Paul Bass, New Haven (Connecticut) Independent, June 29, 2009
Three of the Supreme Court justices who voted against New Haven in Monday’s landmark firefighters case ruling zeroed in on one character they saw playing a nefarious role: the Rev. Boise Kimber.
In fact, Kimber’s role as a New Haven politico, felon, and FOJ (Friend of John, Mayor DeStefano) ended up sparking a lively debate between the Supreme Court’s conservative and liberal wings.
This is the latest in a two-decade-long saga of how Kimber (pictured below) has caused political headaches for DeStefano while receiving repeated political plums from the mayor, including a controversial “consulting” housing contract that figured prominently in a 1998 City Hall corruption scandal.
DeStefano in turn has relied on the Newhallville preacher to carry his banner in the black community in pivotal Democratic mayoral primaries dating back to his 1989 contest against John Daniels and his 2001 race against Martin Looney.
At issue in Monday’s Supreme Court decision was whether Kimber is Exhibit A for how crude racial politics trumped merit and fairness in the case of the “New Haven 20.”
{snip}
Justices Samuel Alito singled out Kimber in a concurring opinion to Ricci v. DeStefano, the case in which a 5-4 majority ruled that New Haven can’t ignore the results of a fire department promotional exam just because no African-Americans scored high enough.
From the start, the New Haven 20—the one Hispanic and 19 white firefighters who sued to have the exams’ results honored—argued that New Haven’s DeStefano administration scuttled the test because of political pressure. And they specifically mentioned Kimber in their lawsuit. Rev. Kimber, a prominent vote-puller for Mayor DeStefano in past elections, sits on the Board of Fire Commissioners. He played a vocal role at the Civil Service Commission in arguing to have the test results ignored.
Alito, in an opinion also signed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, noted that “even the District Court” (the lower court that ruled on behalf of the city in this case) “admitted that ‘a jury could rationally infer that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”
The opinion proceeds to present a three-paragraph attack bio of the good reverend, going back decades over terrain familiar to Kimber’s New Haven critics.
“Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “kingmaker.’ . . . On one occasion, ‘[i]n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot during the murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.’
“Reverend Kimber’s personal ties with seven-term New Haven Mayor John DeStefano (Mayor) stretch back more than a decade. In 1996, for example, Mayor DeStefano testified for Rev. Kimber as a character witness when Rev. Kimber—then the manager of a funeral home—was prosecuted and convicted for stealing prepaid funeral expenses from an elderly woman and then lying about the matter under oath . . . ‘Reverend Kimber has played a leadership role in all of Mayor DeStefano’s political campaigns, [and] is considered a valuable political supporter and vote-getter.’ According to the Mayor’s former campaign manager (who is currently his executive assistant), Rev. Kimber is an invaluable political asset because “[h]e’s very good at organizing people and putting together field operations, as a result of his ties to labor, his prominence in the religious community and his long-standing commitment to roots.’
“In 2002, the Mayor picked Rev. Kimber to serve as the Chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners (BFC), ‘despite the fact that he had no experience in the profession, fire administration, [or] municipal management . . . In that capacity, Rev. Kimber told firefighters that certain new recruits would not be hired because “‘they just have too many vowels in their name[s].’ . . . After protests about this comment, Rev. Kimber stepped down as chairman of the BFC . . . but he remained on the BFC and retained ‘a direct line to the mayor.’”
{snip}
The Rev. Boise Kimber.
Original article
(Posted on July 1, 2009)
Jesse Jackson, Chicago Sun-Times, June 30, 2009
New Haven, Conn., is a city in which African Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population; yet, by order of the U.S. Supreme Court, the city must be served—“as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination—by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions.”
Today’s ruling is deeply flawed and should not be the law of the land.
{snip}
What has bedeviled us these last 30 years since Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke is the notion that any pen-and-paper test can reveal everything you need to know in order to assess a candidate’s ability to lead. And so we persist with the legal fictions that every qualification can be numerically assessed and that history counts for nothing.
