I do not see it as a division of victim vs perpetrator. I cannot do much about circumstance that prevents a person from taking greater advantage of opportunity due to ability. However it is my belief that legal constraint is proper in preventing unfair advantage being taken. We have at our disposal the entire collection of human contracts and human interaction which has been our common inheritance. The principals upon which it is based in the United States of America has served us well and continues to do so.

In deciding that Universal education was mandatory for the functioning of a free republican form of government, our forefathers were not acting to ensure equality, but rather it is the condition upon which the survival of the republic relies. That is a huge difference. The denial of educational opportunities to slaves can not be rectified, ensuring that all citizens have educational opportunity is not a matter of either generosity or penance, but a tool for our survival as a nation. The denial of that educational opportunity is not only immoral, it is criminal. However that mandate for an education can only carry us so far, I cannot nor can any group mandate you take advantage of it nor can you as an individual compel society to provide more than the basic reading, writing and math unless it so decides that it is the interest of the community.

An action by an artificial class of persons (victims by inheritance)against an innocent group individual or other artificial class (lawbreaker by inheritance or birth) is a concept so alien to our Judeo-Christian based common law as to invite scorn, ridicule and revulsion and deservedly so. Horowitz is not merely wrong here his foolishness demands rebuke.

Now just to cover the base, I believe that the separate but still unequal public education provided by states under jim crow until very recently was itself criminal and foolish because in determining that universal education was a good thing beyond the three R’s those communities had no right to offer more unless it was offered universally to all citizens. That was obviously not the case.

OK I recognize it. Politics is pretty dirty and maybe Chicago is a bit dirtier than, say, Alaska. To date I haven’t seen anything that indicates Obama is or was corrupt in any serious way. Perhaps that will change but the case hasn’t been made yet.

Chicago does seem to have a pattern where its local politics appears to be more corrupt than its national politics. Either way more will be required than simply asserting that Obama is bad because his home is in a city of Bad People(tm).

But the question for me boils down to this, which neither Horowitz or King address, Does the acceptance of a handout make you richer or does it impoverish a man even more? As it certainly does nothing for ones spirit or self esteem, I firmly believe it is the not the richer answer that is correct.

This boils down to the individual man (or woman). I’ve gotten some handouts from society (say free public school, free libraries, etc.) as well as some from family and friends and I’ve given out handouts as well. Some I wasted, other’s I put to good use. One has to maintain their own spirit.

Also, by that definition access to education is a form of welfare and by extension a form of reparations. I do not think, and I hope you can agree, that is not the case. I hope you understand that universal education is a mutually beneficial contract entered into freely because it is in all our interests.

I agree it is mutually beneficial but I actually find myself more in agreement with Horowitz. We value equality of opportunity yet the reality is we are not born with equal opportunities. Some of that is the legacy of past societial injustices (slavery, racism, etc.). Some of that is the legacy of individual injustices (maybe your grandfather was cheated out of his share of his father’s estate….for example) and some of that is simply the randomness of life. When we make provisions for others either with universal education or welfare (which, of course, should be crafted as much as possible to offer people temprorary positive assistance and not dependence except for cases where dependence is the only option (i.e. severe disabilities)) we are in some way making up for past injustices. Think of a criminal who is sentenced to community service. Perhaps there is no practical way for him to identify and compensate his direct victims so the idea is he makes up for crime by giving to everyone in general.

Unlike community service, though, I don’t think of it so much as making good on specific crimes but more along the lines of not taking an unfair advantage. This can often be self-beneficial (after all, there’s really no way to work out the consquences of an injustice. There are blacks today who are better off because slavery provided them certain opportunities. Likewise there are some whites today who are poorer because of slavery….to be a poor white in the south during slavery’s time was not an easy one. So we may very well end up benefiting from ‘reparations’ even though we may not think of ourselves as victims). It very well might also end up costing nothing if, as you say in the case of education, the benefits are greater than the collective costs.

I think this is a better approach to the subject for a few reasons:

1. It is realistic, it doesn’t pretend that we are living in a brand new day and history has no influence over our current lives at all. In that I’m being somewhat conservative intellectually here. The left, here, has a point. History is important and it shouldn’t be glossed over or turned into propoganda. Bad things done 100 years ago aren’t just ‘cultural differences’ or historical curiousities but real tragedies that harm us today as well as back then.

2. It doesn’t turn into a game of trying to get people to find categories of victimhood to fall into. It also doesn’t set people against each other trying to playing games like “my slavery was worse than your Holocaust”. In essence it is saying the chain of costs and benefits of an injustice becomes impossible to trace once you move beyond a particular historical incident. Yes the slave was victimized and the slave owner benefited. Maybe, though, the slave’s son worked harder as a freeman and the owner’s son wasted his family fortune. Flash forward 50, 100, or 150 years and who knows now where any of us would specifically be if our great grandfathers had acted more ethically. It is simplistic and cartoonish to divide ourselves into victims versus victimizers (or those who benefited from victimization), in reality we are all a bit of both.

