Prometheus 6

Do find a distinction between what and how you read online and what you read in book form? Are you influenced at all by hardcover versus softcover? (I seem to be more engaged with and retain more from hardcover tomes.) And do you read multiple books at a time or complete a single work before moving on?

I must say that I am actually somewhat surprised that no one has questioned why Obama did not at least publicly float the idea of another minority... in particular, another black man... for his VP pick. On one hand we have McCain claiming John Lewis as an advisor, yet Obama could not (or did not?) find a single black man to even make the list of possibles? Or did I simply miss it?

I believe that the Obama campaign would reject out of hand a two-black-men ticket as unworkable... and I think that's a problem.

Do find a distinction between what and how you read online and what you read in book form?

Yeah. The big difference is that I can read books anywhere. And books are more resilient than computers...I'm a lot more careless how I handle books. And I can scan ahead or back more easily with a book.

Also, I am about 100 pages into Buried in the Bitter Waters. In the last month I've read about 750 pages in three other books. There is no way I'd try that kind of volume online.

Are you influenced at all by hardcover versus softcover?

I buy paperbacks because a lot of the more outre titles only come in paperback. If it becomes a necessary reference I may get a hardcover version, like Lerone Bennett's The Shaping of Black America.

do you read multiple books at a time or complete a single work before moving on?

Unless I'm using them as references, I tend to read one book on a given topic at a time. I'm trying to construct the model implicitly described by the book and it's hard to do that with competing references at the same time. 

On one hand we have McCain claiming John Lewis as an advisor

What? When? Where?

I believe that the Obama campaign would reject out of hand a two-black-men ticket as unworkable... and I think that's a problem.

But do you disagree?

actually wanted to 'win' instead. I also think he has way too many real young white advisers around him to even consider getting any visibly blacker, since there are more than a few black women he could have mentioned as well. I hear you, though.

I hear you too, but the question stands.

Look forward to more book reviews. Any thoughts on Michelle's speech?

Her speech hit the points and shut down a lot of GOP bull crap dis-information, as well as left the door open to compare apples to apples when it comes to who is closer to real working folks and who the real country club elites are.

I also think white people are more scared of Michelle than Barack because they know Obama is a watered down politician that walks a fine line of appeasement, but having the history of 1st lady influence on the presidency they know Michelle is all black all the time. Which means if it were up to Michelle affirmative action and reparations will come up

"...if it were up to Michelle affirmative action and reparations will come up"

Interesting. So you're saying Michelle has expressed an opinion about Reparations that differs from Barack's?

When and where has she expressed it on the campaign trail? She repeated his "empathy deficit" theme pretty well and regularly (or maybe it was her's all along). She also made a passionate and compelling argument before a Black audience to move beyond their fears for Barack's safety and their fears that Barack wouldn't be successful and actually get involved vs. being complacent and allowing a self-fulfilling prophecy of an Obama via their non-participation.

That aside, I don't recall her saying anything about Reparations. So I'd be interested in what she actually said if she has made any remarks, past or campaign present, on the subject especially if they were the raw uncut.

Which means if it were up to Michelle affirmative action and reparations will come up

Affirmative action will come up because people still want to get rid of it. As for reparations, as much as it is deserved

The Reparations Discussion: Day 1

The Reparations Discussion: Day 2

The Reparations Discussion: Day 2a

The Reparations Discussion: Day 3

The Reparations Discussion: Day 5

...you're not going to see any mainstream candidate for any office (or anyone connected with one) raise the issue. The morality of it is not established in the public sphere. Here's the end of the discussion on day 2a:

The difference between what you call "principles" and "management details" is, in fact, the difference between ethics and law.

Your idea that not only the perpetrator of an injustice but also others who benefited from it should shoulder the burden of repairs has no factual basis in law. [P6: This is wrong, by the way.]

If I go to a shop to buy a product in good faith, I shouldn't have to worry about lawsuits because somewhere in the supply chain of the product someone is being mistreated, like not getting payed overtime. That is a matter between the mistreater and the mistreatee. This may not agree with your brand of ethics, but at least it prevents a breakdown of our economy.

By buying a pair of shoes, I should not become liable for all injustices in the world, just as someone living in the US is not automatically liable for all injustices against blacks.

And then there is the causal link question you seem to dodge with the recent Nigerian immigrant question. If somehow you get a reparation in the form of, say, mandatory affirmative action for blacks in college, would it not be an injustice for people who have been taxpayers all their life to have their kids refused entry because the places are reserved for the kids of a recent immigrant who happens to be black?

dog of flanders

---

"The difference between what you call "principles" and "management details" is, in fact, the difference between ethics and law."

That, my friend, is exactly the case.

There are no ethics in law. I tell folks over and over and over, law and order have nothing to do with right and wrong.

You cannot use law as a guide. Ethics, or morality, or a combination thereof, must give direction to one's choices.

You are using possible legalistic problems to argue against my ethical point, which is why I feel more than justified in ignoring the arguments until the ethics of the situation are established.

Fix the problem of injustice. Repair the damage done. What's wrong with those principles? How can you argue against them?

Prometheus 6

---

I'm not posing legalistic problems solely to argue against you, you should have an answer to these questions if you want to make a cogent argument for reparations that can be supported by white liberals.

Your choice on what you call "implementation details" will decide if you can find a majority in favour or not.

If you want something other than an "acknowledgement", it will cost money. If it costs money, congress will have to agree.

