Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - greenplaid

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24
31
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 16, 2008, 05:57:02 PM »
funny how versions like this fail mention:  "Over all, Mr. Obama leads Mr. McCain among all registered voters by 45 percent to 39 percent."

the bigger picture:  http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/everything_is_good_news_for_mc.php


http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/07/16/us/20080716_POLL_GRAPHIC.html
Whites (70%) and blacks (65%) generally agree that America is ready to elect a black president.

32
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 16, 2008, 06:51:11 AM »
HERALD SUN AUSTRALIA
Obama not closing race divide - poll
From correspondents in New York
July 16, 2008 01:01pm

AMERICANS are sharply divided by race ahead of the first presidential election in which a black candidate will represent a major party, a New York Times/CBS News poll showed today,

The poll found that blacks and whites hold vastly different views of Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois Democrat who would be the first black president, and are also divided on the state of race relations in the US, the newspaper reported.

In the survey, 83 per cent of blacks had a favorable opinion of Mr Obama, compared with 31 per cent of white voters.

Mr Obama will face John McCain, a white Republican senator from Arizona, in the November 4 presidential election.

On the status of race relations, 59 per cent of black respondents they were generally bad, compared with 34 per cent of whites who thought the same way.

The nationwide telephone poll of 1796 adults showed that 39 per cent of blacks said there had been no real progress in recent years in getting rid of racial discrimination.

Only 17 per cent of whites said the same thing.

Twenty-seven percent of whites said too much had been made of problems facing black people, while half of blacks said not enough had been made of racial barriers faced by black people.

The poll was conducted July 7-14 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24028904-5005961,00.html




33
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 14, 2008, 12:17:46 AM »
I was just about to post that article.  Here's the cover:



This is just all around SMH.  Has anyone ever seen Michelle with an afro or Barack in a turban?




34
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 13, 2008, 08:14:18 PM »
     
POLITICO'Scare tactic' — Obama slams Muslim portrayalBy: Mike Allen
July 13, 2008 07:25 PM EST
 
The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

An American flag burns in their fireplace.

The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics.

At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to a transcript by Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover.

“Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

Obama, shrugging incredulously: “I have no response to that.”

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

“I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

The panelists agreed it would succeed in its goal of getting attention.
 
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC
   
PHOTO LINK  http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/Ya_cant_make_it_up.html

35
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 12, 2008, 01:40:09 AM »
Indeed.  Do better.  And our nation's kids do need to learn Spanish.  Barack speaks the truth.

That's my motto for 2008.   :D

It has been noticed. ;D

Obama's statement "any fool can father a child" to a black (or any adult audience) could be considered condescending in tone. Some also see the language as unbecoming of a potential president.

36
THE JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Weekly Bulletin
July 10, 2008
Law School at North Carolina Central University to Host the Chief Justice Roberts

Students at the historically black law school at North Carolina Central University in Durham will have to be well prepared for next spring’s moot court competition. The judge presiding over the final competition will be John Roberts, chief justice of the United States.

Raymond Pierce, dean of the law school, met the chief justice at a judicial conference and Roberts offered to officiate at the moot court proceedings.

It will be the first time a current member of the U.S. Supreme Court has made an appearance on the campus of the law school. There are about 600 students at the law school, about one half of them are African Americans.

http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index.html

Chief Justice Roberts was nominated July 19, 2005.

THE JOURNAL OF BLACKS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Weekly Bulletin
George W. Bush, the NAACP, and the Persistent Damage to Black Higher Education

"Both of President Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court — John Roberts and Samuel Alito —appear to be strong opponents of affirmative action. In late 1981 Roberts wrote a critique of a Civil Right Commission report in which he said the “obvious reason” for the failure of affirmative action programs was because they “required the recruiting of inadequately prepared candidates.”

The record on Roberts appears to be even worse due to information that came to light in his confirmation hearings. Before the hearings it was discovered that a file headed “Affirmative Action” was missing from the White House files stored at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Roberts had worked as a White House aide during the Reagan administration.