3. It makes ample allowance for individual self-esteem, dignity and responsibility. It really isn’t possible to know if the past has given you a boost or set you back but you do have control over your present reality. You can squandar what opportunities you have or choose to make the best of them.

On reparations, I do recall the conversations, and I believe that Horowitz, using some nifty quotes from MLK, was arguing that the Great Society of LBJ was sufficent payment. It was part of his argument about why reparations were a bad idea, I think. In fact I believe his points were addressed in a First of the Month Club article, but I don’t recall the substance, having only glance at it last year.

But the question for me boils down to this, which neither Horowitz or King address, Does the acceptance of a handout make you richer or does it impoverish a man even more? As it certainly does nothing for ones spirit or self esteem, I firmly believe it is the not the richer answer that is correct. Also, by that definition access to education is a form of welfare and by extension a form of reparations. I do not think, and I hope you can agree, that is not the case. I hope you understand that universal education is a mutually beneficial contract entered into freely because it is in all our interests. While most forms of government and socialized welfare are not in anyone’s interest beyond sustaining a person for a hopefully brief period. The longer a person is dependent on welfare the more beholden a person becomes to the government. I have found that arrangement to be nothing more than a form of slavery. Imo, it is better to go hungry. That is not any form of reparation I would or could agree to.

Just a note, many former slaves were offered a chance to emigrate and start anew, the thinking being that the experience of slavery would have jaded their thinking about America. But the overwhelming majority believed they had no ties to Africa, they were Citizens of the United States.

I’m sorry, why do I care about this again? Blago got elected, Blago was corrupt, he was indicted and impeached. The guy before him was a Republican, he too was corrupt and is now in jail…where Blago may very likely end up joining him. I’m not seeing what this is supposed to say about blacks, whites or race in general.

Reparation is the act of compensating a wronged party. Anti poverty measures are not been included in anyone’s definition of it that I am aware of.

You may have forgotten, David Horowitz, several years ago, placed some ads in college newspapers implying that welfare was reparations for slavery. There was an uproar because many, naturally, jumped on the point that welfare applies to everyone…black or white. Horowitz, in a pretty witty response, pulled a bunch of quotes from Martin Luther King and other notables advocating an expansion of welfare on the grounds that it would be reparations. Which, if you think about it, has a logic to it. Blacks today who were hurt by slavery’s legacy (and Jim Crow’s) would be more likely to be poorer today. Aid to the poor, then, would flow more to them than to those who are better off today because of slavery/Jim Crow’s legacy. Hence you got reparations by helping the poor.

I’ll try to find the specific response by Horowitz if you want me too.

On patonage, So your telling me Blago got elected without patronage? Don’t be absurd, please?

Moved beyond race? yes they are trying?
But tell me what is the celebration of diversity all about? How is it not a direct contravention of everything you would like to claim about Modern American Democrat policy and practice which conveniently forgets that the promise is one of equal opportunity, not a promise of equality. We should not underestimate the value in competition, nor oversell the flaws of it.

40 Acres and a mule, was possible in very narrow areas of the south, and was a boon to the freedmen in LA and Mississippi before the end of the war and on the coastal islands shortly after. It was no more foolish than the Homestead Act. The practice was allowed to be turned on its head and ridiculed by people who did not have the courage of their own convictions and did not act decisively, but with hesitation over the legalities of a perceived land grab and distribution. BTW, There was not ever enough land nor enough old Army mules to make the promise to every former slave a reality. I think there is linkage of sorts to the sub prime scams.

Reparation is the act of compensating a wronged party. Anti poverty measures are not been included in anyone’s definition of it that I am aware of. WANE.

I didn’t argue that Obama created the post-racial idea or that he somehow makes it happen. In fact, the causation is the other way around. Obama was able to be elected because many Americans, especially younger ones, have moved beyond race. This is not the color blind meme that Stephan Colbert does a great job of mocking (“People tell me I’m white, I don’t know since I don’t see color!”) They can acknowledge the historic aspect of Obama’s election but I have to say for most it simply isn’t about race. On the other hand, for more than a few (certainly not all), anti-Obamaites, race seems to be an endless obsession. Your nonsense over reparations, for example. If 7 years and 11 months from now Obama has not proposed, supported or signed any type of reparations bill (the passage you quoted is vague and non-specific…reperations run the gamut from simple anti-poverty measures that are race blind to the deservedly mocked ’40 acres and a mule for every black person’), will you still be preaching the approaching race war?

Um Hello, Blagojevich, Chicago and Daily et al. No Patronage?

Blago’s election was black patronage? You truely are color blind. The man appears very white to me.

“If these people really existed, you’d expect more response from them on the budget pledge.”

What about that 1 out of 25 ratio, do you not understand? Wasn’t even asking for money!

“Yet in voting for Obama that is precisely what folks voted for…”

should read… “voted against.”

No, it is rare to find examples of people voting against their perceived self interest. I do not believe it can be argued for example that the Welfare reforms introduced under President Clinton were not in the nations individuals best interest. Yet in voting for Obama that is precisely what folks voted for, knowingly or not.

