from telling everyone over and over and over again that the men you mention are leaders in their own minds. I have a large circle of black friends, and I must tell you that the four men you name NEVER come up in our conversations. I'm not sure why you think we black folks march to the drums of men who just love to hear their own voices. I would say Limbaugh has a larger audience in the white community than these four men combined, and Rush isn't exactly preaching unity. But that is Rush's perogative. It makes him money. Why do you not understand that Al, Jessie, Louise, and Wright are no different in terms of promoting their brands? You are assigning them power they do not have.

Cheers mate,

Kevin "Hack" King

I going to take Jessie and Al off of my speed dial.

Check this out from the Onion if you haven’t seen it:

Black Guy Asks Nation for Change

I have to support Hack on the sharing of his observation. I too have a large circle of black friends and family - and Al, Jessie, etc. are very seldom- if ever mentioned. Nor do we waste our time discussing 'white' folks. We all have friends of different colors, opinions, religions, and cultures - and often find that opinions are distributed evenly among the diverse group. Are black folk concerned about the condition of our teenagers, our schools, our neighborhoods, etc.? YES!! Do we discuss this among ourselves? YES!! Do we take steps to solve these problems? YES!! Are there white people who join us in seeking solutions to these problems? YES!! Our main topic in recent months is the economy. (Is that different from any other citizen?); the electability of Obama; black on black crime; and the artistic work of Tyler Perry!!! Larry Elder is hardly spoken of with respect; Ophra is almost revered; Bill Clinton still gets high marks; our own personal pastors/spiritual leaders are relied on for direction - and criticized almost daily if they are not going in the direction that we deem necessary. We join the citizens of the world in respecting the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. We are proud of the goal of Obama - to promote unity among all citizens of America and move forward. His pastor is being highly criticized - and rightly so. . .for he was espousing hate - in a vile way. Honest men must look at our history and understand how his hate is based on what he and others perceive as 'truth. Our country, in the eyes of the world and among over 70% of our citizens has made some vile mistakes. To deny this is putting our heads in the sand. Only our actions will change this perception. On many issues, black and white, brown, red, yellow Americans have similar views and perceptions - based on their own experience - and not what Al, Jessie, Rush or whoever has to say.

How is my favorite warthog?

What are you doing up so late? I just got home from work. Long day.

"limPbaugh" larger audience.??.....oh I hope not. He is just as foul.

Anyway we have to get together soon, make sure your better half can come next time.

I have learned some interesting facts, that (Elders does have sources for). One I didn't know: is that when congress voted on the 1964 Civil Rights Act only 64% of dems. voted for it, and 80% of repb. voted for it. I thought it would be the other way around.

What a beautiful day it was today. Are you traveling for Easter?

Howdy skyspy, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to discuss Larry Elder's "facts".

Elder is technically correct when he mentions the vote breakdown of the 1964 Voting Rights Act. It's been a common mantra of the the Republicans for many years now. It's also just a tad dishonest.

Way back in 1964, the battle was NOT "Democrats vs. Republicans" but rather "North vs. South". Back then, they had some political species that are now extinct: Conservative Democrats and *gasp* Liberal Republicans (the so-called "Rockefeller wing").

Virtually every Southern politicians (Dem AND Republican) banded together to vote against the Civil Rights Act. Not unlike Fayette politicians today regarding district voting, these politicians represented the act as "top down interference" on their God-given right to govern themselves as they see fit. (Left unsaid,then as now, as they were deathly afraid of Negroes in public office).

The vote triggered a massive realignment of both political parties, with conservatives flocking to the Republicans and everyone else going over to the Democrats. But again, that was subsequent to and a direct result of the Voting Rights Act.

Have a splendid Friday and remember: Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
___________________________________________________
Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Sissies!

Elder did discuss the massive realigment. His book has been very informative.

Some of his topics like the founder of Planned Parenthood, we should discuss at our next breakfast. Not appropriate here.

I just started chapter 3, it is a slow read for me.

I will say one thing for him he does provide footnotes for everything he claims.

Have a good weekend. Are all your kids home for Easter? The weather should be nice.

I do know what you are talking about. Yes, in a private setting, Elders does prove his points.

Have a good evening.

_______________________________
We Will Stand

Desks suck.....

With the Dem and Repub thing in the 60s, you do remember the Dixicrats, right? they were the southern Democrats that could never be in the party of Lincoln, and considered the Civil War a "Northern aggression" thing. The Civil rights push by a democratic president was more distasteful for southern biggots than being in Lincoln's party; hence the change. I'm not saying all republicans are biggots, but the ones who crossed over out of opposition of the death of Jim Crowe laws sure were. Travelling tomorrow pm, then right back to OKC Sunday pm. Nutty life, I know.

