Re: #87853 by cyrena on 7/18 at 5:29 pm

You are absolutely right as to circumstances and events. I am looking at this from a different angle. I am quite aware that some sectors of our economy and public life are ahead of others. What I advocate as a Classical Liberal approach is to visit the problem at its source which is attitude, tradition, selfish self-interest, racial and ethnic pride and prejudice. I consider myself fortunate in that I witnessed a vast improvement in race relations in my lifetime. I have also witnessed vast differences in women’s rights, children’s rights, respect for aged, etc. None of this is enough without a cultural shift to a true liberal culture where racial and ethnic differences can be dealt with both in the healthy aspects and the sick aspects. Law can be the bulwark against all kinds of problems, but must be generic rather than specific in its application, but individual in its effect. Black prejudice against white right at the individual level cannot be dealt with at this juncture of the evolution of law, because law is specific rather than general. In Classic Liberalism, it would be as much a crime to discriminate against a white, Christian, English speaking, male, who is handsome and sexy; as it would be to discriminate against a Hispanic, black, Muslim,  Spanish speaking, female, who has buck teeth, is short and ugly.

Classical Liberalism would make that much easier than it is when specific languages, religions, races, genders, ages, and appearances must be identified in the law. So long as laws must be written to protect specific persons, many will go unprotected when they do not meet the specifics covered. When the law is general in its application, prejudicial application cannot be justified, even by a packed Supreme Court.

Believe me, I approve of what has been done as you mentioned, but I know much more could have been done much earlier if Classical Liberal principles had been applied early on. Classical Liberalism does not level ability and earned privilege, but prevents blocking the stairway to achievement to anyone, without regard to race, gender, etc. Classical Liberalism does take from everyone and give to specific persons for general reasons, not racial. I hope that you do not believe that the suffering of one white, handsome, intelligent, English speaking male, is justified to prevent suffering of one blue, ugly, stupid, Esperanto speaking third sex person.

#87647 by Frank Goodman, Sr. on 7/18 at 6:30 am

87647 by Frank Goodman, Sr. on 7/18 at 6:30 am

Dear Mr. Goodman, re: your response to me, about the hiring and other race/employment issues.

I appreciate hearing your experiences from the side of the hiring person. Sadly, this is not new to me, because I’ve experienced much of the same, on the other end.

I noticed that all of these events occurred in California, and over a period of say 10-12 years. I remember those times as well, and I believe that what you describe, are exceptions or anomalies. Or, maybe that’s a stretch, and I should clarify.

California, specifically, has been slightly ahead of the times in race relations, when compared with the larger portion of our country. California was the first state that allowed interracial marriage, back in the mid-50’s. Higher education has been more available/accessible to African-Americans (at least during the time period that you’re quoting) than many other places in the nation, and particularly throughout the South.

So, while you have said that the “legislation” wasn’t necessary, because you would have hired and/or otherwise fairly considered all applicants ANYWAY, based on what was required of the job. What I’ve suggested, is that without the long and difficult roads through the federal courts, by way of Brown v. The Board of Education, and various other legislation that came about through the Civil Rights Movement, you would NOT have had that same pool to choose from. It’s that simple, in the larger picture.

And, while you say these were tumultuous times, (and I would agree), they were the times that brought that legislation about…accompanied by lots of death, blood, and suffering. So, if you thought those times were bad for YOU, they were even worse for the black folks attempting to upend what had become an institution. And, that gain has now been interrupted.

There may indeed by plenty of “good white folks” out there, (like you) who believe that you don’t need legislation to “do the right thing”, but history proves that there are far MORE that will go through leaps and bounds, to make sure that a black person NEVER has the opportunity to accomplish the same level at which he/she has placed themselves. It’s the story of ingrained racism that some people don’t even realize they have.

I would suggest that is exactly why you ran into that problem with your own efficiency report, from your own racist superior, after hiring the very efficient African-American woman. And, unfortunately, that hasn’t changed. It would of course be wonderful, if all could be counted upon, (without legislation) to simply do the right thing. But, 200 years of slavery tells us that well….we needed some changes in writing. Not all people can be counted upon, to “do right” on the own, and while laws may not change the lack of conscience by much of the masses, it HAS made far more possible. At least for a while.