Need I remind you that these people are in the law business, not the ethics business?

dog of flanders

---

I recognize that. But I also recognize no legal argument will win if the ethical point is rejected.

Laws are always passed for extra-legal reasons. And no joke, I appreciate your making the legalistic arguments so that I can make this point.

Prometheus 6

I believe they should prepare to answer the question, though. Things to justify reparations are a LOT closer, historically speaking, than most Black folks suspect. Confederates are quite aware of it though, and that's why so many of them raise reparations.

P6, it was at that Saddleback event.

From Crooks and Liars :

On Saturday night, at the forum at Saddleback Church, the Rev. Rick Warren asked John McCain to name “the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration.” McCain listed three people: Gen. David Petraeus, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), and eBay CEO Meg Whitman.

To his credit, Lewis later said,

“Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him.”

I'll get back to you on the other question.

“Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him.”

That's why I don't even remember hearing about it, I guess.

What point were you trying to make in raising McCain's claim as though it were a legitimate issue?

I was using it as a counterpoint: "McStain" can claim to accept the influence of a black politician without worry, while Obama has arguably spent more time distancing himself from (certain) black leaders than promoting or supporting (others).

I should make it clear that I am not familiar with the makeup of Obama's campaign staff or his advisory crew, as I have purposefully avoided consuming their material as much as I can. I may have mentioned in an earlier thread my opinion that his candidacy was "pre-destined" by the Dems prior to 2004, and that the whole phenomenom is simply the machine in action. Yes, it's a paranoid opinion and I don't expect it to be shared by a lot of people.

The basic concept is this: the two parties are in collusion, and they realize they need to make a decent "show" of putting on a fair election and that democracy actually works in America. As long as the population is convinced that their vote counts and that elections actually work, the chances of something revolutionary happening are significantly reduced. To that end, I believe Barack was carefully selected and cultivated to be the man this time around.

My thoughts are rather jumbled this morning, I apologize. Too much stuff going on.

That said, I think the machine could successfully sell a two-black-men ticket if it really wanted to, but why would they want to do that? One is enough to keep black folks believing that the system is working.

So your problem isn't Obama per se, but the whole mechanism...like the guy who said when you've got the whole thing wrong fixing one error at a time is pointless.

Don't take the Michelle and reparations statement literally as if she has been pushing or promoting it, it you read the statement in context.
"they know Michelle is all black all the time." this is a reference to her pride and strength as a real and genuine black woman outside the political bullshit,

This is the same dixie labeled "black uppityness" that got her attacked by the GOP, trying to exploit a "blackness" associated with Obama through his wife.so they could use it to scare or 2008 "willie horton" white people.

As for reparations, I can't realistically see her adopting that in the same way Hillary championed healthcare. It would be political suicide to be initiated by her.

For the record, In my humble opinion I don't see this Devil ever willingly putting reparations on the table for even discussion..Reparations would have to be ligitamized by a strong international organization taking it to the world stage coupled with a large percentage of white people willing to listen and bolstered by support by the MSM. If that perfect storm happens in our lifetime them mabe.the government will get a sub sub sub committee to look at it briefly.

Michelle Obama's softer side comes through at convention
By Tammerlin Drummond
Oakland Tribune
Article Last Updated: 08/26/2008 09:04:46 AM PDT

The above article is exactly what I'm talking about, why do black people have to show a soft side to be accepted by white people?

BTW that's a rhetorical question

You got it. And my cynicism is running particularly deep this election cycle...

pdub, I agree
"The basic concept is this: the two parties are in collusion," ...

Evidence backs this up.

Specific incident...., when no democratic Senator would back the black congress people asking for a recount in Florida in 2000, ( very well shown in Micheal Moore's Farenheit 911 ). .When given a public chance to win the presidency they passed? Specially when the popular voted justified any actions taken

Also last night I caught this good documentary on US Shady voting, ( I can't remember the name right now) there was this brother that invented an electronic voting machine that gave a backup paper trail receipt, mysteriously he was killed in a car accident as he was gaining national attention..and for the record yes I am a conspiracy theorist..another segment had this white man testifying to crongress that the Florida GOP was "flipping" electronic votes and they refused to listen.

I believe its an us and them state, the problem is dumb ass white people that are easily duped by simply waving a flag in front of them refuse to accept the truth that the US is bought and paid for by big business.

Sandman, that specific incident is one of the things that really bugs me about some current Senators... they were in the Senate at that time, yet they did nothing... Biden, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Feinstein, Pelosi... they stood down at a time when the Nation needed them to stand up.

"...when no democratic Senator would back the black congress people asking for a recount in Florida in 2000..."

Didn't Barbara Boxer back the CBC's play?

I don't know about the CBC, but in F911, Moore showed scenes from a joint session of the House and Senate confirming the "vote"... and it was explicit: not a single Senator signed on to support the congresspeople. Boxer did not back them.

pdub, that's the one for me too, let me know how fake they are. Then after they let GWB off the hook so many times including Impeachment, they cat box dirt to me now.

They all stood down, Boxer or Pelosi, can't remember which one, when questioned about that, said she stood down because Al Gore asked her to personally, which isn't an excuse for giving the country to known crooks. Everyone of those senators that normally fight for basic principles were silent?

And actually drives the nail in the case if Al Gore himself folded with the popular vote on his side and all the country was asking for is the truth in making sure it was done right in the State run by GWB's Brother? Then allowing the Supreme Fart to give it to GWB when it was stacked with hacks appointed by Reagan n Bush sr. talk about conflict of interest. Florida with Jeb and the court beholding to daddy bush