to break into cartoons in the US, Uppity Hooper:
Nobody Knows the Lynchings He’s Seen (title of Frank Rich article criticizing Clarence Thomas’s book, which would be racist, if spoken by a white Republican)
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
“Roland wants to talk about church burnings. It’s import to make sure that they understand that the white-man is still out to get them and getting a fair-shake in America is an impossibility.”
Apparently, one is particular thought so as recently as the ’90s
“It’s a high-tech lynching” Clarence Thomas.
Of course he was being vilified for being off-the-liberal-reservation. Or was it because he knew he stole his only bona-fides through affirmative action, and was now the poster boy for the Peter Principle? Some bad apples always sneak into the cider, just as some guilty go free to safeguard the innocent.
‘Cleo, what they did to Thomas was disgusting. As far as the Peter Principle goes, I think that’s much better applied to the Krug, for example. With respect to affirmative action, how about the boyos on faculty who got their tenure before the diversity movement, and now burn down the bridge for other white boys trying to get over it? Any hypocrisy there?
Oops. I mean hetero white boys.
What evidence do you have for the hetero-white boys burning the bridge? Stand by for links to Thomas, who supported AA thorough his EEO years, then dumped it to pander to his nomination handlers.
You assert that males of pallor who received tenure prior to the diversity movement don’t very often cast their vote to consider only candidates who might fill some diversity slot in their department? You MUST be kidding, right?
“received tenure prior to the diversity movement don’t very often cast their vote to consider only candidates who might fill some diversity slot in their department? You MUST be kidding, right?”
I know there is plenty of political bullshit which must be tolerated in the name of being Knighted ‘Tenured’. That’s the nature of bureaucracy, whether in industry or academia. The perogatives of power. You wish to remove politics from professional categories? How special.
There was a case, years ago, of a prof writing an article for the Chronicle stating that diversity goals were so important that there ought to be in effect a hiring freeze on white males in the humanities. A disgruntled white male graduate student challenged him to give up his tenured position to make way for someone who ought to have it, and the prof’s lame response was, “He must be joking.” If anyone can supply the link, that would be great.
Then again it would only prove that those involved with AA would only advance those candidates they know would. succeed. Which they would have done without AA anyway. Again the soft racism of the left. Hmmm. How did Thomas Sowell sneak under the wire? Damned economists!
Listen, you ass. I’m saying that if you’re going to assert hypocrisy in the first instance, you must also do so in the second. You seemed not to feel that it was a hypocrisy for Jeffords to swap parties. On the contrary, it was an expression of high integrity.
Dan.
Dan?
Why are you arguing with the cheese dip again?
I’m an ass?
I see you are still trying to find that link that proves the exception to the rule. I can’t do anything about your mindset of predispositions about hypocrisy and the liberal conspiracy-theory of the JOOOOOOOOOS in Academia until you prove it. >asswipe.
This isn’t what I was looking for, but may do.
There are of course two different interpretations of the phrase “affirmative action”: the original (and still legal) version of the folks who set up the system, and the present-day perversion thereof.
The original setup of affirmative action was based on the notion that capable minorities were very likely to be lost or ignored, swamped in the mass of non-capable ones. Affirmative action required that employers give minorities an extra chance and document doing so, in the expectation that those who were in fact capable of doing the work would appear and thus take their appropriate place on the ladder of advancement. Under that rubric there is no particular odium attached to discharging a minority person after a tryout period, nor is it particularly surprising that some members of minority groups would in fact be successful — in fact, the latter was the hope and intention behind setting up the system. Justice Thomas was a beneficiary of that sort of affirmative action, and in fact a poster child for its success.
The present-day implementation of so-called “affirmative action” is nothing of the sort. It is in fact, though not in law, a quota system that taxes employers to provide remunerative positions to members of favored minority groups. I say “positions” because the attitude is rather reminiscent of Mr. Collins of Pride and Prejudice or Micawber of David Copperfield — there is no particular expectation that the person having the “position” or “living” would (or should) actually do anything, only that they derive an income and corresponding social standing from it. If you apply the modern attitude toward affirmative action to Justice Thomas, as Semanticleo insists, the conclusion you will reach is quite different from that which follows from the original version.
Of course the current attitude is fundamentally and deeply racist, since it assumes that members of minority groups are all incapable and therefore must be forced into their positions. I rather support the original version, for several different reasons, but I am acutely conscious of the tinge of “racism”. The present arrangement is blatantly racist, so the “liberals” have to bluster, fume, and generally handwave to keep people from noticing that.
Regards,
Ric
“members of minority groups are all incapable and therefore must be forced into their positions.”