Now, half a century later, it’s looking like those minor gains have been reversed, and we’re back to segregating the races at the level that is the most foundational, which is in education. Because…separate is never “equal”. The imbalance is guaranteed to create social chaos. We’ve seen it all before, and that’s what we’re seeing again.

Re: #87798 by ardee on 7/18

I agree with what you say. I ask a question, ‘How do you create a system of election in which 300,000,000 citizens, half-citizens, and quarter-citizens can elect people who will appoint lawyers (Judges)who will do perfect justice in every case that comes before them?’

Also, ‘How can we be fair to non-citizens, when they do not even have a vote?’

My answer is that we can have a system of justice and equality before the law that could be administered by an imperfect system. Even drivers of vehicles have accidents in interpretation of law and estimate of consequences of mistakes. We need not yearn for perfection to attain improvement. We evolved over eons of time. Yet we have made more progress in safety in the past ten years than could be imagined at the time of the plague epidemic. Imagine how the first hominids who ventured out of the Rift Valley in Africa must have estimated their chances in a world already repopulated after the demise of dinosaurs. I doubt that they knew anything about dinosaurs, but they certainly knew the habits of some carnivores they met on the way.

Human history over time deals with the problems over and over. Progress is made slowly and old problems reappear. Classical Liberalism with a conservative flavor is the best route at this time of history. Most progress result from, and most successful systems employ the elements of that concept. Be careful not to confuse a welfare state or affirmative action with Classical Liberalism, even though there are elements of similarity of intent. Communism caused its own collapse. Capitalism may cause its own collapse if it is not accompanied with justice and fair play.

Mr.Goodman,

Thank you for the elucidation and the link. I must , unfortunately disagree strongly with the definition found there (my goodness, disagreeing with Quakers is like shaking ones finger at Ghandi).

The definition cited sounds almost exactly like Libertarianism in its refusal to grant the government a role in protectionism. I believe that is the only role of a government.

The article speaks to a buyer/seller relationship made fair by a court system. But our court system has proven, time and again to be unfair in the extreme, especially when it is the poor against the wealthy. Pro Bono against $600/hr Attorneys , give me a break…..

While we agree on the abuses of our governmental agencies, and their purchase by those they are charged to protect us from, this does not mean that government is useless, only that we need to choose better folks to run it.

To those interested in Classic Liberalism, I suggest the following link:

http://tqe.quaker.org/2002/TQE035-EN-Liberal.html

Re: #

#84710 by cyrena on 7/06

Cyrena, I think you miss the most important impact of the intent of the civil rights legislation. You say that without such legislation, I would not have been able to hire on the basis of merit. Wrong! I am old enough to have done that before the legislation. In fact, if you look up the dates, you would find that one of my early acts in my hiring career was ca 1959. I was presented a list of three qualified candidates for a position I had to fill. Had I rejected all, I would have been given another list of three until all available candidates had been exhausted. The original list contained one black woman with experience in the skills the job required, a white woman who was younger and inexperienced, but who had education including a BS in the field of the work. It also included a minimally qualified ex-military person who could have been trained to do the job. I chose the young, white, educated woman. She stayed with the job for one year and quit to get married and left. The position opened up again and I received three more candidates. Included in the list was the same black woman with the experience that I had interviewed originally. I hired her. My superior called me in to his office and asked me why I had hired a ‘Nigger’. I replied that I did not hire a ‘Nigger’, but that I had hired a Medical Laboratory Technician. Fortunately for Della Woodruff, she worked there for over 20 years and retired from that job. Unfortunately for me, my efficiency report suffered and I failed of promotion when my time came. Eventually, I retired from my position, but lower in rank and status than I would have, had I followed my peers from 1959 to 1975.

In another time, ca 1966, I had a position to fill. Again I received three candidates and selected one, another black female with experience, but limited education over several other similarly qualified people. She, too, retired from the position long after I hired her. Ollie Baker retired from that job long after I was transferred and I visited her after I had retired.

