Passey, while acknowledging that the state had made some administrative changes, said it had not completed the kind of overhaul FEMA said was needed.

"It concerns us a lot. We are devoted to the mission of helping people prepare for, prevent and recover from disasters and we want these federal funds "” this taxpayer money "” to be spent and used well and in accordance with the rules," he said.

Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington watchdog group, said recent Louisiana history showed that FEMA "money earmarked for saving lives and homes'' was instead squandered in "a cesspool of wasteful spending."

Louisiana's emergency office receives money directly from FEMA. It passes on much of the funding to local governments that apply for assistance.

The audit reports said state operating procedures increased the likelihood of fraud and corruption going undetected.

For instance, a Nov. 30, 2004, report by Tonda L. Hadley, a director in the Denton field office, examined $40.5 million sent to the Louisiana agency, mostly for the Hazard Mitigation program. The report found that the state's emergency office did not have receipts to account for 97% of the $15.4 million it had awarded to subcontractors on 19 major projects.

The report also said the Louisiana agency had misspent $617,787 between May 2000 and September 2003.

Questionable expenditures identified by the inspector general included $2,400 for sod installation, several thousand dollars for a trip to Germany by the deputy director, $1,071 for curtains, and $595 for an L.L. Bean parka and briefcase. The inspector general also challenged unspecified spending for camera equipment, professional dues and a 2002 Ford Crown Victoria.

The day before the report was issued, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Louisiana obtained an indictment against Michael L. Brown, deputy director of the Louisiana office of emergency preparedness. (Brown is no relation to former FEMA director Michael D. Brown who resigned this week.) Louisiana's deputy director oversaw the state's Hazard Mitigation program.

Brown was charged with conspiring to obstruct the inspector general's investigation and for making a false statement to a federal investigator.

Michael C. Appe, another senior state agency official, also was charged with obstructing the audit. Months earlier, Appe had been appointed as head of a "surge team" to review projects funded with FEMA money. The team's mission was to help spot abuses.

Both Appe and Brown hold the rank of colonel for their roles in overseeing elements of the state National Guard.

Appe was arrested in Baton Rouge last November, as was Daniel J. Falanga, the state agency's flood-mitigation officer. Falanga was accused of committing perjury before a grand jury investigating misuse of FEMA funds.

All three men have pleaded not guilty to the charges and deny wrongdoing, according to their lawyers. Trial dates remain uncertain because the hurricane disrupted court schedules.

According to the indictment, Brown and Appe conspired in 2000 to use $175,000 in FEMA funds to cover a shortfall in a related agency's budget. Later, when the inspector general began investigating the agency's use of FEMA money, the two men conspired to create a fake, backdated memo to cover up the earlier diversion of funds, the indictment says.

State agency spokesman Smith said Brown had traveled to Germany, but to attend a conference. He declined to answer questions about alleged improper spending, citing the pending trial. Smith said at the time, state officials believed the trip to Germany was a proper expenditure.

Brown's lawyer, Elton Richey, said his client tried to spend federal disaster funds wisely despite job turnover and confusion between state agency officials and FEMA overseers. He said FEMA kept changing the rules.

Marty Stroud, a lawyer who represents Appe and Falanga, said, "There are no charges that anyone in this case enriched himself at the expense of a federal program."

Hadley, of the inspector general's office, issued a second report on Feb. 25, 2005, which tracked state spending of FEMA money to pay for "extraordinary costs," a special category used for the administration of disaster assistance programs. It said the agency had improperly spent $247,166 for items such as a car, computers, membership dues and travel to seminars.

In addition to alleged misspending reported in the two audits, FEMA has asked for the return of $10.7 million allocated to a program for buying property in high-risk flood areas. Most of that money was passed on to local communities to determine which property owners would benefit.

FEMA alleged the Louisiana agency had not properly monitored expenditures, and failed to ensure that properties receiving the funds were eligible.

About $2.8 million of the refund sought by FEMA went to consultant fees. Most of that money went to Aegis Innovative Systems, a Baton Rouge firm hired by many parishes to administer the flood buyout program. Aegis owners include Mark Howard, a former official at the Louisiana agency.

State Sen. Reggie Dupre said it appeared that parishes employing Aegis were especially successful in winning money from the state emergency preparedness agency.

"It smells like a horrible brother-in-law deal to me, " he said in a phone interview.

An Aegis attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
Lofton, let me ask you two simple questions. [Please answer by typing text. Please refrain from providing expansive links to posts that have no relevance to the question.]

Question One:

What was/is the purpose of Affirmative Action plans and/or programs as related to African-Americans?

Question Two:

The state of california has the following in it anti-discrimination statute:

quote:
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.




Would the realization that most "Voluntary" Affirmative Action plans/programs in force today were developed at the court house steps, in order to prevent court orders and consent decrees?
"Lofton, let me ask you two simple questions. [Please answer by typing text. Please refrain from providing expansive links to posts that have no relevance to the question." by Kweli4Real

Question One:

What was/is the purpose of Affirmative Action plans and/or programs as related to African-Americans?

*******************************

Well AA has yet to fulfill this purpose, because more so than the masses of African Americans, AA has benefited Caucasian women, middleclass Blacks who practice their own version of that "Good Old Boys and Girls Club", etc.

This reality being realized, the proponents who petitioned to end AA have good cause for striking down AA.

On a personal note AA has yet to benefit anyone my circle, be it my immediate family members, any relatives, any family friends, and/or personal friends. I voted for Proposition 209, because AA as practiced is unfair, and it has yet to benefit the masses of Black people, including individuals who qualified for it. Furthermore, AA is not needed to succeed in life!

**********************************
Question Two:

The state of california has the following in it anti-discrimination statute:

quote:
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.


****************************

"California Supreme Court Upholds Extensive Reach of Proposition 209
By Edward J. Erler
Posted December 4, 2000

On November 30, the California Supreme Court handed down an important decision detailing the reach of Proposition 209's ban on race and sex preferences. Proposition 209 was the hotly contested constitutional amendment initiative, passed in 1996, that prohibited the State from giving preferential treatment "to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in "public employment, public education, or public contracting." The authors of Proposition 209 used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as its model, but explicitly stated that it was the original understanding of the Civil Rights Act, not its subsequent judicial construction, that was expressed in the Proposition.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on the principle of equal opportunity. That was the principle "” so the framers of the Act believed "” demanded by fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause. Equal opportunity requires the recognition that "the Constitution is colorblind." Yet almost immediately after its adoption, the courts began to construe the Act to require racial preferences to eradicate the "present effects of past discrimination." Thus an act that was aimed at ending racial discrimination in employment was construed by the courts to require racial discrimination. This has been the familiar theme of those who support racial set-asides and quotas.