The decision does not address the big questions about affirmative action, namely: How much may white employees be inconvenienced in order to rectify centuries of past discrimination? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use affirmative action to create a diverse workplace?
Affirmative action is justified on the premise that diversity is good for us as a society, not that diversity rectifies centuries of wrongdoing. Our penchant for rugged individualism and laissez-faire survival of the fittest seduces us into believing that every person is entitled to every benefit society has to offer and that no individual should pay a price for the greater good of the society as a whole.
{snip} Surely New Haven could have devised a test or selection device, without a similarly undesirable racial effect, that also served the employer’s legitimate interest. Undoubtedly, a critical mass of white firefighters would have scored well enough on such a test to be promoted. But the court today decides that no white person need suffer any inconvenience to produce a fairer workplace.
This reasoning depends on a hyperindividualistic interpretation of American rights. Blacks were enslaved as a group. They were segregated as a group. They were held in economic and political subjugation in the South for decades following Reconstruction as a group. But now that we have reached the enlightened 21st century, remedies for these crimes cannot take the group stigma against blacks into account. {snip}
Perhaps it is time to scrap the entire legal analysis of voluntary efforts to address discrimination. Perhaps we should permit employers and schools to devise plans to foster inclusion that straightforwardly account for past discrimination.
{snip}
Original article
Comments
Tests aren’t important to old Jesse and Al if blacks can’t score high enough on them, which includes about 99% of blacks.
There isn’t a single country in Africa that is anything but a failing dump. Every black run city in the country is a failure. And, it looks like the two black governors are having BIG, BIG problems trying to keep their states from failing right now. Yes, there are other states in big trouble, but blacks, not any other race, are batting 100% so far in the failure department.
Does this mean we can expect this black run federal government to go the way of cities like Detroit or Gary, Indiana?
Personally, I don’t see how the feds can avoid bankruptcy. It is claimed that any entity that has the power to tax can never be considered bankrupt.
Ya wanna bet?
Try getting money out of people who can’t pay taxes or REFUSE to pay what is going to amount to confiscatory taxes and see if that doesn’t translate to collapse.
While this decision in favor of the white firefighters isn’t everything we wanted, the psychological impact of the outcome is absolutely tremendous. For the first time ever authority has informed the electorate that discriminating against whites is bad. That’s very important, because the sheeple in the white population need to have some kind of assurance that they aren’t racist for not wanting to be cast aside by discriminatory action. They got it in this SCOTUS ruling in favor of whites.
But, unfortunately, this is too little, too late to save us from oblivion. We passed the point of no return several years ago.
As for Jacksons’ ‘greater good’ arguement, he can stuff it. If discrimination against blacks was bad in the past, discrimination against whites today is equally bad.
“The decision does not address the big questions about affirmative action, namely: How much may white employees be inconvenienced in order to rectify centuries of past discrimination?”
The answer: ZERO.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Isn’t it interesting that so many black reverends are more devoutly interested in the things of this world than those of the other?
Jesse Jackson: “What has bedeviled us these last 30 years since Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke is the notion that any pen-and-paper test can reveal everything you need to know in order to assess a candidate’s ability to lead.”
Translation: “We know blacks aren’t as intelligent as whites, but that shouldn’t get in the way of our racial agenda.”
Q: How much may white employees be inconvenienced in order to rectify centuries of past discrimination?
A: Zero. Otherwise that would perpetuate discrimination.
Q: When, if ever, is it appropriate to use affirmative action to create a diverse workplace?
A: Never. Well, maybe on the basketball court.
“Affirmative action is justified on the premise that diversity is good for us as a society, not that diversity rectifies centuries of wrongdoing.”
Then it is especially not justified, because diversity cannot shown to be good.
“straightforwardly account for past discrimination”
Translation: Promoting less qualified minorities ahead of better qualified whites. Period.