Cheers, and say "Hi" to the cool black-headed birdies for me.
Kevin "Hack" King

If you can only flap one arm doesn't that make you fly in circles?

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Yuk, I would have a hard time with the boredom myself. The day drags by doesn't it?

Elder does discuss the dixicrats, Jim Crowe laws and Second amendment rights. I'm only on chapter 3.

Give a shout out when you have free time.

My birds are sassy and demanding as ever. My little kingfisher bird came back on Wed. after being MIA for 2 weeks. I thought he would have a Mrs. with him, but he appears to be alone.

Have a safe trip, and a good weekend.

Thanks.

Kevin "Hack" King

A well -read philosopher who cannot understand why one who has been seen as 'second-class' in this country because of the color of their skin - can now feel great pride in a country that is now showing a 'color-blind' attitude through their vote? (Michelle Obama) A well-grounded educator who uses poorly constructed satire - that borders on being racist? I'm disappointed. Obama acknowledged the resentment and bitterness that 'whites' feel due to reverse racism. Why is it difficult to understand how Americans of a darker hue may still harbor bitterness from the racism that they are still subject to? (Note comments in this discussion.) I hope I have misunderstood your contributions today.

There are many things that Michelle Obama might have said on that occasion. What she did say was that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.

I think Buchanan nailed it in observing that this is predictable given her affiliation with the racist reverend.

I'm sorry that you thought the satire was "poorly constructed." But there is nothing at all racist about making the reverend Wright the butt of the joke.

You ask why it is difficult to understand how blacks could still harbor bitterness.

I ask why it is difficult to understand why any reasonable person--black or white--should harbor bitterness over the racist ravings of someone like Rev. Wright.

And the "racism that they are still subject to" comment is highly debatable. If it is a reference to lingering systemic racism, I confess that, though I have thought a lot about it, read a lot, and have looked for it, I do not see it. If anything, the bias seems to me to run in the other direction with the various race-based policies that are in place.

And, while I do not deny that some of the comments here and elsewhere do indeed manifest a racist antipathy towards blacks, MOST of the hostility is toward black racism against whites, plus the liberal agenda that condones it.

I'm just lowly ole me, Muddle, but I sense your argument is being skewed in a less than intellectual direction out of a political bias. That's disappointing. Let's analyze what you have said above:

"And the "racism that they are still subject to" comment is highly debatable. If it is a reference to lingering systemic racism, I confess that, though I have thought a lot about it, read a lot, and have looked for it, I do not see it. If anything, the bias seems to me to run in the other direction with the various race-based policies that are in place."

Muddle, could it be you have not seen racism against blacks because you are... ummm... white? You don't see sex discrimination because you're a man? You don't see discrimination against the hard of hearing because you aren't hearing impaired? Let's choose a few samples: (Hack's first ever links)

HUD study on discrimination against disabled persons

This government study shows that 50% of their sample group experienced discrimination based on their disabilities.

Another study based largely on data collected by The National Institute of Justice found:
"The key findings in this regard include:
· Young, black and Latino males (especially if unemployed) are subject to particularly
harsh sentencing compared to other offender populations;
· Black and Latino defendants are disadvantaged compared to whites with regard to
legal-process related factors such as the “trial penalty,” sentence reductions for
substantial assistance, criminal history, pretrial detention, and type of attorney;
· Black defendants convicted of harming white victims suffer harsher penalties than
blacks who commit crimes against other blacks or white defendants who harm whites;
· Black and Latino defendants tend to be sentenced more severely than comparably
situated white defendants for less serious crimes, especially drug and property crimes.
Studies that examine death-penalty cases have generally found that:
· In the vast majority of cases, if the murder victim is white, the defendant is more
likely to receive a death sentence;
· In a few jurisdictions, notably the federal system, minority defendants (especially
blacks) are more likely to receive a death sentence."

I found this to be a convincing argument that race does play a role in sentencing and apprehension. If you have the time and truly have the interest, here is the link:

Racial Disparity in Sentencing

Muddle, one does not need to look very far to find conclusive evidence in many studies that racial profiling occurs in traffic stops, leasing agreements, financing agreements. Remember, Muddle, that is the very reason sentencing guidelines were recently adjusted for crack cocaine offenses versus powdered cocaine offences. Certainly you did not miss that?

