Ok, I really want to ask this after the thread about the CBC and a white guy wanting membership

Thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x17258

Synopsis:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2389.html

As a white liberal running in a majority African American district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans. He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not apply.

"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain "exclusively African-American."

Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., agreed.

"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule. It's understood. It's clear."

:shrug:

If people are feeling that strongly on it then surely there is some underlying reason worth looking at.

I ain't looking for people to start a new flame war, but obviously people feel strongly on the issue. Why is the left here on DU so divided on it?

to become a part of the CBC, I doubt his "first act of Congress" would have been to expose that august body to this shit. Would YOU want someone so fuckin' CLUELESS in the inner sanctum? It is truly a sad state of affairs.
A black majority selects a Jewish representive and before anyone can wrap their brain around how wonderful it is, HE hands the M$M the rope to lynch the CBC. SUPER.

"Why is the left here on DU so divided on it?"

Do please let us know on which side of the "divide" the annointed should fall.

nm

no one would question this discussion if there were ever any actual "discussions" that came out of them. As opposed to the "I'm right--you're wrong, you suck, I'm superior, you aren't entitled to an opinion--hold on a minute while I belittle you" fests that these "things" inevitably become.

They are less discussion, more personal assault--but just skirt around the rules enough to get away with it.

The anonymity of the cyber world makes them brave, verbose and free to spew whatever hate filled, bigoted ideals they are too chicken shit to ever say in the real world to the faces of those they have so many opinions about.

Based on that, maybe that's why anyone would dare question if this is actually a potentially prudent or productive "discussion."

If this thread becomes a flame war, it will be because of those chosing that behaviour, not because the topic isn't interesting or worthy of discussion.

how many people here are white people, with little clue about the civil right movement, it's history, and it's necessary tactics, who are condescending to tell a black organization how to act?

Doesn't that strike anyone here as racist?

Would the people who made that rule be OK if it was the other way around?

Before you go judging and criticizing, find out why the caucuses exist, how they function, and what purposes they serve.

And to answer your question, no I wouldn't support a white caucus, because in a white society with a government build and run by white people, in a racist nation the majority of congress is a white caucus. That's why there is a need for a black caucus.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We talk about equality, but I guess it's only applicable when it fits your needs, right?

1. If only racists pay attention to race, then the racists always win. You can ignore skin color entirely, and that just guarantees you'll never notice the racism, and they'll get away with it.

2. In a white world, when dealing with white power structures, and white history and traditions, and a larger group of white people the only way to develop a black voice is to step back together and have a place to do it.

Every branch of the civil rights movement uses the same tactic. We each step back and organize among ourselves, by ourselves, to develop our own voice. We work with others, but we develop our voice, or ideas, or tactics by ourselves so that we speak for ourselves.

Otherwise, the majority invades and ends up trying to speak for us every single time.

3. If white people are allowed in, every racist will join because they'll be able to use their membership as a credential, or as armor against charges of racism. The last thing any anti-racism group wants is to help the racists hide their racism.

4. If white people are allowed in, everyone who is trying to pander to black constituents will join too. Everyone has black consituents. So the small Congressional Black Caucus would be overwhelmed and soon the majority of members would be white. If those white people are there for political reasons, rather than real ideological reasons, then they are going to disrupt the caucus and prevent it from functioning.

:thumbsup:

You might get more done by not excluding others just because they aren't like you.

Let me just say this: I have been the victim of discrimination. And it doesn't matter if you're black, white, male, or female, it's wrong. And it hurts just the same, no matter what. And a person who has been the victim of reverse discrimination has it even worse, because no one believes that any discrimination happened at all.

It sounds like the guy wants to be a member because he mostly represents black people in his area. That sounds like a worthy intention to me. I just don't understand how any group that has been discriminated against can turn around and discriminate against someone else for the very same reason, and somehow it's OK because they are a minority. That just seems like flawed logic. They are essentially doing the same thing to someone else that they don't like when it's done to them.

Is it any wonder our world is so screwed up today?

I won't say anything else about this, because I can tell it won't do any good. But I think this thread alone proves the point.