In a later time, ca 1971, I had a position to fill. I received three candidates, including one black male with a history in education and guidance. He lacked some of the experience I wanted, but was congenial and seemed to be better motivated than the other two candidates who were white, but similarly qualified. I hired him and about two years later had a confrontation with him over my failure to recommend him for a promotion to a position that I filled with a better educated white female with excellent credentials. He cursed me and called me a white bigot and stated that he “...would be happy killing me.” I had him transfered out of my department and he claimed racial discrimination and filled a complaint against me. The complaint was finally ruled in my favor and against the black male who had been given a chance by me for bigger and better jobs. He was subsequently eliminated from his job and I do not know what happened to him.

You see, legislation is good if it accomplishes the intended result, but in the area of job interviews and hiring, it is full of good intent, but incapable of overcoming racial discrimination and racial abuse by those inclined to use and practice it. The time between 1959 and 1971 were years of turmoil and education in the race relations. More was accomplished by the education process than by the legislation. Those of us who did not discriminate never needed the legislation, but those who did not themselves qualify for the positions of decision they held, may need laws to keep them in line. I do not. I adhered to the intent without the threat of punishment if I don’t. Yet, I was a victim of racial abuse by my boss ca 1959 before legislation, and by Mr. Gr—-s, in a fit of racial reaction ca 1971 after legislation.

#87558 by Frank Goodman, Sr. on 7/17 at 5:57 pm

Frank, just a quikie to say that I very much appreciate your response to Ardee. (It was helpful to me as well, in sorting through the various terminology, since there is so much NOW, that doesn’t mean the same as it did when it was introduced to the English language.).

And, if Classic Liberal is what you describe here, (as your own persuasion)I’d say that it pretty much follows the same track that I live, and have tried to do inspire in all of the youngsters. It seems to have worked well, since they are great young citizens now, and we need them. Now they can all identify themselves as “classic liberals”, and be able to explain, exactly what that means, which is pretty much what we’ve been teaching them all along.

Thanks.

Re: #84616 by ardee on 7/06

Ardee, you are confused by the label Classic Liberal. You may recognize some of the historic terms that have come into disrepute as Classic Liberal, but which are not. First I bring up Libertarian. In the extreme, Libertarian means people do what they want to without interference. Of course that is an invitation to disaster for the weak and unprotected.

Next I bring up Laisez Faire. That means leave people alone. That too, has gotten out of hand. It can be extreme and anti-social. It was used by the Communists to describe Capitalism gone awry.

Next I bring up Conservative. That means preserve what is good and reject the bad. It is like making raisins out of grapes to conserve them for later use. Also, it is like in strawberry preserves to conserve their goodness against spoilage. Conservative is the closest to Classic Liberal. Don’t be deluded by the term liberal. Lassez faire, Libertarian, and nudism are all liberal in the sense of unlimited freedom to do what one wants to do.

The term classic as applied to liberal means the original intent of the freedom drive. It means, leave people alone, but protect the weak and incompetent from damage by their own hand. It is somewhat parental, but mostly freedom loving. It says, “Play carefully, live carefully, and be fair.” It allows innovation, but not reckless experimentation. It allows one to mimic better behavior, but not to promote crime in the guise of protection. Classic liberal is classic as in original, and liberal as in freedom. I am aware that liberal, like ‘gay’, ‘queer’, ‘damn’, ‘s—t’, ‘f—k’, and a whole lot of words that are no longer used in the sense they were originally introduced into the English language. I am sure other languages have the same problem. Democracy has introduced some biased terms, and some distorted concepts of freedom. Classic liberals would bring back the original intent, but not the original mistakes associated with uncontrolled behavior.

A child should be given enough freedom to learn and to benefit from a variety of experiences, including the pain of hard lessons. But, a child should not be given everything she wants. That is liberal, but not classic. Children should be taught cooperation and sharing, but not to give away all that is theirs. People need compassion, and understanding, and a liberal environment to apply the concepts of equal rights, justice, and cooperative protection of individual rights and prerogatives. That is Classic Liberal to me.

