The season for naming & labeling concerns has returned to San Jose. So let’s draw some lessons.
The Rev. Jon Pedigo of the San Jose Diocese launched a campaign in the letters to the editor today (1/9/10) denouncing columnist Ruben Navarrette’s embrace on the pages of the Merc of the term “illegal immigrant” to describe the 3 million persons in California without visas or permits.
I believe that the diverse white American peoples should not use a name or label for anyone that was not chosen by the persons so named & labeled. It’s only right. (I’m not going to speak for other demographics—that’s their right.) Any attempt to name the other is literally an expression of supremacy, a tendency not limited to the diverse white American peoples.
But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I must argue that the Rev. Pedigo betrays some slight hypocrisy when he indicated no interest at all when the Rev. Jose Rubio of the San Jose Diocese was quoted in the Merc calling the diverse white members of his congregation “anglos.” Rev. Rubio did not mean respect toward the ethnic label, Anglo-Saxon. He meant to smother the diversity among the white American peoples in his parish in a particularly supremacist way. But no criticism from Rev. Pedigo.
The Rev. Pedigo had no problem with the Merc quoting remarks labeling a young white kidnap victim in San Jose with the degrading label “guerrito” or with the Merc quoting the use of “gringo” as a way to express disdain & supremacy toward the diverse white peoples in San Jose.
How about it, Rev. Pedigo? Is respect in naming & labeling a one-way street?
The San Jose Mercury News published its third letter to the editor in five days today criticizing the use of “illegal immigrant.” None of the letters claim to recognize the need for a slur-free society, each of the letters just demands what the writer wants with no reference to anyone else. Kinda weird.
Readers may need reminding that the Mercury News usually takes this kind of thing seriously, at least on a theoretical level. The editorial board endorsed the most extreme position possible when it condemned the use of “these people,” “those people,” and “you people.” You may recall that Ross Perot was attacked when he used “you people” at a major political event. And an unfortunate Cupertino council member used “these people” and was soundly whipped by the San Jose Mercury News. So this stuff is no small thing.
I thought the fuss about names and labels was a little silly until I saw the WSJ story on Jan. 8 about a religious conflict in Malaysia where Muslims and Christians are in conflict about whether Christians in Malaysia may translate the word “God” in Christian scriptures as “Allah.”
Apparently the Malaysian government banned the use of “Allah” in translations by Christians, and then a court threw out the government’s ban on Dec. 31. So far two Christian churches have been fire-bombed as a reaction to the court’s ruling.
This is a religion-based conflict rather than an ethnicity-based conflict, but we have to wonder whether those who are providing the framework for the multicultural experiment in California have thought through its ultimate working out.
Also in the Merc today was a front page story about the US census including a particular label for the African American demographic that has apparently drawn some criticism even though the language was explicitly approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2008, and the US Census Bureau reports directly to the Office of the President.
I’m 100% in favor of the African American community having the final say on names & labels to which they are requested to respond in the US Census, as well in all other contexts. It’s their right.
Nevertheless, some related matters in this naming & labeling issue need some review.
The regional spokesman (Sonny Le) for the US Census Bureau claimed to the Merc that the census form is reviewed and analyzed thoroughly by different offices and advisory groups before being finalized. This is a Big Lie.
No one was invited to engage in this process from the diverse white American community. This was true for the census in 2000 and 1990. Sonny Le needs to apologize to the residents of San Jose for retailing this Big Lie. Or document the truth of his mendacious claim and tell us about this “advisory group.”
Some people pretend that this is understandable because, after all, many white people hold office in Washington, D.C., and are presumed to speak for the diverse white American peoples. This is a fiction—just ask Congress Member Zoe Lofgren, whom I understand to have been a child of Croatian immigrants, when has she ever spoken up for the diverse white people in San Jose?
When US Senator Byrd referred to some white people in his state as “white n-words,” did she protest? No, she did not.
When then-US Senator Obama used the inclusive & derogatory expression “a typical white person,” an astonishing slur, did she protest? No she did not.
Of course, it is a grave flaw in Lofgren’s character that she accepts slanders and slurs directed by governmental officials toward the diverse white American peoples.
The most charitable explanation is that she occupies, with or without realizing it, a position we could characterize as left-libertarian which views white people as individuals without group interests.
The conservatives are just as bad, and the most charitable thing we could say about them is that they are right-libertarian viewing white people as individuals without group interests.
But that means the multiculture is a fraud. If every demographic is not represented for input in the US Census, much less the Gang Task Force in San Jose, and is unrecognized as students needing help by the Santa Clara Office of Education, then the rhetorical burbling by the Merc and various groups is simply fraud.