The black caucus won't have a unified black voice if white people interfere. Even if white people agree with their goals and purposes, the black caucus needs to be able to have their own voice on those goals and purposes that white people can then agree with. Otherwise, it's not a black consensus and black people don't have their own voice.

If I want to form a civil rights group to help all gay people (I'm gay) I don't want a bunch of straight people coming and defining the gay rights movement or how to fight homophobia, no matter how well meaning they are. They may be supportive, but they won't have our perspective, and we don't want them taking our voice away from us by trying to speak for us. Gay people need a place to talk and hash it out for ourselves. If straight people really respect our battle they'll let us think and talk and come to our own strategies and then they'll offer to help.

The alternative is that the majority makes all the decisions and the minority ends up always tagging along. Sometimes, somewhere, the minority MUST have a place of their own where they aren't second to the majority.

Democracy isn't just the rule of the majority. It's also the protection of the minority. And the caucus system helps provide that.

Sorry i just noticed these...

The black caucus won't have a unified black voice if white people interfere. Even if white people agree with their goals and purposes, the black caucus needs to be able to have their own voice on those goals and purposes that white people can then agree with.

First, why would someone of a different race who shared the goals and the beleifs that bind the CBC togther be "interfereing?"

Does that mean that we can extend that further and claim that when Ted Kennedy or Russ Fiengold try to pass ENDA or support gay marriage, they too are "interefering"?

And secondly, arent' you presuming that black people are al in consensus? Last i heard, black people were no more the BORG then any other group in the human family. Even Freeper Republic doesn't have a total consensus. And yet here we have a more or less progressiv orgainization in the CBC.

What's that joke? Ask two liberal what they think about an issue and you'll get 20 opinions.

Not to mention the implicit problem with assuming that physical charecteristic would determine beleifs.

I mean, think about it. Who is more likley to share the values of a Barbara Lee or a John Conyers?

Clarence Thomas, Former Ohio Sec of State Ken Blackman, or White Guy Bill Clinton?

The point of the caucus is to have a voice AS the black members of congress. If white people are there, no matter what their views are, then the groups voice isn't the voice of the Black members of congress any more.

You are insisting that the caucus exists to spout certain views. They don't. They exist to be the voice of black members of congress.

And, second, I am not assuming a concensus among black people. I'm assuming that in their internal debates and discussions they will form a consensus (or at least a generally accepted opinion) on some issues that they can represent as a group.

Are you denying that there is a need for black members of congress to be able to speak to each other separately from their own perspectives as black members of congress?

And if so, do you also oppose other caucuses? Or are black members of congress the only people who should be required to speak from within larger groups of white people?

I'm white, and I understand, as well as any white person could. My fiance is black, so I've read and researched on my own the history of slavery, the history of white interference in other cultures, our interference in the world in general, our domination of other cultures, our continued domination, and I really do understand as much as a white person could understand I think.

But for most white people, no matter how well our intentions are, I don't think there's any way we can ever really understand why any other culture, not just African Americans, feels the way they do and has these attitudes. I accept that. It' not just as easy as us screaming reverse discrimination for this type of occurence. It's just not that cut and dried.

there is a difference between understanding what is means to be black (which we might be able to do only to a certain extent) and representing the experience of black people (which we cannot do at all).

I mean, what is thier voice? what are they trying to say?

It''s pretty clear that the CBC isnt' just a social club. They create policy. So what are the values that the CBC is trying to advocate?

In other words, who best shares the valus of a John Conyer or a Barbara Lee?

JC Watts or Bill Clinton?

Of those two, which has probably helped the cause of racial equality?

"Are you denying that there is a need for black members of congress to be able to speak to each other separately from their own perspectives as black members of congress? "

Unfortunatly you are aksing me a loaded question.

First I would have to beleive that every black politican all shared the same perspective. But no human does that. People can have the exact same life experiences and come out totally different. White people dont' all share the same perspective just by virtue of being white. Why would being black make one different then the rest of the species?