You can Google the term for other views. You can also apply your own mental powers to parse the use of the term. You should note that Fascism is an extreme right position of conservative that takes away individual freedom and choice. Communism is an extreme left position of liberal that takes away from the productive and gives to the lazy. Capitalism allows the lazy to control wealth and the productive to be inventive all for a profit. Unfortunately, though all are liberal to some, none of these are liberal in the true sense of the word, or should I say the ‘Classic’ sense? Communism would divide the pie into equal slices. Capitalism would divide the pie into slices according to contribution and wealth. Fascism would deny slices to some, but give bigger slices to the biggest bully. The Classic Liberal would give the biggest slices to the one who contributes the most valuable services and the smallest slices to criminals and misfits who contribute nothing at all or take more than they make.

I hope this is a clear presentation of what Classic Liberal means to me. You be the judge of what it may mean to you, but please don’t call me an asshole because I care about everyone, but want to reward the most productive risk takers and protect the freedom of all with justice and fair play.

Sorry, I took so long to comment, but I do not spend much time here.

I’ve been honored with my first ad hominem attack on this blog (#87150, by Hondo}!

I respectfully offer an apology to the blog for summarily referring to federal courts as packed with “idiots” from the extreme religious right. Indeed, after all, Justice Scalia has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is no idiot. Religious right members, to be accurate, are idiotic, ignorant, or hypocritical.

Through his silly attacks on basic science, Hondo indirectly confessed his sad lack of knowledge, intelligence or sincerity. May he found the path to some public library some day…

Now, Hondo’s statement that my contribution would ridicule the biblical story of creation and criticize Christians is preposterous. The biblical creation myth, like similar stories from other traditions, is, of course, not real; this does not make it ridiculous, and many lessons can be, and have been, drawn from it by generations of theologians. Fundamentalist theologians consistently select the bits and pieces that fit their agenda of fear and even build fairy tales complete with dates and times of spontaneous creation. On the other hand, liberal theologians take the whole story as a single, whole and consistent piece of inspiration and subject their interpretation to the rule of reason, to science, and, let’s confess it, to a spirit of love.

Hondo’s $250K reward for proving biological evolution belongs not to me, but to the heirs of the loose group of English schoolteachers, pastors, librarians, civil engineers, etc., who discovered it more than 200 years ago, as they filed, reviewed and compared fossils found in the hundreds of deep trenches and tunnels dug for the industrial revolution, and as they delivered it to the community of biologists as an “uncomfortable and enigmatic truth”.

Love,

Thomas’ output is only a symptom of a much wider problem: the progress in the takeover of the federal government by the extreme relegious right. This process has given us plenty of arrogance, incompetence and hypocrisy, resulting in silly wars, curtailed civil liberties, huge debt, stiff devaluation, etc.

Now, there are solutions. In just about every other Western industrialized democracy, civil rights are legislated; judges don’t enforce them [OK; in many places, they don’t have the power or the independence to enforce them!]. So Congress and the president can always pass laws that even justice Thomas will accept.

And if, some day, Congress is getting fed up with courts packed with idiots who see abortion as a premeditated murder, homosexuality as a choice, and the universe as a 6,000-year old creation by God, the federal constitution gives them a way to fire Thomas. As Ellen Goodman states, his actions on the bench bear little relation to his hearings, so more than one member of Congress would gladly reverse his or her vote, just like they are starting to do over the Iraq war.

Thinking of it, firing Thomas and Scalia would make the current court just about balanced, with Alito and Roberts as the out-of-touch extremists.

Love,

#84991 by Skruff on 7/08 at 4:13 am

So Skruff, are you asking me to root for prostate cancer?.........hee.

I, too, believe that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Dems, too much money, too large a power base, perhaps with Obama as VP candidate?

I am less certain that Thompson will be the GOP shill, err nominee, but we know about actors and the Republican Party….I think there is much in Fred’s resume that will shoot him down abruptly, as example, twelve years in the Legislature in which he did absolutely nothing.

#84798 by Dale Headley on 7/07 at 10:08 am

Very good question from you Dale:

.....“but when does Anita Hill get her self respect back after being metaphorically raped - twice - by a small-minded Uncle Tom and a cowardly Democratic senator - Joe Biden?”.....