Finally, here is what President Bush and then A.G. John Ashcroft said of racial profiling in 2002 (source US Dept of Justice):

RACIAL PROFILING
“It's wrong, and we will end it in America. In so doing, we will not hinder the work of our nation's brave police officers. They protect us every day -- often at great risk. But by stopping the abuses of a few, we will add to the public confidence our police officers earn and deserve.'' --President George W. Bush, Feb. 27, 2001

“This administration… has been opposed to racial profiling and has done more to indicate its opposition than ever in history. The President said it’s wrong and we’ll end it in America, and I subscribe to that. Using race… as a proxy for potential criminal behavior is unconstitutional, and it undermines law enforcement by undermining the confidence that people can have in law enforcement.” --Attorney General John Ashcroft, Feb. 28, 2002"

Here is the entire document:

Department of Justice Fact Sheet on racial profiling

I imagine you can make the argument that the government is, for some reason, lying to us in these studies. Or you can give credibility to the argument that race matters both ways in America; forward and reverse. I'm certainly not going to refute the claims of reverse racism as easily as you deny our claims, backed by statistics and studies.

I apologize for the length, but I'd hate for you to miss documentation on life experiences I, as a black man with no criminal record, have had; experiences my father, a black man with no criminal record, has had. Any time you'd like to get together at one of our coffees, I'll gladly share with you both my and my father's first hand experiences with the phenomenon of being judged based on race and not behavior.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

The link that Hack provides for "Racial Disparity in Sentencing" is from none other than "The Sentincing Project"

Let's take a look at this fine organization, shall we? They want convicted FELONS to vote, and basically blame the high number of blacks that are incarcerated on whitey. Just like Obamba did in his speech.

"The Sentencing Project has been most focused on trying to repeal laws which prohibit convicted felons from voting in most states. The organization cites a 2002 survey conducted by sociologists Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, who concluded that "Democratic candidates would have received about 7 of every 10 votes cast by the felons and ex-felons in 14 of the last 15 U.S. Senate election years." "By removing those with Democratic preferences from the pool of eligible voters," the authors assert, "felon disenfranchisement has provided a small but clear advantage to Republican candidates in every presidential and senatorial election from 1972 to 2000."

"Marc Mauer, Executive Director of the Sentencing Project, has written extensively in favor of repealing prisoner disenfranchisement laws, imposing shorter prison sentences, and seeking alternatives to incarceration for criminal offenders."

So, these fine folks want felons walking our streets. They think that felons are "disenfranchised". Well boo-hoo.

"FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT"

They are also advocates of lesser sentences for drug offenses. They want a bunch of drug addicts walking our streets, preying on the innocent so that they can feed their drug habits and vote for democrats!

The War on Marijuana: The Transformation of the War on Drugs in the 1990s

Look, Obama has been associated with an hate filled, anti-whitey Trinity United Church of Hate decades. Now he tries to explain it all away by trying to drag white discontent into it and by throwing his grandmother under the bus. The next day, during an interview, he goes on to describe his grandmother as a "typical white person"

Well isn't that special. We're all just a bunch of racists, according to Obama. And that is supposed to make people want to vote for him?

Right back under the bus!

And, "We're all just a bunch of racists..." Surely nobody could ever think such a thing about the beav.

Expunging every person's criminal record for any drug offense that was non-violent i.e. simple possession? I'm 100% in favor of that and have been for a long time.

The War of People has been a colossal failure unless you happen to be one the many hundreds of thousands that owe their whole job to the War on Drugs cottage industry. Yeah, along the way, blacks, Hispanics and about any non-WASP has been shafted supremely by the laws and sentencing of the judicial system and the crazy non-logic of classifying crack as a higher crime than powder cocaine, but so have whites also, just to a lesser extent since whites tend to use the very stupid crystal meth instead of the very stupid crack.

People with criminal records are going to have a more difficult time finding decent employment which means more taxes and welfare the rest of us clean-livin' types have to fork over. Plus, we have to pay the salaries of all the people making their careers out of the drugs-r-illegal business. We also enrich sleazy people by making drug dealing a big buck business since it's illegal. This is one giant waste of money, time, and people.

I'd rather my tax dollars now being wasted on enforcement that has has been and always will be a miserable failure instead be used on education and treatment. At least then you have a chance Mr. Dope MIGHT get straight and have a successful life. Tossing them in jail for years and blemishing their record about guarantees they come out even worse than before. What a tremendous waste of money all because the very weak-minded, non-liberty types have decided that the government has the right to tell a person what substances they can or cannot put into their body. So stupid.

Letting felons vote? Which felons? Violent ones? White-collar embezzlers? Over-sentenced drug possessors? I don't think the felon-right-to-vote idea has merit. It's a political attempt that's very ingenuous.