Our historic President has chosen to place responsibility and authority for the conduct of the census right within his very own Executive Branch. It is HIS census, and HE is calling the shots.
If he chooses to describe some of the people being enumerated in the OFFICIAL CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATE census as “Negroes”, it’s good enough for me.
The Mercury News weighed in today on US Senator Harry Reid’s problem (page A6). US Senator Harry Reid’s remarks about then-US Senator Barack Obama provide a fascinating look at naming & labeling as it relates to slurs & stereotypes, both of which are sub-sets of names & labels.
First, Reid used a label for African Americans which was condemned in a front page story just last Saturday. It shows Reid claimed a supremacist right to name and label a demographic of which he was not a member. The Merc missed this aspect of Reid’s remarks.
Second, Reid spoke condescendingly about then-US Senator Barack Obama in his quoted comments even as Reid touted Obama as a candidate for president. The Merc missed this aspect of Reid’s remarks.
Third, Reid decoded Obama’s qualifications in terms of Obama’s skin color and dialect. The Merc spotted this aspect of Reid’s remarks and correctly relied on Obama’s response.
Fourth, Reid embraced a particularly noxious stereotype by characterizing a member of another demographic as more praise-worthy than other members of that demographic by making the claim about Obama as more qualified and more skillful than any other African American. This type of stereotype usually reflects a bias against the other demographic that may even be unconscious, but it does disclose how Reid really feels about the African American community, far more than what it discloses about how Reid really feels about Obama.
Americans are frequently confused about this stereotype because it is based on a passive-aggressive psychological approach that is a little difficult at first glance to decode. It means that Reid, if he is to approach this honestly and with a penitent heart, owes the entire African American community an apology for what Reid carried in his heart about that entire demographic, not just about Obama personally. The Merc completely missed this aspect of Reid’s remarks.
========
The exchange about US Senator Reid’s problem yesterday on a Sunday morning TV news show between George Will and Liz Cheney (daughter of former VP Dick Cheney) was fascinating. Both George & Liz are right-libertarians who oppose all group recognitions, including their own, with George endorsing Reid’s comments as “truthful” and Liz condemning Reid’s remarks as “racist.” The mind reels backward at that spectacle.
> Fourth, Reid embraced a particularly noxious stereotype by characterizing a member of another demographic as more praise-worthy than other members of that demographic by making the claim about Obama as more qualified and more skillful than any other African American.
An astute observation.
I have, in the past, observed unkind persons assert exactly this type of stereotype.
“Gee, Marge, you don’t sweat much for a fat girl”.
Congratulations on your sense of humor and realism. In fact the diverse white American peoples are certainly diverse in smarts with half above 100 IQ and half below 100 IQ. The problem is, of course, that we all get blamed for what some low IQ white people do in a way that members of other demographic groups do not get blamed when one of their own does something appalling.
We don’t really have a double standard in American media and academia as has been claimed in the Harry Reid fracas, we have a single standard with genders, religions, and ethnicities ranked in a peculiar way from the we-do-no-wrong-how-dare-you-say-that batch to white-is-always-wrong. Very strange but true.
I do not understand the term “African-American”. It appears to be used as a descriptive term for individuals of the Negroid race. However, that does not make any sense. After all, there are others born in Africa who are of the Caucasoid or Mongoloid race. Obviously, African-American, as it is currently used, is a misnomer.
Being a moderate and centrist doesn’t happen by accident. It requires constant attention to what is going on in the community. And what better way to sustain one’s focus on the community than a daily perusal of the community’s premier news organ, the San Jose Mercury News:
Page 1: “VTA mired in red ink / Yet agency forging ahead with BART extension, light-rail expansion”
Page A8: “Transit cuts could hinder economic recovery”
Page A11: “‘Illegal immigrant’ term fosters racism”
Page B1: “Dispute aboard MLK train”
Page B1: “City to decide fate of failed Latino center / Facility that bled red ink for years …”
Oh, wow! This is what makes San Jose so great: wise public policy, fiscal responsibility, and ethnic harmony.
I’m worried that we’re not paying our elected officials or public servants enough for creating this civic marvel. What if they are stolen away by Detroit or Newark, New Jersey?
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska SOLD HIS VOTE in favor of the new health care legislation to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for a pork perk that no other state received—the feds would cover Nebraska’s Medicaid cost (MediCal in California) forever. This is typical of the Democrats, and completely despicable.
In response 14 state Attorneys General penned this letter to the two scounrels—Pelosi & Reid.