Therein lies the question for Anita Hill, and all of those who have been similarly slandered and smeared, or otherwise had their personal and professional lives destroyed.

These people think that we do not remember these things, but memory is something that we retain, particularly when the damage is so grotesque.

George keeps harking to all of the “misery” that poor scooter has needed to endure, along with his family. As if we really care, when we see and know the people that continue to suffer from these warped ideologues; The true victims that continue on, despite the wounds.

The Supreme Court once had a reputation for causing supposedly agendised appointees to suddenly rule with surprising evenhandedness and farsightedness. I believe, without resorting to a search engine for corroboration, that Earl Warren was such a person.

A life long Republican, District Attorney of the county in which I currently reside, Alameda, three time Governor of California and almost a Vice President, remember the headlines, Dewey Wins…oops.

Appointed by Eisenhower precisely because he was a rock solid conservative, Warren is arguably the single most important Justice to ever serve on that court and was pivotal in several very important decisions, including Brown v Board of Education. Eisenhower once called Earl Warren “the biggest mistake I ever made”.....hee.

Ive very little hope, however, that our current crop of agendised Justices will have the wisdom of an Earl Warren to act in the best interests of all Americans. The real dilemma, as if that Court could get in worse trouble, is that those on the left there are also the eldest…...Little hope that a Democratic President, even one serving two terms, will have a chance to rid the nation of the likes of Thomas, Roberts, or Alito.

The Supreme Court is nothing more than a thinly-disguised puppet of the Right. Roe v. Wade will be overturned one of these days, and on that day the back alley “doctors” and wire coathanger manufacturers the world over will surely rejoice.

#84766 by Enemy of State on 7/07 at 7:44 am
(47 comments total)

For all those who like to claim that there is no difference between the White House being occupied by a D or an R, this should handily disprove that notion

You know, Enemy, this is the most reasonable argument I have seen yet for the election of democrats to office. The one weakness I can find is that there were democrats present during the confirmation hearings of Thomas, Alito and Roberts, yet we saw no filibuster against their obvious agendised legal opinions, their history of such in their working lives nor much of any attention by democrats…...so where is the beef?

For all those who like to claim that there is no difference between the White House being occupied by a D or an R, this should handily disprove that notion.

  Hopefully things are not as bad as thet seem right now. It has been notoriously difficult to pack the court. Many judges follow logic/precedent rather than the ideology that they were selected for. We did at least have the Global Warming decision, which went against the right.

  Frank, I felt similarly to you about the bussing issue. It seeded to me to be a particularly painful (for those bussed) way to address the problem. Hopefully we will not see a return to separate-but-equal. Giving voters a chance to remove SC justices on short intervals would remove their independence, they would likely be seriously affected by whatever fad is blowing in the wind.

#84721 by Jacks on 7/06 at 11:08 pm

•  What the right wing did to Anita Hill was the most foul smear campaign not only targeting her gender but also her race.

I remember this with the same horror every time I’m reminded of it. It was despicable. And the reverberations have extended to more “Anita Hills” or maybe her sisters would be a better term. Many other women of color have suffered these same indignities and smears under the same mentality, which is still perpetrated to this day, especially in the South. There are still more of the Clarence Thomas types out and about, and wrecking havoc, not just from the bench.

•  Thomas then claimed the investigation to see whether he harassed her (which considering his love of “Might is right” would not be out of character) was the epitome of injustice, enough to qualify as a virtual hate crime.

Actually, he DID harass her, and not ONLY her. He was then (and it’s hard to imagine he’s changed) a pervert, and that’s on top of all the other things you’ve mentioned.

There’s an excellent book on him, written back within a few years of that entire fiasco of his confirmation, and the destruction of Anita Hill. The title is “Strange Justice”, and I don’t remember the sub-title. It is authored by two women, but I don’t remember their names. (lots of stuff I don’t remember). But, it’s an excellent book, and I’m sure you can google it.

Clarence Thomas reminds me of that Chappelle show skit where a blind white supremacist is interviewed spewing the most racist bile and yet no one has the heart to tell him that he is black himself.