Apparently Reverend Jesse never heard the saying that two wrongs don’t make a right. He is sidestepping the issue by claiming that a pen and paper test does not reveal leadership ability. Well then what does? Once you’ve got an incompetent Black in there, there is no getting him out, no matter how lousy his job performance. Anybody tries to fire him, right away they would be called racists.
Evidently it is “Moral” to the “Right Reverend” Jesse Jackson for people to suffer and die, if it serves the “greater good” of racial diversity. Idiocy. We see the same kind of juvenile thought process (and I use the term thought loosely) in our current white hating attorney general. I am constantly amazed at our ability to stupidly elect people without a clue into office. But thenagain, I work with some otherwise extremely intelligent people who are ignorant of the nose on their face…
“Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred
Anybody else notice that the media is always very scrupulous about referring to any black minister as “The Reverend?” It’s always, “The REVEREND So-and-So.”
Like, “The REVEREND Jesse Jackson this” and “The REVEREND Jesse Jackson that.” I’ve never noticed that the MSM is so scrupulous about referring to white preachers as “The REVEREND.” For example, they rarely refer to Jerry Falwell as “The Reverend.” It’s just “Jerry Fallwell.” It’s like there are so few black men of accomplishment, they have to be hyped up when they are found.
It constantly amazes me that rich, powerful White men will let some two bit ghetto thug [ the “Rev.” in this case] influence them. It seems to me that this thug “has something” on this White mayor and needs to be investigated. And he CERTAINLY doesn’t need to be re-elected. These White firefighters need to be in the fore front of a movement to vote this mayor out, and if this “Rev.” is found to be involved in denying these White firefighters their rightful place at the firehouse, they should sue him back to the ghetto and he should be thrown in jail!! Oh- - - what am I dreaming for.
And, it looks like the two black governors are having BIG, BIG problems trying to keep their states from failing right now. Yes, there are other states in big trouble….Quote.
Isn’t it funny that the Rev Mr Kimber is named for the capital of one of the half-dozen whitest states? Will we also see Revs. Concord, Montpelier or Laramie? At least Augusta and Helena are traditional names.
If we are to believe that SCOTUS was racist and that testing should not be valued as a proper method for advancement, why should athletic ability be the prerequisite for major league sports?
The reason? In the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism, unless you can play, you can’t sell tickets. Why should a public service job such as firefighter be any different?
Our government bureaucracy has too long preferred to be politically correct than promote people based on their ability.
The fruits of this cultural poison are obvious now at every level of government service.
I just went for a ride on the beach blvd where I live and SKIP the psychic predicts….based on tonight’s eyes on observation, that in less than 5 years, my city will be a black ghetto.
”sbuffalonative wrote: As for Jackson’s ‘greater good’ argument, he can stuff it. If discrimination against blacks was bad in the past, discrimination against whites today is equally bad.
“The decision does not address the big questions about affirmative action, namely: How much may white employees be inconvenienced in order to rectify centuries of past discrimination?”
As someone in his seventies, who remembers very well the era prior to “civil rights” and Martin Luther King, et al, I have to speak up. Although I can’t speak for the South, I can tell you that there was no discrimination in any of the places where I worked. Even in the 1950’s, there were blacks employed in all of the places where I worked. I can remember them very well — even their names. They where treated exactly THE SAME and paid THE SAME as anyone else. They had the same opportunities and rules as anyone else! The only difference was that they got no special breaks or privileges. If someone had a prison record, or a drug or alcohol problem, or failed to show up for work every day, then they were fired (or not hired) — the same as anybody else would be. Middle-class blacks, law-abiding blacks, sober blacks, had no problem getting hired.
If this is what you call “discrimination” — requiring blacks to meet the SAME standards as everybody else — then so be it. So that’s discrimination then!