Mr. Kevin King, a.k.a. AF A-10, has posted lengthy comments with LINKS to impersonate Denise Conner and to stir up unnecessary animosity toward this often maligned blogger. This is an official CEASE AND DESIST letter, and a request that this post be edited to 3 lines or less and all LINKS be removed and a proper DISCLAIMER ADDENDUM attached to avoid any intentional or unintentional ambiguity regarding posters' identities. Thank you for your prompt response.

Hack, I couldn't resist! Is typing prescribed therapy for your arm? Get well soon!

I figured after waiting almost two years to link, I ought to go B I G!!

Kevin "Hack" King

But there is nothing at all racist about making the reverend Wright the butt of the joke.

Your attempt at using 'black dialect' by inserting the incorrect use of the verb 'to be' is a racist attempt to denigrate. . IMO. Rev. Wright is not a street - self-taught pastor, but a graduate of a seminary and lecturer at institutions of higher learning. He is capable of speaking standard English. Not all churches in the 'black' community use Black Liberation Theology - but the use of the message of BLT has proven to be successful in getting 'blacks' to assume responsibility for their own destiny; clean up their own neighborhoods; maintain family relationships; - all the things that the conservative community demand from the 'black' community. Hence it is not surprising that Obama would lend his expertise to a church the focuses on ‘black’ community improvement.
At one point in the discussion - sometime ago - you stated you did not want to be viewed as 'racist'. Muddle, it is difficult for any American not to express some racist view at one time or another. That's why I feel the need for the conversation on race. I think the younger generation is ready to have it without the harbored bitterness from the past and present.

There are many things that Michelle Obama might have said on that occasion. What she did say was that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.

Muddle, I don't believe that you express pride in the racism that exists in our country. Your inability to see it is an excellent example of the need to begin the conversation between citizens of different hues and similar backgrounds in a 'safe' environment. The liberal and conservative agenda's that condone any form of racism should be denied in both camps - not massaged and used for political points.

I ask why it is difficult to understand why any reasonable person--black or white--should harbor bitterness over the racist ravings of someone like Rev. Wright.

I find his ravings totally despicable - and find it difficult not to harbor bitterness towards his rantings. What I find difficult is assuming that Obama and other 'blacks' do not feel the same. I attend an integrated church - and have heard statements made by church members that are totally racist in intent. I don't intend to ever leave the church because of this - but work harder in healing the racism that exists. We often hear and see what we want to hear and see. I don't see much black racism against whites - but I know - acknowledge - that it exists.

I attend an integrated church - and have heard statements made by church members that are totally racist in intent. I don't intend to ever leave the church because of this - but work harder in healing the racism that exists.

That's admirable.

But surely you don't intend this to be analogous to Obama's church involvement? Wright's church is premised upon racist principles. It is not merely that, in some hodge-podge sort of way, one might have encountered members with racist views.

I'll return to the Phelps analogy. Imagine someone claiming that they have stayed as a "healing presence." It would be like being a regular attendee at a mosque or a synagogue and suggesting that the purpose was to have a Christian influence there.

What I find difficult is assuming that Obama and other 'blacks' do not feel the same.

One would have assumed, by default, that an Obama would have "felt the same." I do assume that this is how you feel. If, however, I were to learn that you were a member of an explcitly racist organization and regarded the most outspoken racist leader as your mentor, then all bets would be off. Obama's connections with "Uncle Jeremiah" are responsible for current challenges to that default assumption.

I don't see much black racism against whites - but I know - acknowledge - that it exists.

Well, you are operating on a level far above many of today's "diversity facilitators," who teach that it is logically impossible to be black and racist. These same people insist that all white people are racists and white supremacists. If you are looking for examples of black racism against whites, you might begin right there, as these diversity programs are themselves racist in intent on any reasonable definition of racism. And consider the likes of Kamau Kambon, who said to an audience at Howard University, "The only solution in my estimation is to exterminate white people from the face of the earth.” He is, admittedly, an extreme example. But the mainstream example is that a remark like this was not met with outrage, picked up by all major news organizations (other than Fox) as it most certainly would have had the speaker been a white supremacist and made a similar comment about blacks. His comment was met with (weak) applause at Howard--an institution that has invited Wright as well.

Nothing was changed by not accepting the challenge of working for change. It's not easy - but I've seen it work in my lifetime. Sort of a David/Goliath 'thing'.

I'm enjoying this discussion . . .but have to go. I am a diversity facilitator. and have stated here that my father was a 'black' racist. . .and I am daily trying NOT TO BE. It is difficult in this society when speaking in general terms - but most satisfying when dealing with fellow citizens regardless of the color of their skin. I'll be back later. Have a good day!