“Whoop-de-doo” CT. If he didn’t want it, he should have removed his name. But I see he took the job, as well as a 7-figure book deal based upon a fraud. Pity.
Here’s another reference.
Prove it.
Why, that fraudulent program known as Affirmative Action,,,,,,,
“Justice Thomas’s account of his early life and how he came to be an opponent of affirmative action reinforce the idea that he has long been tormented by the role of race in his life. He was admitted to Yale Law School under a set-aside program for minority applicants, although his earlier comments have suggested he did not accept that he was given special treatment.
In the book, he writes that he assumes he was given special treatment, but because of his poverty, which itself may have been related to race.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/washington/30thomas.html
“It’s useful to watch Mr. Thomas at this moment, 16 years after his riveting confirmation circus. He is a barometer of what has and has not changed since then because he hasn’t changed at all. He still preaches against black self-pity even as he hyperbolically tries to cast his Senate cross-examination by Joe Biden as tantamount to the Ku Klux Klan assassination of Medgar Evers. He still denies that he is the beneficiary of the very race-based preferences he deplores. He still has a dubious relationship with the whole truth and nothing but, and not merely in the matter of Anita Hill.
This could be seen most vividly on “60 Minutes,” when he revisited a parable about the evils of affirmative action that is also a centerpiece of his memoir: his anger about the “tainted” degree he received from Yale Law School. In Mr. Thomas’s account, he stuck a 15-cent price sticker on his diploma after potential employers refused to hire him. By his reckoning, a Yale Law graduate admitted through affirmative action, as he was, would automatically be judged inferior to whites with the same degree. The “60 Minutes” correspondent, Steve Kroft, maintained that Mr. Thomas had no choice but to settle for a measly $10,000-a-year job (in 1974 dollars) in Missouri, working for the state’s attorney general, John Danforth.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/07rich.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Frank Rich is full of shit as usual, ‘Cleo. See here.
Oh, we can talk all day long about the status of the Missouri job. The point is Thomas feels his Yale diploma has a stain on it But he did accept it, didn’t he? A man of principle might do something different, but we’re talking about CLARENCE Thomas, right?
I don’t think we need to. Kerr’s take-down pretty nicely took down our theater critic’s snarl.
From what I can see, the only stain Thomas sees on his Yale JD is from the mud the Left has thrown at it in its vain attempt to force him back onto the plantation. They still see him as their darkie and aren’t amused that he actually thinks he made it on his own. Uppity, even.
“Uppity, even.”
Uncle Thomas keeps his owners happy.
And isn’t ownership what AA’s all about, keeping it’s beneficiaries perpetually in thrall to the Great White Father who bestows these crumbs upon them?
Heh. Cleo’s still tying up nooses for that confirmation hearing.
Talk about living in the past.
And using old mu for the slinging, as well. Didn’t stick so well last time, except maybe through the left’s “reality filters.”
Oh, and Dan, thanks from a reader for taking up some of the slack while Jeff is under the weather.
Thanks, Merovign. I appreciate that appreciation.
Let’s assume for the moment that Thomas was admitted under a race-based policy at Yale Law and, pace ‘Cleo, this is an argument that he, Thomas, ought to therefore perpetuate said policy. Isn’t this, by extension, also an argument that white public officials ought to have perpetuated legal exclusionary admissions policies since they rose through the ranks while they were in force?
It was his job to enforce the law while at the EEOC. He may have disagreed with AA, but it was the law.
His consistent stance has been that the law is the important issue, not what he personally believes. I realize that’s a hard idea for a leftist to grasp…
“Comment by Semanticleo on 10/7 @ 11:55 am #
“Uppity, even.â€Â
Uncle Thomas keeps his owners happy.”
Fuck you, you racist pig.
He doesn’t realize that he’s rightly the property of Affirmative Action, NOB.
Repost:
“Comment by Semanticleo on 10/7 @ 11:55 am #
“I hereby nominate semanticleo for President of Douchebagistanâ€Â
Comment by Semanticleo on 10/7 @ 9:42 am #
I’m an ass?
hole. You forgot hole. Yes. You are an asshole. And judging from your posts a rather bigoted one at that. What’s got you POed. The fact that Clerance Thomas is black or that he isn’t grateful to you, the left…………………or both.
He used the system to his advantage. Good for him.
To folks like Frank Rich it was a true injustice when a “high yellow” activist was replaced by an honest individual who Ernest Gaines would describe as “the quintessential buck nigger”. Not only does Thomas look like…y’know, “those people”, he also believes in the concept of limited government.
It must break Frank’s heart to see a negro so blasphemous. A Nubian so ungrateful to Frank and the people like Frank who made it possible for the lowly Afro-human to experience a taste of the good life is simply a bridge too far.