Proposition 209 amended the California Constitution to reflect the original purpose of the Civil Rights Act: no individual could be discriminated against because of race, ethnicity or sex, nor could anyone be preferred for public benefits based on race, ethnicity or sex. It was immediately challenged in Federal Court and was initially ruled unconstitutional. Judge Thelton Henderson "” in what can only be described as unusual logic "” decided that the refusal to permit race and sex classifications was a violation of equal protection. The refusal to discriminate on the basis of race or sex was therefore adjudged to be discriminatory. By Judge Henderson's logic, the fourteenth amendment's command that "No State . . . shall deny to any person. . . equal protection of the laws" is unconstitutional! Or stated slightly differently, the refusal to allow the use of race, sex and ethnicity is itself an impermissible use of race, ethnicity and sex. The Ninth Circuit Court of appeals promptly overturned Judge Henderson's decision, arguing that "the alleged 'equal protection' burden that Proposition 209 imposes on those who would seek race and gender preferences is a burden that the Constitution itself imposes."

Shortly after the passage of Proposition 209 the city of San Jose "” after changing the name of its Office of Affirmative Action to the Office of Equality Assurance "” adopted a program that required contractors bidding for city projects to utilize a specific percentage of minority or women subcontractors or to document efforts to include such contractors. The California Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the San Jose ordinance in Hi Voltage Wire Works v. San Jose. The case attracted considerable attention; the Clinton administration Justice Department and California's Attorney General urged the California Supreme Court to uphold the law against the Proposition 209 challenge. It wasn't really an affirmative action law, after all, but merely an "outreach program" that did not mandate racial or sex preferences. The Court, however, was not persuaded by this attempt to limit the reach of Proposition 209. All seven members of the California Supreme Court agreed that the law was unconstitutional, although there was disagreement about the scope of the decision.

Justice Brown, writing for the majority, noted that any plain and fair reading of Proposition 209 clearly shows that the San Jose program is unconstitutional because it accords preferences to subcontractors on the basis of race and sex. "The participation component" of the program, according to Justice Brown, "authorizes or encourages what amounts to discriminatory quotas or set-asides, or at least race "” and sex "” conscious numerical goals." Thus understood, Justice Brown concluded, "such a goal plainly runs counter to the express intent of the historic Civil Rights Act and, concomitantly, the intent of Proposition 209." The Court rightly concluded that numerical goals based on race and sex make the fantastic assumption that individuals of all races and both sexes will "gravitate with mathematical exactitude to each employer . . . absent unlawful discrimination." When such "mathematical exactitude" is not achieved it is assumed that race and sex discrimination must be at work. In a free society, however, such mathematical precision in individual choices will never be achieved. The only way that such precision can be achieved is to extinguish the freedom of individuals to choose their occupations.

The notion that rights are the product of race or ethnicity (or sex) presents obvious dangers. Rights belong to individuals, not races. The rule of law cannot condition rights upon race, because the notion that desert depends upon race is wholly arbitrary "” indeed it makes a mockery of equal protection. This is what the voters who approved Proposition 209 understood and the California Supreme Court was entirely correct in striking down the San Jose ordinance.

Edward J. Erler is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute and professor of political science at California State San Bernardino."

*********************************
...and Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown can hold her own against anyone, anywhere, anytime!

The Best of California Justice Janice Rogers Brown

.....and with the exception of far too many of our own no good Black elected leaders, and/or many of the so-called Black middleclass who praise these misfits......


.....be it Proposition 209, or other legislation, the remaining of the jurisdictions, demand that every official of government respect the letter and intent of the law. This attribute among other good attributes makes California one of the fairest and most productive States in the United States of America!

*********************************
....and there are no exceptions, to which the city of San Jose, attemped to circumvent or disregard Proposition 209, and was subsequently placed in checked or forced to obey this ruling.

...In the State of California, for the advocates of AA, the above quotation as quickly found by officials in San Jose California, just proves there are no exceptions to this ruling, because Proposition 209 is now a part of the California State Constitution, and promoted by the California Supreme Court.
Last edited {1}
Why? Oh, Why do I attempt to engage this guy in intelleigent discourse? bang

Lofton,

First, how does anything in the following:

Well AA has yet to fulfill this purpose, because more so than the masses of African Americans, AA has benefited Caucasian women, middleclass Blacks who practice their own version of that "Good Old Boys and Girls Club", etc.

Respond to the question:

What was/is the purpose of Affirmative Action plans and/or programs as related to African-Americans?

Second, how does your re-print of Erier's article respond to my second question?

But I quess my assumption that any thinking person would be able to apply my first question, i.e., AA's purpose, to the article and discover the fallaciousness of Brown's argument.

I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding whether AA has benefited you or your's personally, even though it was court-ordered and court monitored consent degrees that opened the door for you to work in our field of employment. To argue that you were not benefited is either disingenuous, or denial; neither of which I can change.

BTW, Although Brown is of African descent, she is far from being the brilliant legal scholar that you hold her to be. I'd suggest you write commentary of her decisions, or even some of the dissents in the cases she wrote for the majority. Even conservative legal scholars, although sharing her conclusions, have questioned her legal reasoning, calling them, "Results oriented arguments." In other words, Brown has a penchant for deciding cases, not based on the law and its precedents; but rather, based on how she would like the law to read.
I don't have to go any further, because I'm both a resident of the State of California, and I voted for and supported the Anti-Affirmative Action ruling proposition 209!

It is counterproductive and truly a waste of my valuable time to hold a conversation with pro Affirmative Action advocates. Now if you choose to hold a conversation with yourself, Kevin41, Popcorn, Marty, James Chester, etc., etc., that is your choice.

I can think of nothing but admiration for Justice Janice Rogers Brown, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice,
Republican Party...

.......and condemnation for many who hold elected office where I reside as it pertains to the Democratic Party,
etc., etc.

....and again, I choose my own heroes, and choose to support causes worthy of my support. Affirmative Action is submerged and not seen as being one of the causes worthy of honorable mention in any regard!

Contrary to your very erroneous conclusion AA did not open the door for me in any regard, be it employment or otherwise!

....and again I only give credit where it is due!


.....again, I only give praise where it is due. The benevolence of a minute few private individuals, the Caucasian community, the unsung heroes from within the Black community enabled me to get off the streets, find family members, etc., etc., .......

....and not my employment relationship with the the City of Los Angeles. I will say that Caucasian elected representatives know of the Lofton story, and have given me an opportunity as a means of damage control, to enable me to move forward......,

......considering the reality of sleaze, game playing, disrespect, lawlessness, treason, etc., that exists with our own misfit Black elected leadership, and/or those who praise them.


...again Affirmative Action has yet to benefit me or anyone else in my circle. Again, I only give credit where it is due, to which AA is not in anyway a part of my success story!

Furthermore considering the reality of the sheer numbers of innocent Black men and women who are presently behind bars, or who have served their time for criminal acts not committed, or those behind bars who have committed crimes as a last resort to provide the necessities of life for themselves and/or their siblings, because the Black community creates few if any gainful employment opportunity for its own community residents......

.........Affirmative Action has yet to benefit the masses who are also Black like me.

Perhaps Kevin41, Kweli4Real, James Chester, Marty, Popcorn, etc., etc., should pose the merits of Affirmative Action to this segment of the Black community, which is a major segment of our community.

