Happy Independance Day!
Posted by
Kevin
[I]n a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.
The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law”; Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.
When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.
A much, much better idea of America:
There’s many a man worse than me, and some better… But I don’t think race or country matters a damn. What matters, Colonel… Is justice. Which is why I’m here. I’ll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved. I’m Kilrain… And I damn all gentlemen.
“But I don’t think race or country matters…” “I’ll be treated as I deserve, not as my father deserved.”
So you’ve finally quit approving of affirmative discrimination? Good for you.
Comment 7/4/2007
Of course not — unlike you, I think that black children deserve to be protected from de facto discrimination as well as de jure discrimination.
Comment 7/4/2007
“Of course not — unlike you, I think that black children deserve to be protected from de facto discrimination as well as de jure discrimination.”
I didn’t really think so. You think that white children should be punished for the sins of other white people who they didn’t even know and had no part in their wrongdoing. The only reason you think they should be punished is because of the color of their skin. You believe in “in fact” discrimination based on race. You are a bigot and an evil racist.
Comment 7/4/2007
Oh, go on, Fred, call him a liar. It’s what you mean by “I don’t really think so.”
We at least grant you the benefit of the doubt that you actually believe the shit you spew. What makes you think we aren’t honest in our policy suggestions? What makes you think that we don’t see it as reducing bigotry to to fix problems rather than to eschew them? Really, what makes you think that your actions are in any better faith than ours?
Comment 7/4/2007
Okay, I have to correct myself, as I have misread “didn’t think so” as “don’t think so”. I rescind the first paragraph of my last post.
Comment 7/4/2007
It’s long been established that Fred is perfectly happy with the current state of racial inequality and is dedicated to perpetuating it. I don’t know why that comes as a surprise to anyone.
Fred’s all about preserving the status quo. Just because the status quo currently involves some races being seriously disadvantaged as compared to others doesn’t make that his problem. To Fred, racial discrimination of any kind is a far worse evil than racial inequality. Or, at least, it would be if he were capable of understanding the difference.
Comment 7/4/2007
“Fred’s all about preserving the status quo.”
Wrong, as usual. I’m the one in favor of changing the status quo. It is you who wants to continue the discrimination of individuals based on race through affirmative discrimination. I want individuals to be judged on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. You want the color of a person’s skin to be the determining factor in how he is treated.
This has been discussed to death in other posts. I would have a lot more respect for you if you just admitted that you want racial discrimination against individuals in order to give advantage to another person of a different race. That is what you advocate. Be honest for once. Of course, your position of approving racial discrimination has been long established.
Comment 7/5/2007
“Really, what makes you think that your actions are in any better faith than ours?”
I don’t question that you believe in good faith that it is right to practice racial discrimination. You have made that abundantly clear.
Comment 7/5/2007
“You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
“Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
“This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity.”
–LBJ, Howard University commencement address, 1965.
Comment 7/5/2007
You do not correct discrimination by more discrimination.
-All right thinking people.
Comment 7/5/2007
“You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him,…”
How many former slaves are alive today?
Comment 7/5/2007
Fred, I’d like to introduce you to the concept of “metaphor.” (To answer your next question, LBJ wasn’t actually talking about footraces, either.)
But while I’m up, let me ask you a a question. Are you opposed to affirmative action on the basis of economic circumstances or social conditions? If two people have identical applications for admission to a college, but one of them grew up poor and the other rich, or one lived in a town with crappy schools and another in a town with great schools, is it appropriate to favor the person who’s been disadvantaged?
Comment 7/5/2007
“Are you opposed to affirmative action on the basis of economic circumstances or social conditions? If two people have identical applications for admission to a college, but one of them grew up poor and the other rich, or one lived in a town with crappy schools and another in a town with great schools, is it appropriate to favor the person who’s been disadvantaged?”
Nice try, but you know Affirmative Discrimination is about race. Stick to the subject.
BTW, I know what a metaphor is. I also know that most people have had ancestors who were persecuted and discriminated against in some area. That doesn’t mean that I have to keep whining about the treatment my Irish, German, and Native American ancestors received.
Comment 7/5/2007
I should have known better than to try to actually have a discussion with you. Seems like every few months I have to be reminded that you’re not interested in that.
Comment 7/5/2007
“I should have known better than to try to actually have a discussion with you.”
Your idea of a discussion is for everyone to agree with you. The discussion was about racial discrimination. You are the one who doesn’t want to discuss your support of racial discrimination. You are the one who is trying to take the discussion off topic.
Comment 7/5/2007
All that from a simple question?
I was trying to understand what your basis for objecting to the use of race in admissions decisions is. But like I said, I should have known better. Feel free to have the last word.
Comment 7/5/2007
“I was trying to understand what your basis for objecting to the use of race in admissions decisions is”
My basis for rejecting affirmative discrimination is that it is wrong to judge someone or give special privileges based on race. It really is strange that you liberals believe such racist decisions are okay. How long have you been a racist?