Second, I would have to pretend that empathy is impossible, that no one can understand another person's perspective without sharing that same experience. Basicly that someone can never get another person's POV becuase they dont' belong to the same group so dont' even try. (which ironicly is the heart of racism, it's how it thrives)

And third, I would have to ignore that diversity isn't just a catchy slogan, it's it's own reward, helping people see new ways to do thinsg and new solutions to old problems. Scores of otherwise brilliant peopel have done incredibly dumb things becuase they based thier decisions on what others who thought as they did said.

Becuase you know, this seems to be a much bigger problem then just the CBC's denial of Cohen wanting to join them

I stil remeber how in Atlanta a White women was attacked by another canidate who claimed that a black person should have the seat.

To exclude others only becuase they dont' belong to a particular group like race seems to be a denial of everything MLK and the black civil rights movemment fought for.

"And if so, do you also oppose other caucuses? Or are black members of congress the only people who should be required to speak from within larger groups of white people?"

Don't put words in my mouth. Trying to paint me as a racist only cheapens you. If Cohen had been Latino or Asian American my response would be no different.

You can't say anything if you don't have a voice. The first struggle, and the enduring struggle, in any civil rights movement is first to have a voice.

You keep posing false choices, like JC Watts or Bill Clinton. If the CBC admitted Bill Clinton they might have been an Anti-Racist Congressional Caucus, but they wouldn't have been a Congressional Black Caucus. You keep refusing to even address the idea of black people needing a voice as black people.

There might be some people we don't agree with in that group, but it's their group. Nothing says they have to agree with your policy ideas to be a group. Nothing says they need your permission to be a group. Nothing says that their group needs to be organized along any other principle than the one they choose. And they choose to be a Congressional Black Caucus, that speaks for the black members of Congress.

Stop trying to make this about what you want. It's about what they want. They want a caucus that is black members of congress speaking as black members of congress, so that's what it is. Whether you like it or not, that's what it is.

You can disagree with that, but then explain why you don't think they should exist? And what gives you the right to say they shouldn't exist?

....because I'm sorry, but there's just no way for most white people to get it.

But if all else fails, those of us who represent any branch of the civil rights movement need to stick up for each other, and I won't back down from that challenge. :)

I haven't worked with African American groups, but I have been exposed to their world first hand through my fiance and there's just no way for anyone else to know what they've been through and what they continue to go through, or for that matter what any other ethnic group has gone through since modern history began. Without experiencing it or being exposed to it, I just can't find the words to explain it.


I will never accept the "reverse racism" argument, because there's just no way to put ourselves in their shoes. To put ourselves into a position of being yanked out of our homelands, sold into slavery, treated like animals. And (I may get flamed for this, but it's history nonetheless), the Jews were a big trader of African slaves also, so the Jewish argument doesn't wash here either. Even in the American colonies, Jewish families in Rhode Island were some of the biggest players in the slave trade in the early 1700s.

Jews traded in African slaves throughout the centuries, and I read a couple of years ago about a slave trading ring being busted in Israel, so I can't accept that portion of the argument either.

Africans and Native Americans alike suddenly had their lands and homes taken away from them by force by Europeans or Americans at gunpoint, and were killed off if they resisted, then were told they no longer owned their own lands, and if they wanted them back (in Africa anyway) they'd have to buy them back using European currencies. Again, enforced at gunpoint. This went on for centuries, was condoned, and is today just accepted as history.

African Americans have only started getting their rights recognized for the last 40 years, yet any time now they try to keep something like the Black Caucus, it's reverse racism? After 2 Millenniums of murder, slavery, land stealing?

I just can't accept that reasoning.

...some would, if they weren't exhausted from fighting in every other thread pertaining to people of color on this board. It seems that every time there's a discussion pertaining to any "minority group" on DU, anyone arguing on behalf of that group is told in no uncertain terms that their opinions aren't relevant to the discussion.