It is certain, within a "New York Minute", with regard to any gain from AA benefits, their responses would be identical, or very similar to my response as it concerns the merits of any real benefit or gain of AA in their lives.


*************************

The Hilltop - Campus
Issue: 4/4/03

White Women Benefit Most, Widely Absent
By David Johns

"What do you say to allegations that white women are the biggest recipients of affirmative action programs," a reporter asked Gratz following the race cases before the Supreme Court.

The sentiments expressed in this case presented the statistical information that supported the reporter's views as well as the questions surrounding the position of the two plaintiffs in the cases against the University of Michigan.

While statistically the most benefited from affirmative action programs white women were underrepresented during the courts proceedings Apr. 1.

"I support the law schools case. I'm in support of affirmative action," said Ellen Walker a Caucasian law student at the University of Michigan.

Walker, 32, is in her third year said diversity makes a visible difference at her school.

"As of now the student body is diverse. People come to the law school with difference interests, I'm afforded the opportunity to learn more about other areas and the perspectives of the people from those places."

Many of the white women who participated in the rally considered affirmative action as more of a race issue than a gender issue.

"I have benefited from affirmative action. I haven't benefited in admissions, to my knowledge, but I haven't thought it through," Walker said.

The gender issue, with respect to affirmative action practices was also presented in the courtroom. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presented the courts previous support of using gender as a criterion in attempting to integrate women into higher education.

"I probably have [benefited], it affects everyone, I don't know why more [white] women aren't here but it's close to finals. It would have been better if more came," Walker said.

Megan Barber an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Michigan thought it was important that she show her support of affirmative action.

"Someone talked to me about the protest weeks ago and let me know what was going on. I wanted to do my part," Barber said. "Many of the people at my school are neutral on the issue. I'm for affirmative action."

While many supporters of affirmative action were quick to quote statistics of the notion that white women are the biggest recipients of affirmative action benefits, the numbers were not reflected in those present at the rally.

Erin Anderson-Ruddon, 18-year-old freshman at the University of Michigan experienced the isolation of being a minority.

"I feel alienated by the sea of black faces who [can] make a connection to the current case, and the former case, Brown v. Board," Anderson-Ruddon said.

Ruddon said that she felt alienated by signs that equated the issue of affirmative action so strongly to race.

"I don't think most [white] women realize it effects them so much. Some of it has benefited me," Anderson-Ruddon expressed as she recounted her experience with taking the ACT, a standardized exam substituted for the SAT in some regions.

"The [exam] was balanced for men because they don't do as well as women on the English portion, but balance for women because they don't do as well on the math portion," she said using an example of how non-blacks may have benefited.

Both, Barber and Anderson-Ruddon, agreed that there is a stronger association of affirmative action with race more so than gender, while each noticed the importance of understanding the broader, social, affects of affirmative action programs that benefited the whole of society.

"I think there should be more of an emphasis of unity and diversity than on race," Anderson-Ruddon said. "I heard people chanting 'black power' I don't think this is about one group having 'power' over another. It's against the point.

It doesn't help, it alienates people."


***********************

Since I have made it plain that I supported and voted for Proposition 209, it would be both counter-productive and a waste of my valuable time to hold any discussion as to the merits of Affirmative Action...

This being stated, as it relates to any input or discussion by Michael Lofton, on the merits of AA, with any Kwel4Real, Kevin41, Popcorn, Marty, etc., etc.,

......this is the end of this conversation!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
I don't have to go any further, because I'm both a resident of the State of California, and I voted for and supported the Anti-Affirmative Action ruling proposition 209!

It is counterproductive and truly a waste of my valuable time to hold a conversation with pro Affirmative Action advocates. Now if you choose to hold a conversation with yourself, Kevin41, Popcorn, etc., that is your choice.

I can think of nothing but admiration for Justice Janice Rogers Brown, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, etc., etc.

....and again, I choose my own heroes, and choose to support causes worthy of my support. Affirmative Action is submerged and not seen as being one of the causes worthy of honorable mention in any regard!

Contrary to your very erroneous conclusion AA did not open the door for me in any regard, be it employment or otherwise!

....and again I only give credit where it is due!


Since I have made it plain that I supported and voted for Proposition 209, it would be both counter-productive and a waste of my valuable time to hold any discussion as to the merits of Affirmative Action...

This being stated, as it relates to any input or discussion by Michael Lofton, on the merits of AA, with any Kwel4Real, Kevin41, Popcorn, Marty, etc., etc.,

......this is the end of this conversation!


lol bs sck bs lol
Kweli,

This is from someone whose job was CREATED by AA in the City of LA...because blacks were systematically locked out of hiring......if you go to their records retention section, you will see lilly white pictures of all the departments......and even now they try to keep top management lilly...but it ain't happening...but this guy is railing against the very thing that helped get him off of the street.....so I do not understand the logic in being against AA after benefitting from it...because there is none..........
Wow- that was so damn weak Michael. lol

MBM- I'm not sure how your original post supports Affirmative action as much as decries cronyism. There is nothing in that article that says, "hey, here are some reasons that affirmative action is important and why we should continue programs that direct more opportunities to Americans of African descent." I think that Kevin can make a much better argument for AA than Mr. Jackson does in that article.

At least the article by Wise (thanks Popcorn) blows up the argument by anti-affirmative action people that "affirmative action" blacks are taking spots from more qualified people.

The numbers Nate puts up about the people who were admitted with scores and grades lower than Jenny Gratz are very telling.

As a "bootlicking", "self-loathing azz," "house negro," "blkCON" who generally supports affirmative action, the only issue I have with the system as it had been practiced is that I believe that its original purpose to benefit disadvantaged blacks (and no- I do not consider that redundant, because I don't believe we are all disadvantaged just because we're black) got lost along the way and as Lofton put it, "benefitted Caucasian women and Middle class blacks." (Please lord don't strike me down for agreeing with Lofton on that tiny little point.)

It seemed that rather than finding ways to increase the pool of black students who would be eligible for college, it seemed that schools would be fighting over the same students to help fill up their (forgive me for the term) quota- which often meant that the middle class blacks were already going to school suddenly were finding that they now had much better choices at better schools. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but I have not seen the same effort to get the remaining students to step up the game and fill the enrollment spots that might have been filled by the "movin on up" crowd."

To me the big issue is that students in the lower economic end of the scale (of all races) are too often stuck in schools where the atmosphere for learning is anti-achievement. THAT is what I think needs to be combatted. You can have all the affirmative action programs you could ever want, but if kids in the hood are not buying into "achievement," black enrollment in colleges isn't going to continue to grow. You can blame the shitty schools only until one kid from one of those schools gets into college. Then we know it is possible for anyone who really wants to.

There has to be a way to instill the "American Dream" mentality to many of the black kids stuck in the lower economic cycle. We spend so much time talking about how racist this and racist that is going to hold you down, that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe not to people like the strong brothers and sisters in this forum- I'm sure that everyone in here is and would still be successful in spite of what you consider the pervasive and all reaching racism that many profess in AA.org.