In the latter 60’s, word went out from Washington (under intense pressure from Bobby Kennedy, as I understood) that from then on blacks would HAVE to be employed in much greater numbers, regardless of employment history, criminal history, personal problems, etc. Employers could no longer be picky. They HAD to employ them. And on the job (following employment), discipline problems, attendance, productivity, etc. had to be treated more leniently than they had been. All the standards (for blacks) were lowered, instead of remaining the same for everyone. A new class of blacks began being recruited: ghetto blacks, welfare blacks… blacks with shady pasts, with drug and alcohol problems, with poor or no work histories. Blacks then knew that they had become virtually “unfireable”. (I actually heard some of them say that, on various occasions.)
But those same employers could still be picky and demanding with their white hires. Now what kind of discrimination is that? Is that what you call “equality”?
Another community organizer…
Is Boise Kimber the next President of the United States after Obama?
This Mayor Destefano testified on behalf of this low life after he ripped off a ederly woman.He should have the title NON-Rev Kimber.The problem is this mayor.In most cases its one low life (politician) validating another low life ( THE UN-Reverend).And what is the city’s “legitimate interest” to have people who can’t read or pass a test to lead emergency units.I can see the interview ,Reporter ” Captain Jones why couldn’t you and your men put out the fire”.Captain Jones,”The important thing is that we have diverse group of firemen”Reporter,”But what about the people who died in the fire”.Captain,” All I can say is my firefighters are talented ,want to see us do the robot dance.”
“J” mentioned in his post about athletic ability as a way of measuring those who will be a benefit to a sports franchise. This is a perfect analogy.
As a police officer in a large metropolitan city, I have constant contact with firefighters. Are they busy all the time? Not like police officers.
However, when they are busy, they make up for the down time in a heartbeat. Soaking wet turn-out gear, breathing apparatus, breaching tools, heavier-than-heck ladders and generators and hose lines, carrying all of that up and down rickety old stairwells, troubleshooting malfunctioning pumps in real-time emergencies.
There is no place for the unqualified to hide. As “J” mentioned, performace in these areas (like professional sports) is either there or it isn’t - a firefighter can either do it or they can’t.
The promotional exams are likely - and should be - just as difficult. How is it then that dropping a group of qualified test-takers isn’t against the law…as blacks demanded the law to be written in the first place?
If you want to know why paleoconservatism is inadequate to deal with the rapid replacement of Native Born White Americans across America, have a look at Thomas Flemming’s blog about the New Haven Fire fighters lawsuit. Flemming openly admits he feels no solidarity with the five White fire fighters who fought against their racial dispossession because ..they do not live in the same town that he lives in. This is localism gone made. Paleoconservatism is just an irrelevant political movement for the Native Born White working class. A great way to hasten the onset of complete race-replacement is to restrict your circle of moral concern to the town you live in. There is a danger in have a circle of moral concern that is to broad-liberalism…there is also a danger in havng a circle of moral concern-the plaeoconservative moral framework- that is to local.
Socially Conservative White Nationalism is the only game in town.
Is Boise Kimber the next President of the United States after Obama?
I peresonally don’t think there will be another POTUS as we now know it. Blacks will begin squabbling over the carcass of the U.S. just as soon as ATF has managed to disarm most of us. THEN! the muslims will make thier move.
“You’re talking about Kalifornia? NOT RUN by your favorite whipping ‘boys’.”
It just goes to show that Blacks aren’t the only non-Whites who can ruin a state. California has long been run by its Democratic legislature, a rat’s nest of diverse crazies. The state is drowning in Mexicans and other non-Whites, and the problems they bring, and the left has refused to see it for years. Whites are now a minority and California can’t save itself. The most capable governor in the world can do no more than slow down the rate of decay.
It all reduces to intelligence and ability. Some have the capabilities to score and some don’t…just like any other aspect of existence.
No law can make us mentally and physically equal.
Pols can make us all “losers” and ruin and entire nation, to whit.
The City of Detroit used to have a residency requirement for city jobs. The problem was that there were not enough QUALIFIED people residing in the city to do the work. Things got so bad that in the 1980’s, the police department was accepting people with FELONIES to become police officers. Some of these same gangbangers and criminals are now in COMMAND positions in the police department. Fortunately, the courts ruled that (forced) residency was a collective bargaining situation; it was later successfully rescinded as part of a union contract negotiation.
