He said he could not find that the defendants had a specific animosity against white people.Excuse me? No "specific animosity against white people" yet the guy thinks no whites should hold any elected offices in a black majority county?
"Brown, in fact, claims a number of whites as friends," Judge Lee wrote. "However, there is no doubt from the evidence presented at trial that Brown, in particular, is firmly of the view that blacks, being the majority race in Noxubee County, should hold all elected offices, to the exclusion of whites; and this view is apparently shared by his allies and associates on the [Noxubee Democratic Executive Commitee], who, along with Brown, effectively control the election process in Noxubee County."
Well, not knowing all the details I guess I won't second-guess the judge's opinion, but let's just imagine the outcry if things were reversed.
"White, in fact, claims a number of blacks as friends. However, there is no doubt from the evidence presented at trial that White, in particular, is firmly of the view that whites, being the majority race in Noxubee County, should hold all elected offices, to the exclusion of blacks; and this view is apparently shared by his allies and associates on the [Commitee], who, along with White, effectively control the election process in Noxubee County."
This would be universally derided as "Jim Crow" politics all over again.
The judge came to the right conclusion, at least, and his opinion wasn't informed by the ludicrous assertion some make that because blacks are "oppressed", they can't possibly be "racist".
If whites denying blacks equals racism, the reverse is also true: blacks denying whites equals racism.
* * *
Here is a nicely sarcastic article about Ted Kennedy and the thankfully-failed amnesty bill.
I am so very glad it failed. I am glad for many reasons.
I am glad because it was "stealth" legislation, meant to fly under the voters' radar until it was too late.
I am glad because it would have done nothing to fix our border security. It said it would, but the border security measures would only be triggered after the amnesty provisions had been met--which would have been approximately "never" if the past two amnesty bills (also authored by Ted Kennedy) were any guide.
I am glad because it would have given illegals preferential treatment in securing visas--in effect rewarding them for breaking the law.
I am glad because it is possible I may want to secure a fiancee visa for my sweetie, and the amnesty bill would have indefinitely delayed the processing of that visa.
The article makes mention of something interesting: the Democrats have been tearing Bush down since he was nominated by the GOP, and then suddenly--when he supports something they want--suddenly he's 100% correct about this one thing. He's an idiot in search of a village except, apparently, he's an idiot savant when it comes to amnesty for people who will vote Democrat whether it's actually legal for them to vote or not.
And it's one of many reasons why Democrats always oppose measures reqiring a photo ID to vote: it's easier for illegal immigrants to vote if they don't have to prove they are who they say they are. It's easier for people to "vote early, vote often" if they don't have to present an ID card which positively identifies them. (Say what you will about 2000, it's a long-established fact of American politics that vote fraud always benefits Democrats far more than Republicans.)
Interesting point: it is perfectly legal for anyone to register to vote in the US. Anyone--even Senor Jimenez who just sneaked across the border last night without papers or even a spare set of clothing--can register to vote, and it's perfectly legal.
It is not legal for illegals to exercise that vote, but the system currently relies on the individual to be self-policing. That's fine when you have a populace which is mature, responsible, and honorable; but when the average person doesn't stop for stop signs when there are no police around, it's optimistic to expect some people not to cheat. (And it's a long-established fact that vote fraud always benefits Democrats far more than Republicans.)
I have no idea what the Republicans are thinking, or if they were even thinking at all. This bill was a bad idea; it was a very bad idea, particularly in post-9/11 America. We need to close the border first, and then worry about what to do with the illegals that are in the country.
Myself, I envision that a few relatively simple measures would fix the problem.
1) Build a wall to keep illegals out--an actual wall--and staff it with National Guard or Army personnel who are allowed to shoot if anyone gets in and refuses to surrender. (If they run back to Mexico, fine. If they try to run further into the US, bang.)
2) Enforce the laws already on the books. When a cop stops someone who turns out to be illegal, the cop arrests him immediately and he is detained until INS can come get him and deport him. By definition, the illegal has committed a crime, so there is no need to worry about the fifth amendment; if you charge the illegal with the crime he has committed, just by being in the US illegally, that is enough of a crime to hold him in jail.
3) Repeal the laws which automatically grant citizenship to children born inside the US. Or, at least tighten the definition so that the child must have at least one parent who is a US citizen.
4) Stop subsidizing illegal immigrants. Other than life-saving measures, illegals who show up at US hospitals for treatment should be deported as quickly as is possible. They should be denied access to education and welfare if they cannot prove they are in this country legally. I can't even open a checking account without showing my driver's license, so why the hell should Senor Jimenez get WIC and food stamps and free education and health care? On my dime?
5) Enforce the laws already on the books, part 2: When a business is found to be employing illegals, slap them with hefty fines and other penalties and deport the illegals. Make the risks of employing illegals greater than the benefits.
6) When an illegal is found guilty of a crime--especially felonies, including violent crimes--deportation should be part of his sentence. DUI? Deport him. Murder? Rape? Burglary? Deport him. A "guilty" verdit for an illegal who commits a serious crime should automatically equal deportation.
The problem with these simple measures is that the powers that be don't want to fix the problem. Democrats want the illegal votes and Republicans think that they'll lose the legal Hispanic vote if they try to come down on illegals. Businesses want the illegals because they're cheap labor, and just by being here they keep wages artificially low.
No one with any power actually wants the problem solved; and that's why Kennedy and Lott and Bush and the others are so upset that the American people learned about this bill and let their voices be heard. The thankfully-failed bill would have simply furthered the status quo.
The bill is dead, but the ideas behind it are not. Look for this one to come up again soon.
* * *
Vox Day writes about Al Gore, The Assault on Reason, and global warming. He references this article in the Chicago Sun-Times.
The idea of Al Gore as the 21st century equivalent of Trofim Lysenko had not occurred to me. And Al Gore's support of the global warming cause certainly does smack of Lysenkoism--at least, of the kind of alleged science that he is known for: pseudo-science bent to the ends of socialists.
The ironic thing is that the only "assault on reason" taking place here is from people like Al Gore, who want us to abandon the principles of science and sign on to something which is 99.997% hype wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo-science--something which will end up ruining our economy and our standard of living--while simultaneously living so lavishly himself that he uses ten times the energy of the average American family.
Al Gore is a hypocrite, and he's an utterly unabashed hypocrite. His "crusade to save the Earth" is nothing but a vehicle to political power, for his political allies and party if not for himself, and it's all based on lies or--at best--willful disregard for long-established principles of research.
Just like Lysenko.