Apparently some on this board die a little every day because they don't have adequate opportunities to oppress others in the real world. But in the cyber world--cowardice tends to reign supreme. Those mourning the good old days when they could verbally assault "the different" in public, can do so freely on the internet. They can just let their bigotry and oppression flags fly free. As long as they can find a way to "maintain the rules" they can oppress another human being, with their words--and many do. They just kick up their heels and have a blast arguing for ignorance, bigotry, oppression, etc.,etc. Good for them, everyone needs a hobby, right? ;)

If you doubt any of this is true, visit the African American forum on this board. There are several threads archived there that show the way this board "values" the opinions of the people that post there:eyes:.

Just for future information, if anyone is interested. :)Please continue. Sorry to interrupt. :hi:

CM thread on front page!!! Duck and cover!!! And away we go again!!! :eyes:

:yourock:

Can you give an example of racist legislation that doesn't mention race?


Couldn't that problem be solved by excluding those who have a history of racism? Also, are you assuming that every racist is white?


If the majority of the constituents of a member of Congress are black, then why not allow that member of Congress to join? Pointing out that everyone has black constituents doesn't answer that question.

>Can you give an example of racist legislation that doesn't mention race?

Yes, but what's your point? Race does not need to be explicitely mentioned to be a concern. Racist legislation almost never in our history specificly mentioned race. They were written so that they "coincidentally" apply predominantly to black people.

>Couldn't that problem be solved by excluding those who have a history of racism? Also, are you assuming that every racist is white?

Given that most racism is covert, not overt, and given that removing someone would require proving something to some high standard, would be confrontational, and would probably violate house rules on decorum, it's easier to keep people out than to remove them.

No, not every racist is white. But racism is not the same as prejudice. To be racist you must be prejudiced, and have the power to act on that prejudice. So, while anyone can be prejudiced, white people have far more power to be racist. To divert the attention in racial matters away from white people would be rediculous. (and I say that as a white person with civil rights experience)

> If the majority of the constituents of a member of Congress are black, then why not allow that member of Congress to join? Pointing out that everyone has black constituents doesn't answer that question.

Because constituence have nothing to do with it. As I mentioned, everyone has black constituence. That means that the legislator would be advised to listen to the black caucus, but it doesn't mean they are part of the black caucus. This question shows that you don't understand what the purpose of the caucus is.

The caucus is the place to organize a coherent voice as black members of congress. It is not the place to educate white people. The caucus is the place to speak as black members of congress, from the perspective of black members of congress, for the black members of congress. It's about their voice. If white people join then that changes the voice and the black members don't have a voice of their own any more.

A legislator is supposed to represent his or her constituents.

If the majority of the constituents somewhere are black and the legislator is white, then is the legislator not truly able to represent the constituents?

If the majority of the constituents somewhere are white and the legislator is black, then is the legislator not truly able to represent the constituents?

Everyone has black consituents, so that's not the issue.

The issue is their voice as black members of congress. It's about their right to be black members of congress without getting lost in a larger white voice that tends to dominate. It's about their right to talk among themselves about being black and being members of congress and what issues and perspectives they face as black members of congress. It's about them having a voice as black members of congress.

It's about them, not their constituency.

After all, they have white constituents too. Does that mean that the black members of congress can speak as white people? They can speak for white people in their legislation, but they can't speak as white people.

It is a peer support group. But part of the purpose of peer support is to develop their own unified voice that can be heard in a white environment to influence policy.

Anyone can speak up as part of the Progressive Caucus to support to same issues. But the purpose of the CBC is to represent specifically the black voice in congress and policymaking.

When I look at the CBC site I find this:

The visions and goals of the original 13 members, "to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens," have been reaffirmed through the legislative and political successes of the Caucus. The CBC has been involved in legislative initiatives ranging from full employment to welfare reform, South African apartheid and international human rights, from minority business development to expanded educational opportunities. Most noteworthy is the CBC alternative budget which the Caucus has produced continually for over 16 years. Historically, the CBC alternative budget policies depart significantly from administration budget recommendations as the Caucus seeks to preserve a national commitment to fair treatment for urban and rural America, the elderly, students, small businessmen and women, middle and low income wage earners, the economically disadvantaged and a new world order.

and from their public statements where they speak as the Congressional Black Caucus (the black voice on the hill).