I think it is a stretch to blame only one person for the New Haven debacle.
Don’t forget the media and the government who always seem to take the side of non-whites.
And in an obviously racist decision against whites the Supreme Court barely sided with the whites (5-4).
After Obama gets a few more Supreme Court picks discrimination against whites will almost become the law of the land.
Anonymous poster, re Detroit residency requirements for police:
Residency requirements in big cities for police, fire, city jobs, etc. allow such agencies on the margin to hire more blacks. It’s just more affirmative action.
As far as felons being cops, what you are talking about is allowing those with juvenile felony convictions to be cops. In the past, that would have been a disqualifier. But not now. The only line that has not been crossed yet and can’t well be is the adult felon line. Adult felons cannot possess guns, and therefore cannot be cops. Kansas City, MO Mayor Mark Funkhouser made the proposal a few years ago for the KCPD to broach that line, mainly b/c of race. But he knows just as well as anyone that it can’t be broached; I think he was merely engaging in a bait and switch game to bargain “down” to a legal but otherwise reprehensible “compromise,” such as lower testing standards for black applicants. What F’Houser did was akin to the running joke in D.C. during the late 1990s — if President Clinton proposed to i’plode the Capitol Building, the Republicans in Congress would introduce an alternative to phase it in over five years. You introduce the obvious ridiculous proposal, in order for an ally of yours to “ride to the rescue” with a less radical alternative, that would have been DOA if proposed on its own.
In the last decade or so, the law has been loosened so that more and more juveniles can be charged as adults for serious crimes. So the departments that are crossing the juvenile felony line are finding a more and more shallow lake over time, b/c more and more of those who might have only had juvenile felony sheets now have adult sheets b/c of this.
To: 10 — Anonymous wrote at 11:59 PM on July 1:
As time passes, this common notion is becoming more and more accepted and entrenched without any contest from anyone. It is becoming part of our revised history.
If this is what you call “discrimination” — requiring blacks to meet the SAME standards as everybody else — then so be it. So that’s discrimination then!
Thank you for bringing this up.
I agree with you. Growing up, I saw little overt ‘racism’ or discrimination. For the most part, blacks had their own communities and schools and they appeared to work well for them. None of the few blacks who attended my white (neighborhood) school ever reported racial harassment or discrimination that I know of. It was only later during the ‘civil rights movement’ that broad charges of alleged discrimination culled from towns and cities in the south were used to condemn a system that largely worked. Suddenly, ‘racism’ and ‘hate’ were everywhere. If it was around me, my family, friends, and neighbors, I didn’t see it.
Today, like you, I hear and read endless stories about the horrors of Jim Crow and segregation. While it may have varied by local, it certainly wasn’t an endless stream of beatings and lynching that’s portrayed today. I often write that I listen to black radio talk shows and between the claims of how bad ‘racism’, segregation, and discrimination used to be, many black callers to these programs also speak lovingly of their experiences from the past. There’s a complete disconnect on the part of blacks who can’t seem to reconcile their own experience of a happier life during segregation and the current zeitgeist that segregation was as bad as a slave in chains being whipped on a plantation.
Your point about the changes forced on us by the Kennedys and others is dead on. What is seen as ‘discrimination’ today is only an attempt to force us to hire and promote incompetent individuals.
At my last job, the big boss hired a black guy. He was a lousy worker and called off at least ONCE a week. The boss was aware of it but kept giving him a pass saying, ‘he’s a good guy’. The boss, on the recommendation of this lousy worker, hired a friend who turned out to be even worse. He ended up not even showing up for work and was fired. He called to ask (or demand) his job back. I was with the boss when he got the call and he pretty much just listened to the fired employee without interrupting. While I don’t know what the fired employee said (or threatened), he was rehired. The guy came back and on the FIRST day back, he disappeared about lunch time. No one could find him. Another assistant manager went to her office and found a note on her desk that said essentially, “I quit”. This, on the day he was rehired. Shortly thereafter, the first black guy was fired for calling off. No more blacks were hired while I was there. Lesson learned? Grounds for charges of discrimination? Yes to both. As I always say when it comes to blacks, it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I’m not black so I can’t speak for the veracity of what individual blacks may have experienced. I have no doubt that some blacks were treated badly by some whites. I also have no doubt that today (and in the past), some blacks treat some whites badly as well and today use the excuse of the past as justification.