Comment 7/5/2007
Since about the time I stopped beating my wife, Fred. Cheers.
Comment 7/5/2007
Fred wrote:
“You think that white children should be punished for the sins of other white people who they didn’t even know and had no part in their wrongdoing.”
You’re charging reverse discrimination and positing it as punishment.
The goal of those who favor affirmative action isn’t punishment. As for the reverse discrimination charge, you ought to be up front and not too cute by half.
There is a solid, credible argument to make against reverse discrimination, one you touched on but didn’t come out and state.
It’s simple and extremely important to those hurt by past discrimination as well as to everyone else: principle. If we say discrimination is wrong, then discrimination is wrong, even when practiced or institutionalized for a worthy goal.
Another way to look at it is that two wrongs don’t make a right.
So, if advancing the situation and opportunities of people discriminated against in the past and their descendants requires piling on more discrimination now, against others, you have a lousy, logically and ethically unsupportable solution.
Are all affirmative action measures reverse discrimination? I don’t think so. But the risk is always present. Where they do impose reverse discrimination, where that can be shown clearly, they should be dispensed with.
That’s especially true so many decades after the Civil Rights Act and so much progress being made by people of color on all fronts.
Past some point of healing, a crutch becomes an impediment.
Comment 7/5/2007
Reverse discrimination is discrimination. I don’t use the term because it puts discrimination on two levels where “reverse discrimination” may be okay in some situations. It is not. Racial discrimination is racial discrimination no matter who the victim is.
Comment 7/6/2007
Has anybody coined the term “discrimination-envy” yet? If not, I call dibs.
White guy: How does it feel to know that your accomplishments are tainted because you were given opportunities you didn’t deserve because of your race?
Black guy: I don’t know; you tell me.
Comment 7/6/2007
Rich guy: How does it feel to know that your accomplishments are tainted because you were given opportunities you didn’t deserve because of your parenthood?
Poor guy: I don’t know; you tell me.
What’s your point?
Comment 7/6/2007
Fred, are you possibly implying you would like to eliminate needs-based scholarships by drawing a parallel between economic and racial affirmative action? After all, the poor guy get to go to college at the expense of others who don’t qualify for aid but can’t afford the tuition (part of which goes to funding aid - or at the very least could be redirected to reduce costs across the board). Does this pricing discrimination mean that college admins are all bigots and classists? (I don’t know why I bother…)
Comment 7/6/2007
“I don’t know why I bother)”
If you don’t know I certainly don’t know why you make such strange statements.
Are you going to tell me again that you are going to quit responding to what I post? How many times will that be?
Comment 7/6/2007
typical childish response…
Comment 7/6/2007
Fred:
I’m the one in favor of changing the status quo.
To be fair, you’re right: You’re in favor of changing from the status quo to a scenario in which minorities and the poor would be even worse off than they are today. But at least you’re honest about that.
Comment 7/12/2007
“You’re in favor of changing from the status quo to a scenario in which minorities and the poor would be even worse off than they are today.”
You are a liar.
Comment 7/12/2007
Fred:
Unless you can demonstrate how taking benefits away from minorities and the poor would actually benefit minorities and the poor in the aggregate, I am decidedly not a “liar.”
Now it may just be that you’re simply too stupid to recognize that the policies you advocate would result in minorities and the poor being worse off on the whole, but that doesn’t make it untrue. You can go on living in your perfect world of clearly-delineated black and white (bad pun sort of intended), but here in the real world, consequences matter.
If the most likely outcome of a particular course of action is greater inequality, I submit it’s not a very good one. You have steadfastly refused to explain how we can expect to reduce inequality by discontinuing targeted assistance toward those who currently hold the short end of the stick.
You can repeat that “racial discrimination is wrong” until you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t excuse you from explaining how you intend to correct racial inequality. (And as I’ve repeated dozens of times but still can’t get through your thick skull, your vacuous “treat everyone equally” doesn’t work if everyone isn’t starting from an equal starting point.)
Comment 7/12/2007
I actually admire your honesty (sort of). You seem to think that it is okay to be a racist bigot as long as it gives an advantage to a certain group of people based on their race. Hopefully, before long you racist attitude will be looked back on with the same revulsion as segregation is. Your program of treating people unequally is from a sick, morally corrupt mind.
Comment 7/13/2007
And you seem to think that we have no responsibility to try to correct the injustices of the past, even those that have continuing effects. I’m sure the fact that you belong to the group that’s ahead rather than the one that’s behind has absolutely nothing to do with this…
Comment 7/13/2007
“And you seem to think that we have no responsibility to try to correct the injustices of the past, even those that have continuing effects. I’m sure the fact that you belong to the group that’s ahead rather than the one that’s behind has absolutely nothing to do with this…”
As I’ve stated in other posts, I’ve spent my entire life helping those who need help to get ahead. However, I’m not a racist who chooses those I help based on race. You do. That’s what the discussion is about.
Comment 7/13/2007