I offer this as a kind of afterthought regarding the issue of whether systemic racism continues. The various affirmative action policies that have now been in place for decades seem to me to have run the bias in precisely the opposite direction.

My first teaching position out of graduate school was at a fine college in the midwest. Unfortunately, when I was initially hired, it was for a one-year, non-tenure-track position. (Jobs in my discipline have been scarce for at least two decades, and I felt fortunate to find even this.) The college wound up renewing my one-year appointments several times, and I was assured that if a tenure-track position ever came available, I would be given due consideration for hiring. In the second or third year, there was an opening. They received some 300 applications, including mine and that of a male colleague who was also teaching in a non-tenure-track position and had been there longer than I. He and I both made the short list, and he was eventually hired. I thought that this hiring decision was eminently reasonable. He and I had similar publication records, had earned our terminal degrees from schools of comparable quality, but he had a bit more teaching experience plus the longer history of loyalty to the college. It was only right that he was hired.

I was back to (hopefully) renewable one-year positions, knowing full well that the legal limit was six years.

At the beginning of my sixth year, one of the senior members of the department retired, so that the department once again did a national search for candidates. I applied, and figured I had a strong chance of getting the job. By then I had a solid track record of teaching excellence, with strong evaluations from stdents, peers and supervisors. I had published several more things in top journals. And my family had bought a house in the town, with all four of our kids plugged in to schools and other activities. Sure enough, as the department whittled away the list of over 400 candidates, I remained on the short list.

Unfortunately, in the middle of the job search, one of the female members of the department resigned. She had been one of three female members of a twelve-member department.

Suddenly, concerns for affirmative action became dominant. The new hire had to be a woman. They hired a freshly-minted female Ph.D with no publications and no teaching experience, and from a University not nearly the caliber of the one from which I graduated. She was single and with no children to support. She had a cat.

I was at the end of my tether. They could not renew my one-year stints. This meant that a family of six had to move, and with no job prospects for me, the sole "bread winner." (One colleague in the department who felt guilty about the decision said, "God have mercy on us.")

Thank God that, out of the blue, I was offered another teaching position in another state. We sold our house and moved that summer.

This was all well over a decade ago. I am over my bitterness. And, indeed, had I been ofered that job, I would still be living in the frozen north, where I was miserable. So, ironically, they did me a favor.

But I believe to this day that an injustice was done to me due to affirmative action. It is, quite simply, reverse discrimination.

If there is any systemic discrimination today, it is against people of my own gender and hue. My best friend, who is white, male, straight, Christian, and a philosophy Ph.D. with an impressive publishing and teaching record, never did get a full-time teaching job after he earned his doctorate. He gave up, and assumed a boring administrative position.

I once suggested to him, when he was still trying, that he might stand a better chance if he indicated on his applications that he is actually a "black lesbian trapped inside a white male body."

The number of times that this sort of thing has happened to me can not be counted on both hands. Numerous times I was discriminated against, for a less qualified candidate, only to then prove myself in the long run.

I had a choice, to be bitter or to get over it. I was bitter, but as I'm sure you've realized, bitterness and anger eats at your soul, and resentment and unhappiness take its place.

The fact is, I've been given a leg up on all of the rest of you. I've had special privileges, because I was born in America.

Life isn't fair. I'm sure some could claim that I was unfairly promoted over them, for reasons outside of what was just, and likely some might have good reason to think so, but that's just life.

Some people are smarter, some more attractive, and some are like me, someone in the great big middle area of average.

My point is, however in artfully I've made it, is that injustices happen everyday. They cut deep to our souls and no one is immune from them, neither is any immune from the benefit of another's injustice.

The question is how do we live our lives in a world in which justice is not fairly dispensed. Do we live our lives in anger and despair, or in one in which life is looked at as possibilities, rather than disappointments.

Those that figure this out, usually are the ones who succeed.

These racist churches who prey upon the ignorant masses and their anger over past and present injustices, are doing more of a disservice to their race, than the injustice that caused them the original pain.

David's Mom, give me your address and I'll send you a quarter to call someone who cares. That's very harsh, but that's called life. Quit feeling sorry for yourself. You have your health, your family and a wonderful nation in which opportunities truly abound, and in which some injustice still falls. That's not going to change, ever.

Again, as my momma used to tell me when I'd whine or cry about some grave injustice that had been wrought upon me, that I should know that whoever told me life was going to be fair, lied to me.

The Doobies have a great song, maybe you should listen to it. Its called "GET OVER IT!"

Those who have suffered 'racism' should certainly acknowledge the pain when one suffers 'reverse racism'. I think we're moving beyond that - although the pain of the bitterness remains.