You’re right. Today, we’re forced to accept bad black behavior and bad black performance based on the idea of ‘past discrimination’ and that’s wrong by every standard.
Mr. Jacksons’ article reads like a desperate plea to maintain the status quo of disenfranchising whites. He appears he see the writing on the wall and he’s desperately looking for another convoluted reason to keep discriminating against whites.
Perhaps it is time to scrap the entire legal analysis of voluntary efforts to address discrimination. Perhaps we should permit employers and schools to devise plans to foster inclusion that straightforwardly account for past discrimination.
I don’t understand what Mr. Jackson is saying here because he appears to be contradicting himself. First he says maybe it’s time to scrape the “legal analysis of voluntary efforts” (?) but then he goes on to recommending that employers and schools should be left alone to devise their own systems to counter alleged discrimination.
Is he saying or does he believe that since the legal justification for white discrimination is on shaky ground that he expects employers and schools can be convinced to by-pass the law by making their own rules, or more likely, his rules?
Either way, I believe I understand your argument and I agree. The hyping of alleged discrimination has become multi-CULTrual canon and we need to rely on facts and not feelings to write law and set social policy.
Piggybacking on my post above, #25, I’m here in southeastern Wisconsin for the weekend, at a mini-reunion of my HS graduating class, hosted by one of our teachers who retired here. Because I’m sort of a radio geek, I bought along my good radio, CCRadio, to listen to the local market.
Where I am is in fringe range of a radio station at 1690 on the AM dial in Chicago. It’s a black talk radio station, the kind of which I think every city should have five of so white people finally understand black culture, if they don’t already.
At the time I was listening, late in the afternoon today, the host (black) was taking phone calls. A black woman called in and was talking about the problems that black men with felony conviction records had in post-prison life, two of which were voting (see my footnote below) and getting legit employment. The woman thinks that the state should not classify things such as murder, armed robbery and other crimes as felonies, but misdemeanors. The host reminded the woman that you can still own guns legally if you only have a misdemeanor record. She then recommended to ban guns for misdemeanants. (Not her actual words, but that’s what she meant.) Of course in Chicago, handguns are banned for everyone, so if that ever came to pass, it would be superfluous. The host said that it was a great idea, knock murder down to a misdemeanor if it happens in Chicago, then don’t allow those who have misdemeanor records (he didn’t limit that to Chicago) to own guns legally. He then said that since they have had problem singing up people for the academy, this would solve the Chicago Police Department’s recruitment problem. (I’ll give you a few minutes to roll around on the floor laughing your insides out; Remember, cops are allowed to have guns.) Intellect on parade.
Footnote: There are only two states (FL, KY) that have lifetime blanket banks on felons voting. Almost all the other states allow felons to vote after they have finished their prison sentence and/or probation. The rub with so many black felons in Chicago and otherwise is that they can’t behave long enough to get off probation in order to be able to vote again. Look for the Eric Holder “Just-Us” Department to rant and rave about the “disparate impact” of the completion-of-probation stipulations, and they might go so far as to allow imprisoned felons to vote, based on the same. Perhaps they can get work furloughs to go to their jobs as police officers in the CPD that a certain talk host in Chicago might want them to have but not bearing the guns that he doesn’t want them to have. Except that bad ole me forgot that there would be no more black felons.