A report from the National Archives inspector general found that White House aides from the Bush administration visited the Reagan Library to do a background check on Roberts. The report found that the aides were permitted to bring personal items into the library and they were left alone at times with the document collection. The report says that the White House aides were the last known people to see the file entitled “Affirmative Action.”...."
http://www.jbhe.com/features/51_specialreport.html


37
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 10, 2008, 07:59:35 PM »
Perversely, I wonder if this might help him with the nilla vote.

Half of me suspects that these kinds of skirmishes are orchestrated with that in mind.   

Jackson's `Crude' Remarks May Give Boost to Obama

So is this luck or design?


38
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 10, 2008, 05:11:45 PM »
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
BEST OF THE WEB TODAY 
Strange Fruit [Jesse Jackson's tirade against Barack Obama]
By JAMES TARANTO
July 10, 2008

Editor & Publisher, the newspaper trade magazine, notes that many news organizations have been indirect in reporting on Jesse Jackson's tirade against Barack Obama. "See, Barack been, um, talking down to black people," Jackson told a fellow Fox News Channel panelist, apparently unaware that he was being recorded. Then he said something that not everyone considered printable:

The New York Times was coy: "Mr. Jackson made disparaging remarks, apparently including a crude reference to male genitalia, about how Mr. Obama was talking to black people." A later Times article cited a "vulgar reference." . . .
The Los Angeles Times' "Top of the Ticket" blog went with: "crude language."
The AP first quoted Jackson mentioning the "regretfully crude" choice of words. Later in the day it got a little more specific, citing "a slang reference to his wanting to cut off Obama's testicles."
The Washington Post's "The Trail" blog really played it cool: "Whatever the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. said in a live microphone on Fox News, it was really, really bad. . . ."
But the Chicago Tribune eventually offered a more full report than nearly anyone: " 'I want to cut his nuts out,' Jackson added, gesturing as if grabbing part of the male anatomy and then pulling."
Jackson's statement is shocking, but not primarily because it is crude and vulgar. As the Chicago Tribune's Dawn Turner Trice notes:

Given Jackson's age--he's 66--and civil rights background, he certainly understands the historical implications of black men and the threat of castration in this country. Quite frankly, it's a history that's painfuly [sic] intertwined with lynching.
The literature on lynching frequently describes it as a symbolic act of castration; and sometimes lynch mobs literally castrated their victims. So what was Jackson thinking when he entertained this sick fantasy about Obama? Trice quotes Jackson's later explanation:

"My appeal was for the moral content of his message to not only deal with the personal and moral responsibility of black males, but to deal with the collective moral responsibility of government and the public policy which would be a corrective action for the lack of good choices that often led to their irresponsibility."
The logical chain connecting this thought to a fantasy of sexually mutilating a presidential candidate is not immediately obvious. Yet we're going to take a crack at teasing it out.

Jackson's comment reminded us of an article we clipped from a college newspaper during a racial kerfuffle in 1987. We ventured into our files and found the piece. We'll withhold the author's name to spare him any embarrassment, but here is the passage that stuck in our mind all these years:

"Racism is an attitudinally-based, psychosocial sickness. It is not limited in its manifestations to strictly overt acts such as cross burnings. Nor are those people whose vocabularies include words like "n-word" the only ones we can label racists. If you think a child being born in some inner-city public health facility this morning might one day become president, you are a racist. If you think the people holding the power positions in America are not white-interested, you are a racist. If you close your eyes to social injustice, you are a racist."


This is very much of a piece with Jackson's criticism of Obama. The former faults the latter for emphasizing black men's personal responsibility as opposed to the "collective moral responsibility" of others who purportedly keep them down. Whatever Obama may think of this worldview, his own political success is a challenge to it.