December 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid
program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take
action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections
afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the
Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are
unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It
seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal
health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also
antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the
“Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska
will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the
legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country
and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to
protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that
you do so. By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do
not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry McMaster
Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKenna
Attorney General, Washington
Mike Cox
Attorney General, Michigan
Greg Abbott
Attorney General, Texas
John Suthers
Attorney General, Colorado
Troy King
Attorney General, Alabama
Wayne Stenehjem
Attorney General, North Dakota
Bill Mims
Attorney General, Virginia
Tom Corbett
Attorney General, Pennsylvania
Mark Shurtleff
Attorney General, Utah
Bill McCollum
Attorney General, Florida
Lawrence Wasden
Attorney General, Idaho
Marty Jackley
Attorney General, South Dakota
Your argument would ring truer if you said this was this typical of politics and didn’t make it partisan. Both parties have long operated like this but only complain when they are not in power. Clean-up both sides of the aisle and knock off the partisan crap and then we might make some progress, but I doubt it.
California’s pension costs have increased 2000% in the past decade. One of the major political parties is always supported by labor and it’s not the one with the (R).
“The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians- pushed by our friends in labor- gradually expanded pay and benefits… while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages… This is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide…but at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact.”
Heard NAACP is boycotting Freedom Train because Cops gave money to MLK Freedom Train not NAACP and NAACP Prez is making racial slurs against white MLK’s Board members
I hope readers of this blog realize that well over half the posts on this site originate from a small circle of posters attempting to forward their agenda. Some of these people masquerade as proponents of a racially slur-free society, when in reality they are only interested promoting a pro-white European agenda.
They have dodged questions as to why their members writings crop up on racist websites, and have since stopped posting under their real names when the connections to these sites were made obvious.
So read these posts with a degree of skepticism, as this group continues to try to inject their misguided racist viewpoint into the discussion.
Why don’t you just name the names of the posters you object to and dispute what they say?
Or, are you hoping that the moderator will suppress them in reponse to your whining, and spare you the shame of openly expressing your intolerance and close mindedness?
You just don’t get it. In a free and open society such as ours, it’s important that we stifle the voices that interfere with our perception that we live in a free and open society.
The MLK Association wants to begin by thanking the community, our sponsors, and members of the African American community who have contacted us expressing their support of our organization and of the Freedom Train event, Monday, 1/18/2010. We would also like to express our gratitude to those media outlets that have strived to report this controversy in a fair and balanced manner.
The MLK Association would like to take this opportunity to correct the misinformation being circulated in both the media and the community.
In 2009, under a previous administration, our Board was notified that due to economic hardship, our two Freedom Train sponsors were unable to fund the 2010 Freedom Train. Under a new administration, members of our Board began an unsuccessful and extensive outreach for funding to both the African American community and to private corporations. Therefore, accusations that we did not attempt to request funding from the African American community are untrue.
It is the policy of the MLK Association to honor all of our sponsors at our Mover of the Mountain’s event. It is untrue that we are only honoring Mr. Lopez and Mr. Beattie. They are just two of the many individuals that will be honored at our event. The Mover of the Mountains event honors sponsors, donors, scholarship winners, and members of the community who dedicate their lives to further the life, legend, and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The claims that are being made that the Police are using the MLK Board to suppress claims of racism by the Police Department on people of the color are also untrue. The MLK Association has had a positive working relationship with the SJPOA for over a year now. The MLK Association began its relationship with the SJPOA, the Police, the City of San Jose, and other groups/members in the community, last year, when we participated in a peace march sponsored by a murder victim’s family seeking assistance from the community in finding their fathers murders. Members of our Board also attended a Candle Lit Vigil for Victims of Violent Crime held at City Hall to honor the memories of people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who were violently murdered.
Another bit of misinformation is that we have received donations from the Police Department. The MLK Association has never asked for or accepted financial assistance from the Police Department. We have only accepted a donation from the SJPOA, and other POAs. Like other African American non-profits, we do invite all members of the community, including Chief Davis to attend our events, buy a table, or take out ads in our commemorative booklets. Given that this is a common practice among all multi cultural groups, we are perplexed as to why our group and the SJPOA are being singled out for examination and ridicule.
The assertion that our present Board has not done outreach to the African American community for membership is also untrue. Our Board members are always encouraged to seek out new members. Also, during our 2009, Mover of the Mountains event, and our Coretta Scott King Working Women’s brunch, the President made an announcement in an effort to recruit new members.
One of the most disturbing complaints we have received from a small number of leaders in the African American community is that the five members of our Board who are not of African American decent displays a lack of sensitivity, and is an insult to the African American community. Our Board does not agree that race should be a qualifier in who is accepted to serve on the Board. The MLK Board, while shocked and sadden by this commentary, would like to say that this Board has always had a number of diverse members on it, and is always looking to add members to the Board and its committees. Our Board is a voluntary one, and has a high turn over due to the time commitment involved in service to the Board.