But I ask you- how is it that so many of you have made it to where you are today with the white man constantly trying to hold you back? How is it that you haven't been gunned down in the streets by racist cops or drug dealers. Are you the product of affirmative action or are you the product of your own actions? (I assume that in most cases it is a combination of both with much heavier weight given to the latter.)

I do think that Colleges and Universities especially have a responsibility to seek out and find ways to bring in more talented students from many backgrounds- especially African Americans-, and it seemd to me that the University of Michigan was doing it right by using a broad range of criteria that were within the school's goal of generating a more broadly diverse student body.

But, if there goal is to attract more talented black students we have to also make it a goal to increase the pool of talented black students. Why are we making excuses that many of us are stuck in those shitty schools? (Not a bad argument for school choice vouchers- but that can be another thread.)Are we also making our kids do their homework before the hit the Playstation 2? Are we teaching our kids to respect their teachers as they should their parents? Are we teaching them to listen and participate and explore possibiilities?

While I would say that a majority of us are, there is a whole segment (and too big of one) that is not- We need to find a way to make that OUR cultural norm? I know most of you hate the analogy, but we need to get an immigrant mentality. Even the blackest brothers and sisters who immigrate from Africa come here and achieve. You can make the argument that they come from the higher echelon of African society with expectations to achieve, but so what. They are black and they are the most successful of all immigrants. (Perhaps we should mirror the expectations.)

(By the way- please excuse my rambling- I only make so much time to contribute to this board, I've been meaning to chime in on this topic for a while, and this discussion was the one for me. By the way, MBM- the second article you posted doesn't support AA either. But it makes the case for having qualified people put in the right places.)
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:

MBM- I'm not sure how your original post supports Affirmative action as much as decries cronyism.


It only supports AA to the degree that it reveals the hypocrisy of those who have typically been opposed to it - like GWB. It shows how, without regard to what you call it, Bush utilizes his own brand of AA in the administration of his policies etc.

quote:
. . . the only issue I have with the system as it had been practiced is that I believe that its original purpose to benefit disadvantaged blacks (and no- I do not consider that redundant, because I don't believe we are all disadvantaged just because we're black) got lost along the way and as Lofton put it, "benefitted Caucasian women and Middle class blacks."


I'm not sure it was explicitly designed for "disadvantraged blacks" as much as it was designed to overcome the racism and discrimination that exists in education and hiring. Only 25% of Americans graduate from college, so by definition, the program was not designed for everyone. Beyond that, even in hiring, and even when quotas were in use, the law never prescribed companies to hire unqualified applicants - despite the hype. That fact weeded out lots of folks as well. AA was never meant to necessarily help everyone, just those who were in a position to succeed but who were running up against glass walls, etc. retarding their progress.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I'm not sure it was explicitly designed for "disadvantraged blacks" as much as it was designed to overcome the racism and discrimination that exists in education and hiring. Only 25% of Americans graduate from college, so by definition, the program was not designed for everyone. Beyond that, even in hiring, and even when quotas were in use, the law never prescribed companies to hire unqualified applicants - despite the hype. That fact weeded out lots of folks as well. AA was never meant to necessarily help everyone, just those who were in a position to succeed but who were running up against glass walls, etc. retarding their progress.


Right- "to overcome racism and discrimination that exists in education and hiring." And yet before "affirmative action" we had attorney's like my grandfather and college professors like my grandmother and teachers like my parents I grew up with and people in all kinds of trades, and professions. My dentist was black. My dog's veterinarian was black. My grandfather's accountant was black.

While I may have benefitted from affirmative action by increasing the number of schools who wanted me with my GPA and high test scores, I would have gone to the school of my choice anyway by the time I went to college. (I might have even been one of those legacy students had I chosen to go to Creighton, but I could have gotten in anyway.) I don't think that by 1982 when I was heading to college, that the original creators of affirmative action were thinking of me when they started the program. Did I benefit from it? Probably. Did my university benefit more by filling one of the government encouraged 'AA spots.' Probably.

I also think affirmative action as it was originally intended will continue to benefit students whether it is repealed or not, because I do not believe that racism in school admissions is as anything like it was when we fought for it initially. I think that kids who get the grades and the test scores get into school.

And besides- it is just to easy to take a school to task (and to court) if a highly qualified student is not admitted. I just don't think that it is the time to repeal AA just yet. Do I believe there will be a time? Yes. I personally believe that we are only one or two generations from that.

(Call me optimistic.)
quote:
...the only issue I have with the system as it had been practiced is that I believe that its original purpose to benefit disadvantaged blacks...
by Marty

Well, Marty...Nope, the original purpose of AA [in education and the labor market] was to "benefit" all Black folk because we were/are all disadvantaged because of generations of dejure and defacto discrimination. AA only became about "benefiting disadvantaged Blacks" when politicians lost the courage of their convictions and began to settle/soften programs to be more "aceptable" to the angry white men of the reagan era.

Regarding your "I don't believe we are all disadvantaged just because we are Black" statement...Let me ask you. Where do you think you would be today, economically and/or in life, had your parents/grandparents/great-grandparents, had equal opportunities regarding employment, housing choices, and/or access to capital/financing? From what you've written, your family has done well, but do you think someone, somewhere in your familial line may have been able to accumulate more wealth [maybe in the form of a house/land purchased in the 1920's/maybe the purchase of property in a community where prices have appreciated at a greater rate than the "black or integrated part of town] that could have been pass you down? This is the disadvantage that all Black folk suffer.

But I ask you- how is it that so many of you have made it to where you are today with the white man constantly trying to hold you back? How is it that you haven't been gunned down in the streets by racist cops or drug dealers. Are you the product of affirmative action or are you the product of your own actions? (I assume that in most cases it is a combination of both with much heavier weight given to the latter.)

I'd hazard to guess that those of us [over the age of 30] that are honest would answer, "We have 'made it' despite 'the white man's' handling us back." Your parents and grands, made it despite the white man. And, we (they)all lament where we would be had our playing field not have been up-hill, but rather merely level.

Are we the product of AA or our own actions ...? This question is a lot like asking, "Are we the product of our environment or are we blessed with tools." Both questions are fallacious; and both questions are irrelevant. In both cases, we are both.

As to AA, yes, you are exactly the type of student that was initially contemplated in the framing of AA programs.

But understand, AA gave some of us an opportunity that we might not have been given. Others, may not have needed the opportunity, scholastically, but benefitted because the school's committment prevented their earned spot from going to a "legacy" or a white student whose mother's, boss's, niece, is the director of admission. Still others, [presumably] did not need AA at all, but now decry being painted with the AA brush upon admission. For those of us in this final group, our being "stigmatized" with the AA label, is a small price to pay, if it benefits the other two groups.

I know most of you hate the analogy, but we need to get an immigrant mentality. Even the blackest brothers and sisters who immigrate from Africa come here and achieve. You can make the argument that they come from the higher echelon of African society with expectations to achieve, but so what. They are black and they are the most successful of all immigrants. (Perhaps we should mirror the expectations.)