You do this often. When you have nothing else to say, you pull out bits of text and rules and demand that everything get pigeon holed into the bits of text you picked out.
:eyes:

They don't need your permission or approval to be a Congressional Black Caucus, and whether you agree or not, that's what they are. They are a caucus of the Black members of Congress. They speak, therefore, as the Black members of congress.

Just your feelings?

Nice. :eyes:

Again, not all Black politicans afre progressive.

Many black politicans have set back the cause of racial equality that the black caucus was created to endorse.

when one decides on a set of polcies, one is endorsing a set of values.

Those values aren't shared becuase one is of the same race or not shared because one is physically different.

In fact, it's rarely unified. But that's fine. The point of a caucus is to discuss their opinions, as divergent as they may be, from positions they have in commmon. (Being black members of congress) And when they occassionally reach a concensus they can speak together as the black members of congress.

Now I recall that there was a club that practiced George-Burns-ism. They had an anti-smoking policy and some kind of exemption for people over 90 (or something like that).

or infused with a spirit of provocation that indicates you are not willing to earnestly consider the points your correspondent is valiantly trying to offer you calmly and with a view toward your enlightenment, rather than sensation and mockery. He really is patiently addressing each of your arguments, although, perhaps not this last one.

I admit that the example I provided doesn't specifically establish that it's possible to create legislation that discriminates on racial grounds without explicitly mentioning race. However, I didn't promise to provide such an example. Furthermore, the example that I provided does indicate that it is possible to create a rule designed to have a particular discriminatory effect without explicitly revealing the nature of the intended discrimination.


I didn't even know that I was putting forward arguments. Arguments begin with assumptions and proceed by means of step-by-step reasoning to arrive at conclusions.

Maybe you will provide me with a dictionary definition of what it is you are doing so we will have that insight. Back to the larger issues of substance.

I want to tell you about Disparate Impact Discrimination. This occurs when a "seemingly legal and neutral policy has a disproportionately negative impact on a protected class." A landlord may decide not to rent to students (not a protected class) but if the only nearby university is an historically black university his or her "neutral" policy will have a disproportionate on those students, the vast majority of which are black and he or she will be in violation of Fair Housing Laws.

Respond if you have something thoughtful to say about the issue. I have tried to offer you an example of something you thought might not be possible. If all you offer is to choose one of my words and have a constricted quibble about its definition or application then I will conclude that you are engaging in what I heard someone else usefully describe as semantic masturbation.

Cheers.

I was hoping for an example that involved, beyond any doubt, racial discrimination. If the particular landlord had owned property in various places in the past and had always had a policy against renting to students, then it's not clear that the policy would be designed to discriminate on racial grounds. Would the landlord be in violation (on the grounds of religious discrimination) if the only nearby university were a Bible college with a mostly white student body?


Thank you. When I wrote "now that you mention it", I suspected that there were examples. I didn't have a specific example, but I did have an idea of the general shape of an example.

Perhaps this is another example of discriminatory policy (but definitely not an example of discriminatory legislation):

Suppose that in some city, the homes purchased by blacks usually cost less than $250,000. Suppose that there are several newspapers in that city. Suppose one newspaper has a strongly pro-Republican editorial policy and there is a bank that advertises only in that newspaper. Suppose the bank has a policy of not making any loan of less than $350,000. The bank's advertising and minimum loan policies would be discriminatory, right?

2. In a white world, when dealing with white power structures, and white history and traditions, and a larger group of white people the only way to develop a black voice is to step back together and have a place to do it.
Every branch of the civil rights movement uses the same tactic.

Gay rights would still be a far left fringe hallucination if not for straight allies.

And looking at MLK's march on Washington, i can't help but notice a lot of those faces are white.

Not to mention, I think after all of these years, Black America has Discovered it's voice. (If not, then I have ot ask what's been taking them so long.) Now would seem more the time to get others to share your voice with, not shut them out so all you have an echo chamber.

if you have to wait for someone to not only beleive as you do BUT LOOK LIKE YOU DO, you are going to be hard pressed to find people to be on your side.

And that , not ignoring skin color 9which no one is saying) is how Racists win.