In closing, we would like the community to know that our President and members of the Board have made several attempts to try and resolve this issue through respectful communication with the few members of the African American community who have contacted to us. Unfortunately, our efforts failed when we refused to distance ourselves from the SJPOA, cancel the Freedom Train, and when these individuals chose to air this publicly rather then continue dialog with us privately.
We believe that as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did that we must always be willing to work in collaboration with any and all groups that strive toward a safer, more peaceful community so that we may all live in harmony with one another. It is our hope that you will join us in carrying out his vision Monday, 1/18/2010, to honor the life, legend, and legacy of the much beloved Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. aboard the Freedom Train.
The diverse white American people have no figure who stands up for their group interests, like ending the defamation and demonization that plague us. White politicians are thought to speak up for us, but they don’t.
An earlier poster picked on Congress Member Zoe Lofgren for her blind spot toward white people, but it is also true of our two white US Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Not one member of the Lofgren-Boxer-Feinstein trio has ever spoken up for white people. Thus the question, where’s the white Al Sharpton? It is pretty strange that there is literally no national figure who can speak to power to admonish it to tone down the defamation and demonization of the diverse white American peoples.
Here’s a well-known example of how the federal government itself smears white people with false hate crime statistics. [I’ll use the same terms the federal government uses, but in quotes to indicate these are not my labels: “White,” “Hispanic,” and “Asian.”]
The very first criminal convictions for hate email were of UC-Irvine foreign student Ricardo Machado from El Salvador who sent threatening hate messages to 59 “Asian” students at UC-Irvine.
You might think that would boost the federal hate crime count for “Hispanics” by 59 that year, and you’d be wrong. When the statistics were received in Washington, D.C., they were promptly added to the list of “White” hate crimes, boosting the number that year by 59 hate crimes even though the entire quarrel was between one “Hispanic” foreign student and 59 “Asian” students.
Lofgren, Boxer, and Feinstein are each personally aware of this example and the general practice of shifting criminal statistics over to the “White” classification, but refuse to introduce legislation to correct the problem or to speak out against it.
So why don’t we have a white Al Sharpton to sound the alarm about this bigotry? Good question.
The more cynical among us have been referring to Obama as “The Messiah” for quite awhile now. I didn’t realize what an accurate portrayal this sarcasm would turn out to be.
Harry Reid insults the whole population of America. He’s aware of his sin. His career is in peril. So he turns to Obama for forgiveness. Obama lifts the insult off the American people, takes it upon himself, and forgives Reid, who is miraculously born again. Hallelujah!
Perhaps David Duke will now understand who to turn if he wants to have his spirit cleansed.
Good grief! It takes a major league bigot to slime an entire ethnic group with an ugly stereotype like David Duke.
What stereotypes do you have in your repertoire that you apply to Celtics, Germans, Italians, Anglo Saxons, Greeks, Arabs, Persians, and other so-called “white Americans”?
Do you find “white Americans” less objectionable if they are—like President Obama—“clean cut”, don’t exhibit any white ethnic dialects, and aren’t “scary looking”?
Before giving to the Red Cross by default, please note there are other organizations with higher ratings that you might find more appropriate to offer donations to.
“Sen. Schumer Calls Brown a ‘far-right tea-bagger’…”
I’m sure that Senator Schumer knows very well the distinction between a “tea-bagger” and a “tea-partier”.
Senator Brown’s first official act after he is sworn in as the next occupant of the “Kennedy seat” should be to pay a visit to Senator Schumer and knee him in the groin.
Charles II
The San Jose version of the Stuart Dynasty.
Fully restored.
Reed will easily be reelected for no one can run to his right and there is no Progressive leaning female who can run to his left.
At least an opponent needs 50 to 80K.
There is a nine point attack piece that can be done.
It will not be. No one with any professional ability can defeat Reed, who is the weakest Mayor in thirty five years.
The season for naming & labeling concerns has returned to San Jose. So let’s draw some lessons.
The Rev. Jon Pedigo of the San Jose Diocese launched a campaign in the letters to the editor today (1/9/10) denouncing columnist Ruben Navarrette’s embrace on the pages of the Merc of the term “illegal immigrant” to describe the 3 million persons in California without visas or permits.
I believe that the diverse white American peoples should not use a name or label for anyone that was not chosen by the persons so named & labeled. It’s only right. (I’m not going to speak for other demographics—that’s their right.) Any attempt to name the other is literally an expression of supremacy, a tendency not limited to the diverse white American peoples.