I'll just say that you are making a common comparisonal error. One which Lofton, a CF, and many other who argue, "why can't we be like other ethnic groups" ... You are taking deviant members of a population and making them representative of their entire group. I'd argue that the percentage of native born Black folk who are excelling, relative their entire population, is comparable to that of the immigrant class who are excelling, again relative to their entire class.
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:

And yet before "affirmative action" we had attorney's like my grandfather and college professors like my grandmother and teachers like my parents I grew up with and people in all kinds of trades, and professions. My dentist was black. My dog's veterinarian was black. My grandfather's accountant was black.


Cool - but what does that have to do with AA? Were they working in white universities/copmpanies etc.? My parents grew up in Durham, NC and Orangeburg, SC - same deal - LOTS of black professionals. AA wasn't designed for them though. It was for those who attemtped to stretch beyond the confines of their black world into white colleges and universities, businesses, etc.

quote:
While I may have benefitted from affirmative action by increasing the number of schools who wanted me with my GPA and high test scores, I would have gone to the school of my choice anyway by the time I went to college.


Maybe you would have maybe not. My grandfather went to Michigan and Columbia for advanced degrees - but he was one of only a handful. Without AA there might not have been the structural incentive/pressure to admit more than one or two black students a year. Why should they - there were plenty of alums' kids to accommodate, right?

quote:
I don't think that by 1982 when I was heading to college, that the original creators of affirmative action were thinking of me when they started the program.


We all come to thte table with a different set of skills and abilities. Some of our abilities are compounded by generations of achievement before us. Others are coming with new skills acquired for the first time. Racism and discrimination affects each of these groups. Just because someone has achieved doesn't mean that there is no discrimination. It means that that achievement occurred DESPITE the racism that confronts them. People often ask about rich, accomplished blacks like Oprah or John Johnson or whomever as examples why AA is no longer needed. On the other hand I wonder what they would have achieved if they had not had to swim upstream against the tide of racism and discrimination that still exists in America.

quote:
I think that kids who get the grades and the test scores get into school.


But this is part of the problem. Access to quality schools (public, private, or otherwise) in America is anything but equal. Just like the folks who were disproportionately hurt by Katrina were black, poor and black folks have disproportionately worse access to quality education (and healthcare and food etc.). There is no standardized education from which to base a standardized test!
Hey Michael, READ A BOOK! 1865? Jim Crow segregation was legal until 40 years ago. History must not be a required subject for electricians to take when succeeding in that profession.

and btw...FUCK CALIFORNIA!! It's an overrated state, that elected an immigrant governor who's AGAINST immigration. If you're against immigration, don't stop at Mexico, how about stop immigrants from coming from Austria.
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
Hey Michael, READ A BOOK! 1865? Jim Crow segregation was legal until 40 years ago. History must not be a required subject for electricians to take when succeeding in that profession.

and btw...FUCK CALIFORNIA!! It's an overrated state, that elected an immigrant governor who's AGAINST immigration. If you're against immigration, don't stop at Mexico, how about stop immigrants from coming from Austria.


(1)....more likely you need to take your own advice because, be it 1865, or 1965, the same old tired "race card" playing nonsense will not move anyone who has anything worthwhile, or who has any intelligence past square one.

Furthermore since 1965, the Democratic Party, specifically through our own no good Black elected leadership has kept the Black community in poverty.

....Slim chance that that Republican Party can be blamed because the Republican Party has been very distant from setting policy within the Black community, especially as it applies to local residents who are Black, and who live within the various inner-city communities throughout the United States of America.



California

This is especially the case when our own elected leaders are in fact a disgrace and it is not just me saying so!


....to which it has been published numerous times where California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a naturalized U.S. citizen.....

......and in comparison it has yet to be published anywhere in the Black community or otherwise, if, when, and/or where no good illegal immigrant former Congressman, now California State Assemblyman Merv Dymally became a naturalized U.S. citizen!

(2) California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes illegal immigration and not legal immigration.

...and as far as siding with you, or anyone else of similar expression, on the very erroneous notion that California is F-up, you are all alone on this one.

California is one of the most economically prosperous states in the United States of America, and surpasses the economic prowness of many prospering nations around the world.

....Although the State of California is not the land of opportunity for "welfare recipients" and may or may not be the land of opportunity for "illegal immigrants", for those individuals:

A. Who are citizens, legal immigrants, honest, hard working, and make sacrifices to earn a lawful living.

B. Own a business, be it manufacturing, a service oriented business or otherwise, the potential for growth is substantial.

C. Own Real Property.

California can be "Heaven on Earth".

Furthermore, numerous individuals from around the world will take all kinds of chances to migrate to the United States, California being the preference over many other States.

Year around good weather conditions, an abundance of natural resources, recreational activities, and/or entertainment endeavors, that will satisfy most anyone's desire, etc., etc., make California the place to be.


...now for:

D. Those who can comprehend what they read.

E. Individuals who are ambitious, and competent at what they can do.

F. Individuals who are ethical and law abiding.

G. Individuals who acquire legal immigration and/or legal citizenship status.

H. Those who are afforded competent representation.

....California offers an abundance of opportunity
!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Marty:

As a "bootlicking", "self-loathing azz," "house negro," "blkCON"...



No way, Marty. Despite the name-calling, you're not any of these things. Your posts have always been sincere, honest, and factual with supporting references. And you present you arguments very well. AA.org would be pretty boring if everyone agreed. Thank goodness for the diversity of opinion. I think your input is vital.
.
.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
quote:
(1) Unlike Kevin41, Kweli4Real, Marty, Huey, etc., etc., who are not residents of the State of California.....



there he goes again....I told him I could not vote in LA City..but in LA County...but now i'm not a resident of CA....man something is really wrong with you...next i'll be an illegal like Dymally..... laugh


Kevin, can you explain to me who in the hell is Dymally? He keeps tap-dancing (pun intended) about this guy all the time. I don't know who he is, or if he exists at all. At this time of day, I could care less if the man is Santa Claus. That Dymally guy is irrelevant to this thread. And if Michael actually read a book in his life, he would know that black folks were predominantly Republican until 1964.
Funny how a Huey, Kevin41, Marty, Kweli4Real, Popcorn, etc., etc., would concentrate on condemning me for:

A. Showing contempt for our own disgraceful elected Black leadership.

B. Showing contempt for AA which has yet to benefit me or anyone else in my circle.

C. claiming that I'm some "Uncle Tom".....

.........another erroneous contention that neither of these individuals can prove.

D. Showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with their viewpoint, however erroneous the viewpoint......

.....while it is a known fact that Black people are in fact their own worst enemies.

Just yesterday, a Black woman who I have known for several years called me to ask if I would show up as a character witness for her. She is scheduled to appear in court today for a trial for allegedly assaulting a Black woman three times her physical size, and twice as heavy. She weighs about 115 pounds, her Black accuser weighs over 250 lbs.

The games that Black people play on each other, to which police officers, judges, public defenders, will not hesitate to railroad, incarcerate, and/or ruin the lives of numerous innocent Black people here in Los Angeles County, are indeed a reality.

