[andyfox]

Well, seems to me, if you can find a rationalization for reverse discrimination, to you, that makes it OK. All you did was give a bunch of "becauses".

-Well, you cause it a rationalization for reverse discrimination, I call it a reason for fighting racism. You think blacks are underrepresented in our universities because they're less "cerebral," I think it's because they have a raw deal. I want to make it less raw.

Fair is Fair. Either *no* race considerations or any and all. Any middle is just BS.

-What you call fair is not fair. No race consideration on paper is a racist society in action. Because there are people like you who would prefer to not serve blacks in their restaurants or have them be on their TVs.

My Post means what it meant when we started all this in "Neocon". The tide of racism these days is going toward anti-white. The very presence of a race name in an organization name makes it race based, hence racist. There's no counter argument for that.

-Yes there is. An organization like the NAACP was created to try to assure that blacks were not treated as second class citizens. A white supremicist organization is created to treat non-whites precisely as second class citizens. I see a world of difference between the two.

I do not wish to treat anyone as a second class citizen. And allowing other groups to band together, but not mine is treating *me* as the second class.

-You are allowed to band together with whomever you like. There are plenty of white supremicist groups to choose from.
Their intent, as I said above, is to treat non-whites as second class citizens.

Yes, since "At will emploment" means I can be fired for "any reason or no reason", Why can't I decide who I will or will not do business with for the same "any or no reason". So in real effect all us worker types are second class. Union Workers and Gov't workers have protections the rest of us don't. So being a white unrepresented individual, I'm at the bottom of the list, protections-wise.

I can't "pull the race card" and run to EE0C. I have no Union Steward. My "contract", if you can call it that, states specifically that At-Will is not limited. Beyond that I can't work for my principle for xx months after all is done... yet I recieve no "valuable consideration" for giving up that right. Seems like a "no-contract contract" to me and I'd love to see those clauses tested in court.

-Anyone fired in this country because of race has plenty of recourse. I own a business that was taken into court because we fired a man from our office staff. He was the only man in the office and claimed he was fired because of sex discrimination. I guarantee you that if I fired someone because of his or her race I'll be in court pronto . As I should be.

Seems to me Thorogood Marshall liked to talk about "protected classes". Seems to me he was black.

-I love your spelling of Mr. Marshall's first name. And you're right, he was black.

As I've said all along. If race is *not* to be a consideration... strike *all* language to that effect. Blacks should not be a protected class in the same way ADA people are protected. If your "ADA and black" or "ADA and white" the protections should be the same.

If you are black or white, all other protections should be the same.

-I agree. But you want to deny protections to blacks. You don't want to have to associate with them if you don't want to.

Since the Bakke decision stated that reverse discrimation does exist, yet refused to do anything truly constructive about it, we simply have a chicken sh*t decision.

I also believe we should not be passing bills like AGOA to support africa at the beheadst of the Black Caucus. This is BS. Because I don't even want african products in my home. But it gets hard to avoid when all the manufacturers start going for those cheap materials and labor and sending the jobs to Zimbabwe or whatever.

-You don't want African products in your home, don't buy them. You don't like how your representatives vote on bills, work to get them out of office.

As I've stated before, I would defend any black's right to be equal in law, but also my right to exercise my right to not have anything to do with them, or everything to do with them as I see fit. And vice versa. They don't want me in thier businesses. Fine by me.

-You don't have a right to have nothing to do with blacks. If they want to eat in a restaurant with you, they should have that right. If they want to live in the same apartment building, they should have that right.

Where I draw the line as stated before is in public services. The gov't and possibly corps. funded by public exchanges should not have the same broad rights as a sole proprietor who has his own net worth on the line. Same for the apartment complex. Why should I have to suffer the very real effect on net worth that the blackening of the complex would bring? To meet *your* ideals? Perhaps when the AIDS and crime rate among blacks is less... then this won't happen? Then maybe I'd change my mind. So the onus is on them to join the mainstream... not to make thier ways our mainstream. If they don't want to fine too.

-It's not the "blackening" of the complex that lowers the property values, it's the attitude of people like you. "Our" mainstream?

As for the media, I believe it is just *evidence* that whoever is running it is trying to push black culture mainstream. Not just for the money either. As I now see commercials where blacks are placed in the authority roles.

-The media is in the business to make money. They must feel there is a market for shows and commercials that feature black performers. Why do you find this so terrible?

As noted before, if I have negative feelings about afro-culture, who are you or the gov't to push it on me?

-It isn't being pushed on you. You don't like it, don't watch or listen to it.

As for black pride. They should be as proud as anyone else. There's no shame in being any particular race. But there are groups that a best separate from each other. Say Islam and Jews, for example.

-People learn to hate each other, they are not innately best separate from one another.

However, none of this is a diatribe to return to separate but equal, which was legally enforced segregation.

-Separate but unequal is precisely what you are advocating.

I'm just saying I want the right to choose within the bounds of my life and my assets without interference.

-Fine, so long as you don't interfere with the same right others have.

And I don't want legitimized race based organizations like "The Black Caucus" telling me I can't.

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Have no idea who Elroy was. From what I've read of Ayn Rand I think she's a little logically inconsistent too. She seems to argue for equality but thinks umbridled capitalism will lead to it. Highly unlikely. It hasn't worked to date.

Besides, truth is, despite the eloquence of the Gettysburg Address... the Civil War overturned The Declaration of Independance and made us all subjects of the Federal Gov't. Which is a Federal *Republic*. The upside, slavery was overturned. The downside, you can no longer stand in on place and say, "I am not subject to your laws".