But what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I must argue that the Rev. Pedigo betrays some slight hypocrisy when he indicated no interest at all when the Rev. Jose Rubio of the San Jose Diocese was quoted in the Merc calling the diverse white members of his congregation “anglos.” Rev. Rubio did not mean respect toward the ethnic label, Anglo-Saxon. He meant to smother the diversity among the white American peoples in his parish in a particularly supremacist way. But no criticism from Rev. Pedigo.
The Rev. Pedigo had no problem with the Merc quoting remarks labeling a young white kidnap victim in San Jose with the degrading label “guerrito” or with the Merc quoting the use of “gringo” as a way to express disdain & supremacy toward the diverse white peoples in San Jose.
How about it, Rev. Pedigo? Is respect in naming & labeling a one-way street?
The San Jose Mercury News published its third letter to the editor in five days today criticizing the use of “illegal immigrant.” None of the letters claim to recognize the need for a slur-free society, each of the letters just demands what the writer wants with no reference to anyone else. Kinda weird.
Readers may need reminding that the Mercury News usually takes this kind of thing seriously, at least on a theoretical level. The editorial board endorsed the most extreme position possible when it condemned the use of “these people,” “those people,” and “you people.” You may recall that Ross Perot was attacked when he used “you people” at a major political event. And an unfortunate Cupertino council member used “these people” and was soundly whipped by the San Jose Mercury News. So this stuff is no small thing.
I thought the fuss about names and labels was a little silly until I saw the WSJ story on Jan. 8 about a religious conflict in Malaysia where Muslims and Christians are in conflict about whether Christians in Malaysia may translate the word “God” in Christian scriptures as “Allah.”
Apparently the Malaysian government banned the use of “Allah” in translations by Christians, and then a court threw out the government’s ban on Dec. 31. So far two Christian churches have been fire-bombed as a reaction to the court’s ruling.
This is a religion-based conflict rather than an ethnicity-based conflict, but we have to wonder whether those who are providing the framework for the multicultural experiment in California have thought through its ultimate working out.
Malaysia today, California tomorrow?
Also in the Merc today was a front page story about the US census including a particular label for the African American demographic that has apparently drawn some criticism even though the language was explicitly approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 2008, and the US Census Bureau reports directly to the Office of the President.
I’m 100% in favor of the African American community having the final say on names & labels to which they are requested to respond in the US Census, as well in all other contexts. It’s their right.
Nevertheless, some related matters in this naming & labeling issue need some review.
The regional spokesman (Sonny Le) for the US Census Bureau claimed to the Merc that the census form is reviewed and analyzed thoroughly by different offices and advisory groups before being finalized. This is a Big Lie.
No one was invited to engage in this process from the diverse white American community. This was true for the census in 2000 and 1990. Sonny Le needs to apologize to the residents of San Jose for retailing this Big Lie. Or document the truth of his mendacious claim and tell us about this “advisory group.”
Some people pretend that this is understandable because, after all, many white people hold office in Washington, D.C., and are presumed to speak for the diverse white American peoples. This is a fiction—just ask Congress Member Zoe Lofgren, whom I understand to have been a child of Croatian immigrants, when has she ever spoken up for the diverse white people in San Jose?
When US Senator Byrd referred to some white people in his state as “white n-words,” did she protest? No, she did not.
When then-US Senator Obama used the inclusive & derogatory expression “a typical white person,” an astonishing slur, did she protest? No she did not.
Of course, it is a grave flaw in Lofgren’s character that she accepts slanders and slurs directed by governmental officials toward the diverse white American peoples.
The most charitable explanation is that she occupies, with or without realizing it, a position we could characterize as left-libertarian which views white people as individuals without group interests.
The conservatives are just as bad, and the most charitable thing we could say about them is that they are right-libertarian viewing white people as individuals without group interests.
But that means the multiculture is a fraud. If every demographic is not represented for input in the US Census, much less the Gang Task Force in San Jose, and is unrecognized as students needing help by the Santa Clara Office of Education, then the rhetorical burbling by the Merc and various groups is simply fraud.
You’re beating a dead horse. The hypocrisy shown by your own actions leaves this argument in need of repair.
As an American, I always support the President.
Our historic President has chosen to place responsibility and authority for the conduct of the census right within his very own Executive Branch. It is HIS census, and HE is calling the shots.
If he chooses to describe some of the people being enumerated in the OFFICIAL CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATE census as “Negroes”, it’s good enough for me.
“Negroes” it is.