I stated that I can't make it to your trial, because I haven't had enough advance notice to inform or make the arrangement to take the day off with my employer. All I could express to her is, "If you are truly innocent, never plea bargain". She stated that she didn't do it, and that she has been in jail for sixty days. She also stated that she is afraid of losing her children, in that if she maintains her innocence, as opposed to plea bargaining, she will be branded as being a criminal, held for additional time behind bars, which could result in the loss of her children to the system.

A plea bargaining deal means that she would be placed on probation, to which she would be free to be with her siblings. She also stated that her bail was $500,000 and this has been reduced to $250,000. Now here is a Black woman who does not run the streets, who would not harm anyone unless forced to defend her own physical well being, who now faces criminal indictment because of the nonsense, the blatant disregard for the truth, the disrespect for being truthful, that surely exists in the Black community. Mind you numerous individuals face criminal prosecution because of the sleaze of other Black people, and not "Racist Caucasians".

Should a resident, such as this lady, elect to petition a Merv Dymally, a Kerosene Waters, a Brentwood Burke, etc., etc., ...for help to keep from being railroaded by sleazy Black people, overzealous prosecuting attorneys, rogue police officers, "Hang innocent Black People High" Judges.....including "Hang innocent Black People High" Judges who are also Black like her......

........typically a no good Merv Dymally, a Kerosene Waters, a "Brentwood" Burke, a Diane Watson, the NAACP play games, ignore you, join sides with the perpetrators, etc., etc., etc.

Now the information as expressed above truly exists, and this reality is very much a part of the reality of life in the typical Black community, as opposed to:

E. It's all the fault of racist Caucasians.

F. Black people need Affirmative Action to succeed.

G. Should you show contempt for other Black people who are scandalous who are contributing to the destruction of the innocent then you must be an "Uncle Tom", and your views of contempt are "irrelevent to this thread", etc.

H. It must be the wrongdoing attributed to the President George Bush, or the Bush Administration.

I. Perhaps Ward Connerly, Larry Elder, Condoleeza Rice are responsible for these attrocities.

J. Etc., etc.

.......But many of the individuals who actually live in the Black community, who are being railroaded, or who face this music, know that our own pseudo elected Black leadership, the sleaze of disgraceful Black people, and/or the so-called Black middleclass who praise them,

........and not racist Caucasians, President George Bush, the Bush Administration, Ward Connerly, Larry Elder, Condoleeza Rice,

......are in fact, contributing to the destruction of the Black community.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Kevin, can you explain to me who in the hell is Dymally? He keeps tap-dancing (pun intended) about this guy all the time. I don't know who he is, or if he exists at all.


Dymally is a Caribbean-born California Representative to the House, that Lofton seems to have fixated on. He has called Dymally low-down, sleazy, corrupt and all that. No one took issue with this because frankly all of this would be opinion. However, I guess because everyone let all the other characterizations go unchallenged,
about a year ago, maybe less, Lofton started calling Dymally an illegal immigrant. And, folks chjallenged him and started asking for proof: Of course he couldn't.

See my problem with Lofton is not that we have different views of the world. But that he thinks that he can state opinion as fact, and mis-state a fact without having to prove up the point.
quote:
See my problem with Lofton is not that we have different views of the world. But that he thinks that he can state opinion as fact, and mis-state a fact without having to prove up the point.




**Same here....I could give a fuck less who he is or what he thinks of black people or what his views are.....who cares?.....but to say dumb schit and think it is going to pass as fact is insulting at best.....
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Kevin, can you explain to me who in the hell is Dymally? He keeps tap-dancing (pun intended) about this guy all the time. I don't know who he is, or if he exists at all.


Dymally is a Caribbean-born California Representative to the House, that Lofton seems to have fixated on. He has called Dymally low-down, sleazy, corrupt and all that. No one took issue with this because frankly all of this would be opinion. However, I guess because everyone let all the other characterizations go unchallenged,
about a year ago, maybe less, Lofton started calling Dymally an illegal immigrant. And, folks chjallenged him and started asking for proof: Of course he couldn't.

See my problem with Lofton is not that we have different views of the world. But that he thinks that he can state opinion as fact, and mis-state a fact without having to prove up the point.


***********************************

Ex-Lynwood Mayor Goes on Trial

He is accused of steering millions of dollars' worth of contracts to a consulting company he secretly owned.

By David Rosenzweig, Times Staff Writer

September 20, 2005

Carson, Compton, South Gate, and now Lynwood.

In the latest public corruption case in southeastern Los Angeles County, former Lynwood Mayor Paul Richards is scheduled to go on trial today on charges of steering millions of dollars worth of no-bid contracts to a consulting company he secretly owned.

The allegations against Richards, a lawyer who served on the Lynwood City Council for 17 years until his ouster in a recall election, bear a striking resemblance to those leveled against former South Gate Mayor Albert Robles, who was convicted in July of soliciting more than $1.8 million in bribes from bidders on municipal contracts.

In Carson, a wide-ranging federal corruption probe led to the convictions of two former mayors, two City Council members and six other persons involved in a series of bribery schemes that cost the city more than $12 million.

And in Compton, an investigation by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office resulted in the convictions last year of former Mayor Omar Bradley and two other city officials on charges of misappropriating public funds. Why these communities? There are no easy answers. But Robert M. Stern, president of the Center for Government Studies, a non-partisan research organization in Los Angeles, sees some common threads.

These are small, working-class cities that are not well covered by the news media, allowing officeholders to think they can engage in corruption "without coming under anyone's radar," he said.

All four communities have undergone dramatic population shifts and the collapse of high-paying blue-collar jobs, as manufacturing shut down. The changes brought to power new and relatively inexperienced politicians, some of whom might have found it difficult to resist the temptation to enrich themselves, Stern added.

Stern, who served for nine years as general counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, also credits the district attorney's office and the U.S. attorney's office with becoming more aggressive in their pursuit of corrupt politicians.

One of the county's poorest cities, Lynwood operated with a $13-million annual budget while Richards held office.

At the same time, his city income topped $100,000 a year, making him one of the state's highest paid part-time politicians.

His recall two years ago followed a series of articles in the Los Angeles Times that disclosed his questionable business dealings.

A federal grand jury subsequently indicted him on more than 30 criminal counts, including conspiracy to commit extortion, fraud, money laundering and depriving the public of honest services. Richards, 49, has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges.

Facing trial with him are his sister, Paula Cameo Harris, 56, of Altadena, who served as president of Allied Government Services, the front company Richards allegedly set up to do business with the city; and Bevan A. Thomas, 56, of Anaheim, a longtime friend and business associate who is accused of bribing Richards in return for city contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

In 1999, Richards and the City Council majority he controlled awarded a contract to remove litter, weeds and other public eyesores to a company that Thomas set up in his wife's name.

At Richards' insistence, prosecutors allege, Thomas turned over responsibility for performing the cleanup to Allied, taking a $1,000-a-week "cut" for himself for serving as a conduit to the city.