I think it’s important that we who can remember the past must fight this subtle historical revisionism which is going on under our noses. It portrays the Bad Old Days, pre-MLK, as a time when blacks were unable to get jobs, were rejected, discriminated against, denied the vote, persecuted at every turn. You would practically think there were lynchings going on in every neighborhood. It’s so false! Yes, there are the famous pictures of police dogs and firehoses and blacks being loaded into paddy wagons. And of burly US troops escorting harmless little black girls into school. Most people (around the world) are familiar with this and think this was the Old America. It was NOT. It was something most of us never saw or experienced. It was the exception, not the rule.
Hiring back then, had been marked - not by discrimination - but by the ABSENCE of discrimination, being based on merit and qualifications alone. After the riotous upheavals of the ’60s, racial quotas were introduced and “affirmative action” was invented. This marked the arrival of discrimination (anti-white discrimination, that is) under the Orwellian claim of “flghting discrimination”. Pure Doublespeak if there ever was!
“If you want to know why paleoconservatism is inadequate to deal with the rapid replacement of Native Born White Americans across America, have a look at Thomas Flemming’s blog about the New Haven Fire fighters lawsuit. Flemming openly admits he feels no solidarity with the five White fire fighters who fought against their racial dispossession because ..they do not live in the same town that he lives in. Paleoconservatism is just an irrelevant political movement for the Native Born White working class.” Jupiter, #19
On initial impression, paleoconservatives seem to be on the same page with White Nationalists. They even say some politically incorrect things about race. But in the end they try every method possible to avoid the obvious, that race trumps almost everything. They talk about country, patriotism, localism, culture and civilization - just not race. They are a dead end; worse than that, they lead otherwise right thinking people astray. It is amazing that their most ferocious battles today are against other White people who agree with most of what they stand for other than race. Sam Francis called them Beautiful Losers, although not in that exact context.
In that case, Justice Ginsburg stated what was obvious to civil rights activists: The law ought to be able to distinguish between the use of race to include a historically discriminated against racial or ethnic group and the use of race to exclude.
Did she just say, “Who—whom? ”?
What has bedeviled us these last 30 years since Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke is the notion that any pen-and-paper test can reveal everything you need to know in order to assess a candidate’s ability to lead. And so we persist with the legal fictions that every qualification can be numerically assessed and that history counts for nothing.
Straw man. Lie.
ADD TO the requirements, if tests don’t tell you ENOUGH. But don’t sit there and tell me you want to get rid of the test because it doesn’t tell us everything (i.e., it doesn’t make us omniscient).
Our penchant for rugged individualism and laissez-faire survival of the fittest seduces us into believing that every person is entitled to every benefit society has to offer and that no individual should pay a price for the greater good of the society as a whole.
Did he just say, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need ”?
Justice Ginsburg says there was adequate evidence in the record that the New Haven test was flawed and resulted in bias against black and brown firefighters. Had that evidence been credited, the test could have been revised to be fairer. Surely New Haven could have devised a test or selection device, without a similarly undesirable racial effect, that also served the employer’s legitimate interest.
“The test was biased because I failed.” Fun Fact: the contractor who provided the test was also contracted to have the test validated and checked for bias at the city’s discretion. The city never pursued this option, and apparently actively discouraged and suppressed the idea of doing so.
Undoubtedly, a critical mass of white firefighters would have scored well enough on such a test to be promoted. But the court today decides that no white person need suffer any inconvenience to produce a fairer workplace.
“Fairer means” “I get to win as often as whitey”. Not, “we should all play by the same rules,” or, “I just want a level playing field.”
How about fairness in the NBA? How about some much-needed diversity in the NBA? Rap music? Sprinting?
For hundreds of years, white males have enjoyed more than 95 percent of the best jobs, the best housing, the best incomes, the best health care, whether they were best suited or not.
This guy’s off his rocker if he thinks reasonable whites are going to find this persuasive. Whatever the actual percentage is, it’s probably lower than the percent of those things that white men created . “Suited”? What a pinko! The man who’s “suited” to something is the man who OWNS it for God’s sake!
This guy is flat-out un-American and even Democrats to the right of Abbie Hoffman will react negatively to this sort of thinking.
The Rev. Boise Kimber.