The Mercury News weighed in today on US Senator Harry Reid’s problem (page A6). US Senator Harry Reid’s remarks about then-US Senator Barack Obama provide a fascinating look at naming & labeling as it relates to slurs & stereotypes, both of which are sub-sets of names & labels.
First, Reid used a label for African Americans which was condemned in a front page story just last Saturday. It shows Reid claimed a supremacist right to name and label a demographic of which he was not a member. The Merc missed this aspect of Reid’s remarks.
Second, Reid spoke condescendingly about then-US Senator Barack Obama in his quoted comments even as Reid touted Obama as a candidate for president. The Merc missed this aspect of Reid’s remarks.
Third, Reid decoded Obama’s qualifications in terms of Obama’s skin color and dialect. The Merc spotted this aspect of Reid’s remarks and correctly relied on Obama’s response.
Fourth, Reid embraced a particularly noxious stereotype by characterizing a member of another demographic as more praise-worthy than other members of that demographic by making the claim about Obama as more qualified and more skillful than any other African American. This type of stereotype usually reflects a bias against the other demographic that may even be unconscious, but it does disclose how Reid really feels about the African American community, far more than what it discloses about how Reid really feels about Obama.
Americans are frequently confused about this stereotype because it is based on a passive-aggressive psychological approach that is a little difficult at first glance to decode. It means that Reid, if he is to approach this honestly and with a penitent heart, owes the entire African American community an apology for what Reid carried in his heart about that entire demographic, not just about Obama personally. The Merc completely missed this aspect of Reid’s remarks.
========
The exchange about US Senator Reid’s problem yesterday on a Sunday morning TV news show between George Will and Liz Cheney (daughter of former VP Dick Cheney) was fascinating. Both George & Liz are right-libertarians who oppose all group recognitions, including their own, with George endorsing Reid’s comments as “truthful” and Liz condemning Reid’s remarks as “racist.” The mind reels backward at that spectacle.
> Fourth, Reid embraced a particularly noxious stereotype by characterizing a member of another demographic as more praise-worthy than other members of that demographic by making the claim about Obama as more qualified and more skillful than any other African American.
An astute observation.
I have, in the past, observed unkind persons assert exactly this type of stereotype.
“Gee, Marge, you don’t sweat much for a fat girl”.
Congratulations on your sense of humor and realism. In fact the diverse white American peoples are certainly diverse in smarts with half above 100 IQ and half below 100 IQ. The problem is, of course, that we all get blamed for what some low IQ white people do in a way that members of other demographic groups do not get blamed when one of their own does something appalling.
We don’t really have a double standard in American media and academia as has been claimed in the Harry Reid fracas, we have a single standard with genders, religions, and ethnicities ranked in a peculiar way from the we-do-no-wrong-how-dare-you-say-that batch to white-is-always-wrong. Very strange but true.
I do not understand the term “African-American”. It appears to be used as a descriptive term for individuals of the Negroid race. However, that does not make any sense. After all, there are others born in Africa who are of the Caucasoid or Mongoloid race. Obviously, African-American, as it is currently used, is a misnomer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid
New blog launched on A’s ball park issue.
http://www.athleticsballparklocation.blogspot.com/
Being a moderate and centrist doesn’t happen by accident. It requires constant attention to what is going on in the community. And what better way to sustain one’s focus on the community than a daily perusal of the community’s premier news organ, the San Jose Mercury News:
Page 1: “VTA mired in red ink / Yet agency forging ahead with BART extension, light-rail expansion”
Page 1: “Domestic abuse knows no bounds / … violence plagues gay couples, too”
Page A8: “Transit cuts could hinder economic recovery”
Page A11: “‘Illegal immigrant’ term fosters racism”
Page B1: “Dispute aboard MLK train”
Page B1: “City to decide fate of failed Latino center / Facility that bled red ink for years …”
Oh, wow! This is what makes San Jose so great: wise public policy, fiscal responsibility, and ethnic harmony.
I’m worried that we’re not paying our elected officials or public servants enough for creating this civic marvel. What if they are stolen away by Detroit or Newark, New Jersey?
Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska SOLD HIS VOTE in favor of the new health care legislation to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for a pork perk that no other state received—the feds would cover Nebraska’s Medicaid cost (MediCal in California) forever. This is typical of the Democrats, and completely despicable.
In response 14 state Attorneys General penned this letter to the two scounrels—Pelosi & Reid.