Allied, which had no office, equipment or capital, paid Richards' gardener and other subcontractors $800 to $1,200 a week to perform the actual cleanup services.

Thomas, meanwhile, billed the city $4,995 a week under his contract. Over the next two years, the indictment said, he collected $623,000 from the city, paying $379,000 of that to Allied.

From Allied's share of the proceeds, the indictment said, Richards paid $1,000 to $1,500 a week as salaries to his sister and to a nephew, Julio Naulls, who worked in Richards' political campaigns. Naulls is listed as an "unindicted co-schemer" in the case.

The firm also paid $4,000 for improvements to a house Richards owned in Cerritos, made unreported campaign contributions to Richards' political allies in Lynwood and neighboring Compton and picked up a tab for some of his campaign printing costs.

As the nuisance abatement contract was about to expire in late 2001, Richards arranged for Thomas to receive a 10-year extension as well as an additional $200,000 to $300,000 to serve as the city's consultant on trash collection, according to the indictment.

Richards cast the deciding council vote in favor of the contract, which was scrapped after his recall.

While that deal was being hatched, the indictment said, Richards required the city's trolley operator, Commuter Bus Lines, to hire Allied as a $7,500-a-month consultant in exchange for a five-year contract renewal.

The trolley service balked, demanding a fee increase to cover Allied's fees. The City Council granted the fee hike, which wound up costing the taxpayers $62,500 "for little or no work of any value," according to the indictment.

In a third contract, Richards allegedly orchestrated a deal in which the city hired Allied as its exclusive representative in the selection of a company to erect billboards along the Century Freeway.

Allied was to receive 20% of all fees the city collected.

Behind the scenes, the indictment said, Richards already was in the process of negotiating a deal with Regency Outdoor Advertising.

Regency was ultimately awarded the coveted no-bid contract, agreeing to pay the city $4.8 million, of which $960,000 would have gone to Allied.

The deal with Regency was scuttled, however, after Richards lost control of his council majority in elections in late 2001.

Prosecutors plan to call more than 40 witnesses over four weeks, according to a trial memorandum submitted to U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner, who is presiding over the trial.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

********************

Wrong again, Merv Dymally, Paul Richards, like Walter Tucker, like Omar Bradley, like Brentwood Burke, like Kerosene Waters, like are all unfit for public office, yet the so-called unintelligent voters within the Black community keep them up there.

......But Oh, well the nature of the Black community in that misfits are praised, and individuals worthy of praise are condemned, etc., etc., etc.

....but since the Black community continues to promote sleaze, criminals, misfits, the incompetent, illegal immigrants to lead the Black community...

....Demographic shifts will shortly end this trend!
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Kevin, can you explain to me who in the hell is Dymally? He keeps tap-dancing (pun intended) about this guy all the time. I don't know who he is, or if he exists at all.


Dymally is a Caribbean-born California Representative to the House, that Lofton seems to have fixated on. He has called Dymally low-down, sleazy, corrupt and all that. No one took issue with this because frankly all of this would be opinion. However, I guess because everyone let all the other characterizations go unchallenged,
about a year ago, maybe less, Lofton started calling Dymally an illegal immigrant. And, folks chjallenged him and started asking for proof: Of course he couldn't.

See my problem with Lofton is not that we have different views of the world. But that he thinks that he can state opinion as fact, and mis-state a fact without having to prove up the point.


So he has a problem with Dymally because he was born in the Caribbean and not in the States. He questions the citizenship of a Caribbean black man, but doesn't questions Schwarzenegger's. nono td6
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
quote:
Kevin, can you explain to me who in the hell is Dymally? He keeps tap-dancing (pun intended) about this guy all the time. I don't know who he is, or if he exists at all.


Dymally is a Caribbean-born California Representative to the House, that Lofton seems to have fixated on. He has called Dymally low-down, sleazy, corrupt and all that. No one took issue with this because frankly all of this would be opinion. However, I guess because everyone let all the other characterizations go unchallenged,
about a year ago, maybe less, Lofton started calling Dymally an illegal immigrant. And, folks chjallenged him and started asking for proof: Of course he couldn't.

See my problem with Lofton is not that we have different views of the world. But that he thinks that he can state opinion as fact, and mis-state a fact without having to prove up the point.


So he has a problem with Dymally because he was born in the Caribbean and not in the States. He questions the citizenship of a Caribbean black man, but doesn't questions Schwarzenegger's. nono td6


There is a difference:

1. Unlike California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it has yet to be published anywhere if, when, and/or where Merv Dymally became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

2. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger serves the people of the State of California.

"52ND DISTRICT
ALEXANDRA
GALLARDO-ROOKER

The presumed front-runner in the race for this Compton-area seat was first elected to the state Assembly some 40 years ago. Mervyn Dymally, a onetime pioneer of black politics in California, is not just a former assemblyman, but also a former lieutenant governor of the state and a former U.S. congressman. Now, at 75, he's seeking office yet again.

Not that Dymally hasn't kept busy during his decade in retirement. La-mentably, he's sold himself again and again to some of the most morally repugnant entities on the planet. He's been the registered lobbyist for two nations under attack for permitting the practice of slavery: Sudan and Mauritania. He's also lobbied for the People's Mujahedeen, the Iraqi-funded underground in Iran. Closer to home, he's signed an amicus brief for Lyndon LaRouche against the Democratic National Committee, and a petition urging Bill Clinton to hire LaRouche as an economic adviser. Closer still, he was a front man for the Cato School of Reason, a chain of charter schools that collapsed in scandal after the Weekly disclosed in 1998 that it was collecting public-education funds for students who were actually paying to attend private schools.

Dymally could win this election because black voters are loyal and because Dymally remains active and respected in the community. More amazing still, the Democratic Party seems unconcerned that Dymally might win. Fortunately, there's a clear alternative. Alexandra "Alex" Gallardo-Rooker is a 23-year activist in (and now vice president of) Communications Workers of America Local 9400. In that capacity, she helped coordinate the remarkable effort of harbor truckers to win recognition from the steamship companies, and has run a number of successful organizing drives and political campaigns. She'd bring to the Legislature a keen sensitivity to the needs of California workers. We shudder to think what Merv Dymally would bring." LA Weekly, March 1-7, 2002.

3. No good Merv Dymally serves foreign interests at the expense of the residents of South Central Los Angeles, Compton, etc., etc.
Last edited {1}
quote:
So he has a problem with Dymally because he was born in the Caribbean and not in the States. He questions the citizenship of a Caribbean black man, but doesn't questions Schwarzenegger's.


There is a difference:

1. Unlike California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it has yet to be published anywhere if, when, and/or where Merv Dymally became a naturalized U.S. citizen.


**Ahh...so you will ASSUME THAT DYMALLY IS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT? Why don't you learn to follow through on your statements instead of saying dumb schit and trying to make it true....if you were not so damn lazy and self-loathing, you would research the INS to see if he was not naturalized.....but it is stupid to think a black man will be allowed to serve in Congress without the qualifications in a country that does not want black men to be schit, let alone a Congressman......what would even make you have such idiotic thoughts?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Huey:

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

quote:
Kevin, can you explain to me who in the hell is Dymally? He keeps tap-dancing (pun intended) about this guy all the time. I don't know who he is, or if he exists at all.