Thomas’ angers stems from his sense of victimhood and yet he mocks actual victims of discrimination all the while draping himself in martyrdom.  What the right wing did to Anita Hill was the most foul smear campaign not only targeting her gender but also her race.  Thomas never once condemned that campaign; instead he befriended the attackers (Rush, especially).  Thomas then claimed the investigation to see whether he harassed her (which considering his love of “Might is right” would not be out of character) was the epitome of injustice, enough to qualify as a virtual hate crime.  He claims racism is alive and well to quiet dissent, yet racism mysteriously disappears when it involves others.

For Frank Goodman Sr,

I am definitely with you on the ballot “option to remove” members of this court.

On the rest though, I think that we cannot so quickly dismiss the importance of diversity in our society. I don’t dismiss the sometimes negative effects of what is termed as “social engineering” or in this case, as Clarance would say, “coerced desegregation”.

However, we have this long history that can’t really be overlooked, of serious imbalance, based on race.

The major atrocity here, in this decision, is that we have undone a half-century of work, work that has allowed you to be “color-blind” in your position of hiring people on their merits alone. In other words, without the legislation that came from these very same issues a half-century ago, you would never have had such a pool of applicants to choose from, and KNOW that they were indeed equally qualified.

I could not have happened. That’s always been one of the fundamental points of it all, including Brown v the Board…In short, SEPERATE can never be “equal”.

This decision makes me terribly sad, for all the reasons that Ms. Goodman says in her piece. It literally undoes over a century of civil rights legislation, taking us back to the stone age.

Justice Marshall has to be kicking and screaming in his grave. I’m pretty damn disgusted myself, though not even surprised. Clarence Thomas is a seriously sinister character, (sociopath in my estimation) and so this comes as no surprise.

Mr. Goodman,Sr.
You began this thread by calling yourself a “Classic Liberal” as opposed to a “welfare liberal”. I havent a clue what you meant by any of that but your increasing rants make it more obvious that the liberalism you claim to enjoy is far from evident.

As to “enforced integration of schools” one must look only at the demographics to understand why affirmative action is still so very, very necesary in this nation. Poor neighborhoods have consistently poor schools, and I mean by that poor educational opportunities. Most poor neighborhoods are still predominately inhabited by persons of color. Thus the gulf widens and poverty is regenerated through the generations. One cannot see integration of neighborhoods by legislative order but one can certainly integrate schools and thus increase the educational opportunities for our poor.

We do not have, by any stretch of the imagination, even to a so-called classic liberal (what the hell is that anyway?) a level playing field. Until we do I favor any method necesary to achieve a more balanced educational opportunity for all our children.

As to the public election of Supreme Court Justices, heaven help us all. There is a very good reason why they are elected for life, though Rove seems to have gotten ahead of the curve on judgeships and their importance. Nevertheless I do wonder if impeachment can be entertained on the basis that Roberts and Alito lied like rugs about the importance to them of precedent, having overturned rulings decades in the past. Isnt that precedence?

As a couple of you are discussing, I’m not sure exactly how to make Judicial voting efficeint. Judges do need a certain level of independence.

Appointments do not make independent judges, in general. Specifically, SCOTUS appointments give a presidency FAR to much power. This system allows bad presidents (who are about all we get) to make their influence felt for decades in some cases. It also is open to play. Partisan justices won’t retire until a president of the right party is around to appoint their replacement for example.

That’s the point, this nation needs a new path. A drastic new path. It’s time to stop claiming to be a nation “of the people, by the people, for the people” and start being one.

B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

Re: 84500 by Skruff on 7/06

Wrong. It would certainly work against those you love as well as those you hate. Even very moderates may fall to the citizens ax. Earl Warren would not be protected, and maybe Clarence Thomas would be, but the citizens should have an opportunity. Nobody is entitled to a place on the Supreme Court. We retire every president after two terms and sometimes after one. God has taken a few out of office early. I am for term limits for all public offices. There are enough candidates to fill any vacancy created by law or fate.

My favorite may not be yours and yours not the favorite of the next voter. But, the voters should have a veto over the President and the Senate. I would like to see a place on the midterm ballot that asks the voter if the current President is acceptable for the rest of the term, if not, the Vice-president should step up and the President down. A similar vote for the Vice may elevate the Speaker of the House.