December 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid
program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take
action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections
afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the
Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are
unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It
seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal
health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also
antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the
“Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska
will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the
legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country
and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to
protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that
you do so. By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do
not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry McMaster
Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKenna
Attorney General, Washington
Mike Cox
Attorney General, Michigan
Greg Abbott
Attorney General, Texas
John Suthers
Attorney General, Colorado
Troy King
Attorney General, Alabama
Wayne Stenehjem
Attorney General, North Dakota
Bill Mims
Attorney General, Virginia
Tom Corbett
Attorney General, Pennsylvania
Mark Shurtleff
Attorney General, Utah
Bill McCollum
Attorney General, Florida
Lawrence Wasden
Attorney General, Idaho
Marty Jackley
Attorney General, South Dakota
Your argument would ring truer if you said this was this typical of politics and didn’t make it partisan. Both parties have long operated like this but only complain when they are not in power. Clean-up both sides of the aisle and knock off the partisan crap and then we might make some progress, but I doubt it.
California’s pension costs have increased 2000% in the past decade. One of the major political parties is always supported by labor and it’s not the one with the (R).
“The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But we politicians- pushed by our friends in labor- gradually expanded pay and benefits… while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages… This is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide…but at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact.”
-former Assemblyman Willie Brown (D)
Heard NAACP is boycotting Freedom Train because Cops gave money to MLK Freedom Train not NAACP and NAACP Prez is making racial slurs against white MLK’s Board members
> . . . and NAACP Prez is making racial slurs against white MLK’s Board members
Well, don’t hold back. DISH!
What slurs? Who made the slurs? Who were the slur victims??
Don’t be a part of the Mercury News cover-up!!
I hope readers of this blog realize that well over half the posts on this site originate from a small circle of posters attempting to forward their agenda. Some of these people masquerade as proponents of a racially slur-free society, when in reality they are only interested promoting a pro-white European agenda.
They have dodged questions as to why their members writings crop up on racist websites, and have since stopped posting under their real names when the connections to these sites were made obvious.
So read these posts with a degree of skepticism, as this group continues to try to inject their misguided racist viewpoint into the discussion.
So, why the conspiratorial innuendo?
Why don’t you just name the names of the posters you object to and dispute what they say?
Or, are you hoping that the moderator will suppress them in reponse to your whining, and spare you the shame of openly expressing your intolerance and close mindedness?
You just don’t get it. In a free and open society such as ours, it’s important that we stifle the voices that interfere with our perception that we live in a free and open society.
1. Do fish feel pain?
2. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
3. If a person is Politically Correct, how do they know if they might also be stupid?
Rev Moore President NAACP on KLIV yesterday said that the MLK taking money from the POA is like the Jews taking money from the Nazi’s.
Back story – NACCP asked POA for money for NAACP event but did not get money so is upset
Obviously Rev. Moore has no idea what he is talking about—if the above comment attributed to him is accurate.
The MLK Association wants to begin by thanking the community, our sponsors, and members of the African American community who have contacted us expressing their support of our organization and of the Freedom Train event, Monday, 1/18/2010. We would also like to express our gratitude to those media outlets that have strived to report this controversy in a fair and balanced manner.
The MLK Association would like to take this opportunity to correct the misinformation being circulated in both the media and the community.
In 2009, under a previous administration, our Board was notified that due to economic hardship, our two Freedom Train sponsors were unable to fund the 2010 Freedom Train. Under a new administration, members of our Board began an unsuccessful and extensive outreach for funding to both the African American community and to private corporations. Therefore, accusations that we did not attempt to request funding from the African American community are untrue.
It is the policy of the MLK Association to honor all of our sponsors at our Mover of the Mountain’s event. It is untrue that we are only honoring Mr. Lopez and Mr. Beattie. They are just two of the many individuals that will be honored at our event. The Mover of the Mountains event honors sponsors, donors, scholarship winners, and members of the community who dedicate their lives to further the life, legend, and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The claims that are being made that the Police are using the MLK Board to suppress claims of racism by the Police Department on people of the color are also untrue. The MLK Association has had a positive working relationship with the SJPOA for over a year now. The MLK Association began its relationship with the SJPOA, the Police, the City of San Jose, and other groups/members in the community, last year, when we participated in a peace march sponsored by a murder victim’s family seeking assistance from the community in finding their fathers murders. Members of our Board also attended a Candle Lit Vigil for Victims of Violent Crime held at City Hall to honor the memories of people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who were violently murdered.
Another bit of misinformation is that we have received donations from the Police Department. The MLK Association has never asked for or accepted financial assistance from the Police Department. We have only accepted a donation from the SJPOA, and other POAs. Like other African American non-profits, we do invite all members of the community, including Chief Davis to attend our events, buy a table, or take out ads in our commemorative booklets. Given that this is a common practice among all multi cultural groups, we are perplexed as to why our group and the SJPOA are being singled out for examination and ridicule.