Dymally is a Caribbean-born California Representative to the House, that Lofton seems to have fixated on. He has called Dymally low-down, sleazy, corrupt and all that. No one took issue with this because frankly all of this would be opinion. However, I guess because everyone let all the other characterizations go unchallenged,
about a year ago, maybe less, Lofton started calling Dymally an illegal immigrant. And, folks chjallenged him and started asking for proof: Of course he couldn't.

See my problem with Lofton is not that we have different views of the world. But that he thinks that he can state opinion as fact, and mis-state a fact without having to prove up the point.


So he has a problem with Dymally because he was born in the Caribbean and not in the States. He questions the citizenship of a Caribbean black man, but doesn't questions Schwarzenegger's.


There is a difference:

1. Unlike California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it has yet to be published anywhere if, when, and/or where Merv Dymally became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

2. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger serves the people of the State of California.


But the most important difference is simply that Arnold "Da Gropenator" Schwarzenegger is white. And everyone knows that white folk can't be self-serving ... Oh wait, there was that small conflict of interest thing, something about serving as a consultant to a business while sitting as governor ... or corrupt ... Oh wait, wasn't he connected to Cheney's secret Energy Taskforce that shortly after it made recommendations on leaving the energy market to police itself, it did just that by creating false power shortage and overcharging California consumers millions, while facing rolling blackouts ..., or just an a$$hole ... well, we all know about his penchant for groping pretty young things.

But Hell ... He is white. That's good enough for me. bang td6 bs
"**Ahh...so you will ASSUME THAT DYMALLY IS AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT? Why don't you learn to follow through on your statements instead of saying dumb schit and trying to make it true....if you were not so damn lazy and self-loathing, you would research the INS to see if he was not naturalized.....but it is stupid to think a black man will be allowed to serve in Congress without the qualifications in a country that does not want black men to be schit, let alone a Congressman......what would even make you have such idiotic thoughts?" by Kevin41

It is not any voter's duty to prove this. The voters are the boss, the owners, and all elected officials are supposed to be servants. It should be no good illegal immigrant Merv Dymally's duty to publish this, because he is supposed to be the public's servant.

Again there are very distinct differences:

1. Unlike California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it has yet to be published anywhere if, when, and/or where Merv Dymally became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

2. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger serves the people of the State of California.

3. In spite of being independently wealthy in his own right, Governor Arnold Schwarzenner openly admits that he is a servant of the people.

4. The typical elected Black leadership, Merv Dymally being one example take on the disposition that they have been coronated into the position of elected representative, which makes the people the servants, and elected officials the rulers, the masters, despots, etc., etc. The typical Black elected officials actions to disregard and ignore their constituency prove that unlike California Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger....

.....our own elected representatives choose not to be servants of the people!

From the outset, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, makes it known and of public record through various newspapers, and/or other periodicals that he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, to clear up any controversy that may arise now or in the future as to his U.S. citizenship status.

In constrast, it has yet to be published anywhere, at any time during his political career when, or if, Merv Dymally is in fact a naturalized U.S. citizen. It has been published that Merv Dymally is a native of Trinidad, but this is the extent of any news article ever published on the illegal immigrant Merv Dymally. Surely, with all Merv Dymally's resources this would be easy to do. There would be no need or point for me, or anyone else to challenge his citizenship status, if Merv Dymally took it upon himself to come clean with his constituency by laying his cards on the table. Surely, Merv Dymally would not have anything to hide......

.....that is, if in fact he became a naturalized citizen before becoming a California State Assemblyman, a U.S. Congressman, Liuetenant Governor, and now a California State Assemblyman.

It is not the duty of the public to prove this, because again the voters are the masters, and all elected officials are sworn in under oath and mandated by law to be public servants servants.

**************************
"52ND DISTRICT
ALEXANDRA
GALLARDO-ROOKER

The presumed front-runner in the race for this Compton-area seat was first elected to the state Assembly some 40 years ago. Mervyn Dymally, a onetime pioneer of black politics in California, is not just a former assemblyman, but also a former lieutenant governor of the state and a former U.S. congressman. Now, at 75, he's seeking office yet again.

Not that Dymally hasn't kept busy during his decade in retirement. La-mentably, he's sold himself again and again to some of the most morally repugnant entities on the planet. He's been the registered lobbyist for two nations under attack for permitting the practice of slavery: Sudan and Mauritania. He's also lobbied for the People's Mujahedeen, the Iraqi-funded underground in Iran. Closer to home, he's signed an amicus brief for Lyndon LaRouche against the Democratic National Committee, and a petition urging Bill Clinton to hire LaRouche as an economic adviser. Closer still, he was a front man for the Cato School of Reason, a chain of charter schools that collapsed in scandal after the Weekly disclosed in 1998 that it was collecting public-education funds for students who were actually paying to attend private schools.

Dymally could win this election because black voters are loyal and because Dymally remains active and respected in the community. More amazing still, the Democratic Party seems unconcerned that Dymally might win. Fortunately, there's a clear alternative. Alexandra "Alex" Gallardo-Rooker is a 23-year activist in (and now vice president of) Communications Workers of America Local 9400. In that capacity, she helped coordinate the remarkable effort of harbor truckers to win recognition from the steamship companies, and has run a number of successful organizing drives and political campaigns. She'd bring to the Legislature a keen sensitivity to the needs of California workers. We shudder to think what Merv Dymally would bring." by the LA WEEKLY, May 1-7, 2002.


***************************

But Oh well, in the Black community considering the nature of a truly inept elected Black leadership, the typical Black elected officials choose to serve themselves, foreign interests, play games, be deceitful, unethical, un-American, duck questioning, etc., etc., at the expense of their constituency, a constituency to whom they are mandated by law, and sworn in under oath to represent.

Sincerely,

Michael Lofton
Last edited {1}
MBM:

Could you please defend for me the core premise of this article?

How is the selection of POLITICAL APPOINTEES akin to "Affirmative Action" for White folks?

Does this say that the staff of the City of New Orleans and of the State of Mississippi who were ALSO political appointees and who also failed to perform in an effective manner during this tragedy are showing the hand of "Affirmative Action"?

Does it sink in that in your acceptance of this article which attacks "Affirmative Action for White folks" and the INCOMPETENCE that has resulted THAT YOU accept the notion that AA is correlated with INCOMPETENCE?

What happens if someone purchases your "wolf ticket" and attempts to crack down on this type of "AA" just as colleges clamped down on Legacy Admissions?

How does putting forth such a premise does Derrick Z Jackson, loyal member of the Black Quasi-Socialst Progressive Fundementalist Front make the case for Black people and the use of Affirmative Action?

For those of us who "didn't bite" he appears to be making the point that "White folks allow incompetents into important positions with their use of Affirmative Action, they should allow Black folks in as well".

Plesae tell me how you can see this differently?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×