In 2008, a black man is the leading candidate for president. If you had predicted this two decades ago, our collegiate scribbler would have called you racist. Plainly his idea of racism was something other than the classic definition, namely the belief in the innate superiority of certain races over others. In his view, to be a "racist," it was not necessary to believe that blacks are innately inferior. It was sufficient to believe that American society was capable of treating blacks fairly.

Conceptually, of course, there is a world of difference between believing in white supremacy as a fact of nature and believing (even if mistakenly) that white supremacy is the organizing principle of American society. Yet the spectacle of Jesse Jackson, in an unguarded moment, giving voice to fantasies of sexual violence against an accomplished black man suggests a deeper psychological kinship than one might have dared suspect between old-fashioned racism and the late-20th-century politics of racial grievance.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121570035107042699.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today

39
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 10, 2008, 01:29:32 PM »

THE ATLANTA JOURNAL CONSTITUTION

Obama's frequent regrets may make us sorry
By Luke Boggs
For the Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/10/08
 
Barack Obama just may be the most regretful figure in American politics, no small feat for a freshman senator.

On Wednesday, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said he regretted allowing his young daughters to participate in a family TV interview with "Access Hollywood."

It was an abrupt shift from decision to regret, even for Obama. The family sat down for the interview on July 4, and the first segment ran on July 8. By the next morning, Obama was saying he regretted including his daughters, even before the other two parts of the interview could air.

I'm not sure why. The interview was nothing but happy public relations, revealing that the Obamas enjoy riding bikes together and that the senator isn't a big dessert fan. (Pies are an exception.)

I suppose there may be a handful of humorless activists out there somewhere carping that Obama was "exploiting" his kids for political gain, but that would be an absurd complaint.

The guy is running for president of the United States, for heaven's sake. Family members have been a constant in American politics for a long time. And Obama having his daughters at his side in a puffy little holiday interview should have been no big deal to anyone.

So what jumped out at me was how quickly Obama regretted his decision. And that, in turn, made me wonder how often the senator has regretted other choices. Answer: pretty often. (Googling "Obama" and "regrets" yields more than a million hits.)

In November 2006, Obama said he regretted buying property adjacent to his Chicago home from Tony Rezko, a longtime supporter and big-time fund-raiser who has since been convicted of mail and wire fraud, aiding and abetting bribery and money laundering.

In February 2007, as his presidential campaign was beginning, Obama said he regretted saying that the lives of American soldiers who died fighting in Iraq had been "wasted."

In April 2008, Obama said he regretted his choice of words when he told some well-heeled donors in San Francisco that "bitter" folks in Middle America who have lost economic hope "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

To be sure, these are choices worth regretting. Anyone can understand why Obama would regret his land deal with a convicted felon. And even liberal Democrats like Obama have been careful not to say American lives have been "wasted" in Iraq, even as they imply the same thing when they dismiss the war effort as corrupt, inept, unnecessary and worse.

Obama's most costly regret, however, may well prove to be his condescending shot at those decent, hardworking Americans he said were desperately clinging to God and guns and bigotry. It was a regret-worthy statement that said volumes about Obama's easy contempt for those in what elites call "flyover country."

Perhaps the American people are looking for a regretful guy this time around. After eight years of George W. Bush, whose dogged lack of regrets continues to exasperate his critics, perhaps this sort of intense self-scrutiny and navel-gazing will translate into electoral victory.

But I'm not so sure. After all, a lot of Americans understand that you don't get a bunch of easy do-overs in the Oval Office. You have to make tough calls, even when they may be politically costly.

I can't help wondering what Obama might regret in four years as president. What might he regret doing —- or not doing —- on the world stage? What might he regret saying —- or not saying —- to Putin or Kim Jong-il or Ahmadinejad?

Only time will tell. Depending on what happens in November, we may begin to find out next January. When we do, some voters may well have regrets of their own.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2008/07/10/boggsed.html

40
Black Law Student Discussion Board / Re: The Thread on Politics
« on: July 09, 2008, 08:10:23 PM »
yeah I wonder what that nukka said

SEE above edit add.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 24