“The most potent critics of farm subsidies, for example, rarely get elected from states where farming is one of the major industries. Given this fact of life, what evidence do you have that you’re a better judge of other people’s self interest than other people themselves?” again where the farm subsidy is in actuality not in the interest of the farm state itself, it is the perception. If a trillion dollar bail out was wrong under President Bush, why is another one right under President Obama? Again, the perception of interest is not the same as best interest. I can not determine for you or anyone what your perception will be, I can attempt to persuade you if you (or the members of the the fourth estate) will allow it.

I didn’t say it was due to GOP racism. But I did point out that when one party manages to do so horribly with all but one race over time their incentives will change in favor of racism.

So are positing that traditional Democratic Party Racism was the cause of the liberalization of the Democratic Party in 1968? I surly am lost by the logic of your point.

Discussions from whom? Some college professor that makes it onto Bill O’Reilly? Show me a serious reparations idea from a serious person and I’ll show you Obama’s support slipping.

Dr. Jerimiah Wright, and Dr. Iva Carruthers for a start, then there is Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn, and depending on the audience a certain Chicago Politician named, ahhh, yeah Barrack Obama, who said…

“”I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged. I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it’s Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds.”

I will leave it to you to determine the credibility of the leader of one of the largest churches in Chicago, a major member of the congregation and the US Senator. Of the question of whether or not Barrack Obama is in favor of reparations lets just agree that perhaps he misspoke, ah, again.

I think here you are missing the correct POV. Black people have every right to say why should we assimiliate? Agreed if you change the word people to individuals.

In many cases we were here before many whites. Would you tell members of the Mayflower Society that their problem is they aren’t assimiliating? What I think is happening with the ‘post-racial’ meme that coems with Obama is a moving beyond of race. Society is assimiliating with black culture as well as black culture is assimiliating with white. Among many younger people today the obsession with race appears rather silly. This is a bit ancedotal but I’ve noticed that very little Obama support seems to center around race but a lot of anti-Obamaites are posititvely obsessed with race.

First the post racial meme was well on its way before Obama, and certainly does not require “the one” to continue. Interracial marriage for one and to some degree that has not been measured a success or not, the integration of Public Schools both of which were made possible by the integration of the Military has been knocking down the last walls of racial
bias in our society. We were slowly becoming Americans, not black not white, but citizens of one nation.

I do not believe that the obsession with race is the case, always with exceptions of course, as the rule cannot hold 100% when individual liberty is involved. The explanation of the POV of the GOP is assumed to be consumed by race. It is not. Folks do insist on projecting on others a racial bias that simply does not exist while rejecting the very plain (vanilla?) and rational logic as an excuse for racism. Could it be a lack of a real grappling with a racist history? Or could it be that in aligning with former Southern Democrats the GOP sinned the unforgivable sin of consorting with former racists, like George Wallace, or Senator Byrd, oh wait yeah those guys were democrats, with only Wallace publicly asking forgiveness. Hummm, as a staunch independent conservative individual at that.

On patronage

Not seeing it man, not seeing it. I don’t see the election of Obama as either motivated by or in support of a ‘black/brown patronage system’. But you miss the point about the failure of your rhetoric so I’ll say it again. Telling people that they are stupid, that they are easily led astray, that they are essentially fools and should therefore buy your product because you know what’s best for them is highly unlikely to win you many converts.
Um Hello, Blagojevich, Chicago and Daily et al. No Patronage? The current administrations selection process? Your kidding right? Spoils of war I understand, cat fighting over the scraps, is another thing.

I do not pretend to know better than anyone else, nor do I wish to impose my thinking on anyone. But I will debate and with luck persuade others or at least come away with a clearer picture and fresh appreciation of the opposing arguments. I am not naive enough to believe that no one has read “The Prince”.

“Has the FEC found that Obama is in violation of any campaign rule or regulation? If so please provide the link, if not then he is not. From a privacy rights POV the FEC is only a proper authority if it has regulations requiring the collection of such data and requires the submission of such data. If the FEC has not requested it, then, I’m still at a loss for what you’re complaining about.” The record keeping required which would prevent the breaking of campaign finance laws was not mandatory. It was a pledge made by Obama that was broken, again. There is no way of which I am aware to investigate or prove the charges against the Obama campaign.
The mechanism that remained in place on McCain’s website, did not allow charges by Minnie or Mickey Mouse or other fictional characters. Other safeguards were involved as well. Sorry, but in running a clean campaign, President Obama broke his word that time too. His word is not worth a whole lot.
And when and where has the McCain campaign ‘demonstrated’ that they could make a copy to the proper authority? By virtue of the fact that the software was not turned off, the details were collected. On/Off, it is as simple as that.

Because, you know, snide comments about WoW are so non-ad-hominemy. I’m telling you – this forum deserves a better class of troll (sorry, Heath).

I do agree that Wretchard is wrong to focus on what’s pretty much a non-issue. The tapeworms and leeches elected their Affirmative Action tapeworm-in-chief, and we’re bound for the post-racial promised land under the most racially fixated prez ticket since Wallace/LeMay. Thus, who cares about a few overseas millions, one way or the other?