The assertion that our present Board has not done outreach to the African American community for membership is also untrue. Our Board members are always encouraged to seek out new members. Also, during our 2009, Mover of the Mountains event, and our Coretta Scott King Working Women’s brunch, the President made an announcement in an effort to recruit new members.
One of the most disturbing complaints we have received from a small number of leaders in the African American community is that the five members of our Board who are not of African American decent displays a lack of sensitivity, and is an insult to the African American community. Our Board does not agree that race should be a qualifier in who is accepted to serve on the Board. The MLK Board, while shocked and sadden by this commentary, would like to say that this Board has always had a number of diverse members on it, and is always looking to add members to the Board and its committees. Our Board is a voluntary one, and has a high turn over due to the time commitment involved in service to the Board.
In closing, we would like the community to know that our President and members of the Board have made several attempts to try and resolve this issue through respectful communication with the few members of the African American community who have contacted to us. Unfortunately, our efforts failed when we refused to distance ourselves from the SJPOA, cancel the Freedom Train, and when these individuals chose to air this publicly rather then continue dialog with us privately.
We believe that as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. did that we must always be willing to work in collaboration with any and all groups that strive toward a safer, more peaceful community so that we may all live in harmony with one another. It is our hope that you will join us in carrying out his vision Monday, 1/18/2010, to honor the life, legend, and legacy of the much beloved Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. aboard the Freedom Train.
The diverse white American people have no figure who stands up for their group interests, like ending the defamation and demonization that plague us. White politicians are thought to speak up for us, but they don’t.
An earlier poster picked on Congress Member Zoe Lofgren for her blind spot toward white people, but it is also true of our two white US Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Not one member of the Lofgren-Boxer-Feinstein trio has ever spoken up for white people. Thus the question, where’s the white Al Sharpton? It is pretty strange that there is literally no national figure who can speak to power to admonish it to tone down the defamation and demonization of the diverse white American peoples.
Here’s a well-known example of how the federal government itself smears white people with false hate crime statistics. [I’ll use the same terms the federal government uses, but in quotes to indicate these are not my labels: “White,” “Hispanic,” and “Asian.”]
The very first criminal convictions for hate email were of UC-Irvine foreign student Ricardo Machado from El Salvador who sent threatening hate messages to 59 “Asian” students at UC-Irvine.
You might think that would boost the federal hate crime count for “Hispanics” by 59 that year, and you’d be wrong. When the statistics were received in Washington, D.C., they were promptly added to the list of “White” hate crimes, boosting the number that year by 59 hate crimes even though the entire quarrel was between one “Hispanic” foreign student and 59 “Asian” students.
Lofgren, Boxer, and Feinstein are each personally aware of this example and the general practice of shifting criminal statistics over to the “White” classification, but refuse to introduce legislation to correct the problem or to speak out against it.
So why don’t we have a white Al Sharpton to sound the alarm about this bigotry? Good question.
How’s this message of yours working out for you?
Any new recruits for your enterprise?
Didn’t think so. :(
So why don’t we have a white Al Sharpton to sound the alarm about this bigotry?
David Duke.
Just ask finfan next time.
http://www.davidduke.com/
David Duke did work for Democracy.
The more cynical among us have been referring to Obama as “The Messiah” for quite awhile now. I didn’t realize what an accurate portrayal this sarcasm would turn out to be.
Harry Reid insults the whole population of America. He’s aware of his sin. His career is in peril. So he turns to Obama for forgiveness. Obama lifts the insult off the American people, takes it upon himself, and forgives Reid, who is miraculously born again. Hallelujah!
Perhaps David Duke will now understand who to turn if he wants to have his spirit cleansed.
> David Duke.
Good grief! It takes a major league bigot to slime an entire ethnic group with an ugly stereotype like David Duke.
What stereotypes do you have in your repertoire that you apply to Celtics, Germans, Italians, Anglo Saxons, Greeks, Arabs, Persians, and other so-called “white Americans”?
Do you find “white Americans” less objectionable if they are—like President Obama—“clean cut”, don’t exhibit any white ethnic dialects, and aren’t “scary looking”?
Before giving to the Red Cross by default, please note there are other organizations with higher ratings that you might find more appropriate to offer donations to.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=1004
“Sen. Schumer Calls Brown a ‘far-right tea-bagger’…”
I’m sure that Senator Schumer knows very well the distinction between a “tea-bagger” and a “tea-partier”.
Senator Brown’s first official act after he is sworn in as the next occupant of the “Kennedy seat” should be to pay a visit to Senator Schumer and knee him in the groin.