I am for more democracy, not less.

Re: 84344 by THOMAS BILLIS on 7/05

I have looked carefully for the comment by my son, Frank Goodman, Jr., but I don’t find one. If you mean mine, leave out the epithets. You should read more carefully. If you want justice, you can have it, but it must be color blind, and reasonable, not shaded with racial preference or social engineering.

I battled prejudice all my life, both on the receiving end and on the front end. I have had to weigh candidates for job positions who were fairly equally qualified but of different race or gender. I never fudged one way or another. I have hired blacks from a field of both races, and women in a field of both sexes. I never knew if a candidate was ‘gay’. I am sure that I have hired some ‘gay guys’ and some ‘les women’, but I will never know because none of them were required to reveal its private affairs to me. I could distinguish, usually, between blacks and whites and between Asians and others, but sometimes was not sure. One person looked black, but was 3/4 European stock. She counted as white on the statistics because she wanted it that way. Another was 1/8 black and 7/8 white, but was counted as black because that was the way he wanted it.

Each was rated for performance, not racial content of his ancestors. I rate George Bush on his performance not his race, or loyalties. He stinks.

I advocate a regular opportunity to remove Supreme Court members every two year in national elections. Each should be listed on the ballot with the question, “Should this member of the Supreme Court be removed?” If a simple majority of the people vote “yes”, he or she should be replaced for the next session of the court. Reappointment should be prohibited within ten years. This should apply to every federal bench judge as well. No campaign for or against removal should be permitted and no political support tolerated.

What are we to do? We have no say in their appointments, the job is for life, there is no real recourse to remove a Justice, they have a strong block now of 5 whackos to 4. The 5 nails in the coffin of what this nation used to stand for. The rate at which precedent has been disregarded is, well, unprecedented.

It is just one more manifestation of this administration which is itself just one more manifestation of RAMPANT business and wealth concerns. Business and wealth have dictated this nation’s policy for FAR to long while growing stronger with every extra billion they bilk from the taxpayers.

Once our revolution was over, the ideals were found to be the last casualty. Many of the founding fathers who spoke so eloquently for liberty and a government of representation—quickly became federalists who worked fervently AGAINST representation, against common rights, against states rights, against the very people who had suffered so—the population.

As time went on this became worse. Eventually even Patrick Henry joined the Federalists. The struggle over the Constitution sheds some light on the affairs of the day. Particularly, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers and the transcripts of the various ratification conventions.

If more people were to read up on what actually took place rather than spewing their parties propaganda maybe we wouldn’t be in as much sh## as we are now.

Here’s a link to some of the documents mentioned above [this link is to the index page - the site isn’t organized the best but it has a great collection of documents]:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/indexes/indexes.html

Here’s another link to some of the documents in question [the link takes you to Cato 5 one of the Anti-Federalist - it is scary how prophetic]:

http://www.constitution.org/afp/cato_05.htm

B

http://b-political.blogspot.com/

As a Classic Liberal, rather than a welfare liberal, I agree with the court’s decision in the race laced decision. There are differences among racial discrimination, racial incrimination, and racial recrimination. As an attempt to cure discrimination, racial preference is not the best way to go and it is time to go to a race neutral position in these matters.  racial preference was the way chosen in the past, but at this time of our history in the race relations blacks should no longer be coddled. Let them take the rest of the journey on their own merits. We have pointed the way. They have to walk that road with a mature sense of values and understanding of the responsibility. The courts of our land are open to them. Open the courts, but stay out of their lives.

I will always come down on the side of no discrimination. I will never come down on the side of tokenism, coddling, or social leveling. The constitution must be color blind and gender neutral.

I believe that the real discrimination on the basis of age is the next fight. Infants have no vote. I say that they have a right to vote, if they are citizens. I also say that the best minds to vote on their behalf are the parents and in the case of the mentally incompetent it is the guardian. Immaturity and mental incompetence is no excuse to disenfranchise citizens. Just as there is abuse now, there is the opportunity for abuse by adult surrogates. Deal with it.