Jimmy Carter's "sincere" apology

http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/12/jimmy-carters-well-timed-apology.html

Whatever was he thinking? Who knew his grandson would be running for Congress in a district with a large Jewish population? Maybe he'll get tromped and Carter can go back to blaming America first and Israel second...

People in Georgia have a very long memory. They still have ill feelings towards the General Shermans great great great great great great grandchildren. The only way he wins is if Democrats somehow rearrange the district with enough minorities to offset the Jews.

But they wouldn't do anything like that, would they???

The only way he wins is if Democrats somehow rearrange the district with enough minorities to offset the Jews.

But they wouldn't do anything like that, would they???

If they don't, the Holder Justice Department will. Politics R Us.

Kind of like Tom Delay's gerrymandering in Texas before he was indicted? Both sides do it in what is an unethical way of winning elections. MA gerrymanders as well. I think the Supreme Court however has set some limits that are mindful of minority voters. Some might not agree with that 'mindfulness' but I do as long as it doesn't get too creative and out of hand. Diversity in government is important. In only a few years elections will reflect that diversity without a need for gerrymandering. The minority population continues to rise (though at a bit slower rate than previously believed) and the white population hasn't kept pace with it.

AC,

I do not believe that racial engineering is wise, even if the outcome is a more diverse legislature.

it strikes me as the opposite of King's search for men of character rather than racially minded people.

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Thank you Michael and to you as well. It appears that I just read an article that the Anti-Defamation league accepts Jimmy Carter's apology. Perhaps Georgia's Jewish Community will also.

I would like to see a combination of both racial diversity and wisdom. Would that not make 'a more perfect union'?

Not if it is artificially forced, and in fact it may make the union less perfect.

I used to work for an academic support center at a college, and a director was chosen, a black female, to run the center despite two superior candidates who were not black females in the race, including one gentleman who had already wowed everybody as the director of one of the two sections of the center.

The new director was an absolute disaster, who ran many employees off and reduced numbers of students using the center's services as well as their ratings of the center itself.

In that case, proven quality was overlooked in the name of diversity, and ironically, the majority-minority population of the school suffered.

If people look beyond race, diversity will come. If people focus on race, diversity will come at the expense of excellence and fairness.

Personally I like excellence and diversity equally. I hope that one day the two will be simultaneous. But until that day comes what is the answer? The left would say that the remedy is always affirmative action. The right would say that the answer is just promote based on test scores, qualifications, etc.

I have a belief that both are important. How to implement it I don't have the answer. The Supreme Court is the best resolver. In some cases merit has been upheld, and in some cases affirmative action. It is a mixed bag. Some gerrymandering has been upheld, some has not. Some states are required to give the federal government all of their voting information due to infractions of the law in the past. We are closer I think than we were to an equal society, but not there yet.

define 'equal society'

Without stepping on the Sheik's question, I think you are right that our society is more equal. However, the continued extensions of the National Votingl Rights Act of 1965 is an insult, an unnecessary Federal intrusion into the rights of a few states, and an anachronism that actually prolongs racial grievances artificially. It has out-lived its usefulness and is acting counter to its stated purpose.

The Justice Department's action to overturn a municipal election in Kinston, NC because it failed to identify democrats is a case in point...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/print/

ohio county wrote:Without stepping on the Sheik's question, I think you are right that our society is more equal. However, the continued extensions of the National Votingl Rights Act of 1965 is an insult, an unnecessary Federal intrusion into the rights of a few states, and an anachronism that actually prolongs racial grievances artificially. It has out-lived its usefulness and is acting counter to its stated purpose.

The Justice Department's action to overturn a municipal election in Kinston, NC because it failed to identify democrats is a case in point...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/print/

That is an interesting case Ohio County which I did not know about. I will look at it more closely thank you for the information.

SheikBen wrote:define 'equal society'

By equal society I do not mean that we can ever 'police' someone's thoughts and feelings. There will always be those who reject people based on religion, skin color, sexual preference, etc.

By equal society I mean a nation where minorities are regularly elected to office, employment practices are always based on merit, neighborhoods are diverse (even here in MA there are still communities that do not welcome minorities) and people have respect for one another based on character and not race, etc. I think that we have come a long ways, but we are not there as yet.

So you favor affirmative action, which is by definition based on race and not character, and then define an equal society as one based on character and not race. I don't get it.

What I think is that unfortunately some affirmative action remains necessary. We are not at the level which I just described and there is still discrimination. As we progress towards a place where 'practices' (not thoughts) reflect equality I believe that affirmative action should be eliminated. But I don't think that has occurred as of yet. Character is always the best 'decider'. But when fairly significant portions of a society look on race, etc. before character should there not be a remedy?

If so what would you like it to be Michael.

What is wrong with what the Constitution demands: equality before the law? What is wrong with what Martin Luther King demanded: judgment based on the content of our character and not our race?

A large percentage of the blacks in the US have a major cultural problem which they refuse to address or do anything about. On the contrary, they use it to their advantage to claim discrimination and a host of other entities.

The cultural difference between blacks in the US and blacks in European countries are as different as ...... night and day.

The blacks have no one to blame but themselves and the history of the country of Liberia, especially recent history since 1985, attests to that fact. To wit: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6618.htm

That is the headline to the story OC posted and Andrea was going to take a look at. From the article it seems to me that it's the other way around and read...


...and were I either a black or a Democrat I would be outraged. Check that. As an American, I am outraged. In this day and age to state that any American needs something to identify a candidate as their "candidate of choice" is absurd. This is nothing more then racism and Barrack Obama is basically telling African American voters in Kinston that with party affiliation, they are too stupid to choose their candidate. I'm curious, why don't they just list the candidates by race?