But gay people developed the voice, the tactics, the strategy, and then some straight people helped us execute them.

I've been a member of a number of gay organizations and participated in a lot of events and initiatives, going back to the mid 80s. The big battle was usually trying to get the gay men to get along with the lesbians, and trying to get people to take the transexual/transgendered perspective seriously. Straight people were not a serious presence in the organizing stages that I ever saw.

Usually we were fighting to get straight friends to participate and help out. Though Act-Up was an exception. A fair number of straight people seemed to be helping out in Act-Up from the beginning.

"But gay people developed the voice, the tactics, the strategy,..."

PFLAG was not started by a gay person.

And isn't the head of the HRC a straight guy?

Most of the GSA's I have heard about were started by a straight student.

and transgender people are not necessarily gay. In fact your own examples contradict what you say...

"The big battle was usually trying to get the gay men to get along with the lesbians, and trying to get people to take the transexual/transgendered perspective seriously."

and yet lesbians were instrumental in helping shape AIDS activism even though it wa sa problem primarily among GAY MEN. And again transgender people are not necessaily gay. Thier issues are completely seperate from the issues of just being gay. But yet thier issues are considered gay issues.

If what you have been sayign was true, then that means that lesbians and gay men and transgender people have been harmed more by cooperating. That groups like PFLAG have been "interfering". That somehow gay men and lesbians and transgenders have all been dnied thier "voice" becuase they have been grouping with people who not exactly like them and don'tshare all of thier life experiences.

But that doesnt' seem to be the case from where I sit. Just the opposite.

"Straight people were not a serious presence in the organizing stages that I ever saw."

First of all, that's a fallacy. Just becuase you didnt' see something doesn't by itself mean such a thing never happened. and again , look at PFLAG. Most of it's members are not gay. There probably weren't a lot of straight people helping in the early years of gay liberation. but that's a bad example. Back then most straight people didn't even realize they knew a gay person. So how could they get involved?

Meanwhile , the black civil rights movement has not been exclusive to just black people. That's part of how it suceeded. (MLK, after all, defended the rights of poor white americans as much as Black Americans. To him there was no difference. Contrast this with people like Malcolm X before he went to Mecca. Who's vision was ultimatly more successful?)

And in any case we are not in the early years of either the gay or black civil rights movement. Both sides have already found thier voices, both have moved past that. Now is the time when you want to be educating and getting people on your side. How can you do that if you push them away?

Again, if to keep your voice you have to exclude your aliies, then you will inevitably lose. The Bigots win if you make it about appearences or differences and not what unites you. History has shown that. Social Justice has to be about everyone of else it doesn't matter.

That is definitely true.

HRC's current head may be a straight guy. But we're 30 years into the movement at this point, and something like this was bound to occur at some point, somewhere. That would be the exception that proves the rule.

GSA's have only in recent years been started by some straight people who are friends with GLBT people. It was unheard of even a decade ago. And again we're 30 years into the movement.

You throw around the word fallacy. Do you know what it means? When I state that in my experience there wasn't a significant straight presence that's a matter of history as I experienced it. It's not a matter of logical fallacy.

If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead, but cite some evidence. What you cite, the early years, proves my point. The straight presence is a current thing, and it developed only recently after we did the organizing on our own for decades. But even so, there were some straight people helping us march even from the beginning.

The black civil rights movement did have white people involved from the beginning. But one of the issues that got hashed out over and over again was how to have black people speak up for themselves. White people couldn't stand up and speak for back people, because that reinforced black powerlessness. But at the same time, you are right that the civil rights movement would have failed without white support.

The issue is, yes the majority has to be convinced to help, but no the majority can't speak for minority.
You are wrong to say that to have a voice a movement has to exclude allies. If you don't exclude your allies while forming your voice then you end up standing behind your allies rather than with them.

"But we're 30 years into the movement at this point, and something like this was bound to occur at some point, somewhere. That would be the exception that proves the rule."

Well we are at least 40 to 50 years into the black civil rights movement (more actually). So if a straight guy in a gay orgaization was inevitable then why not a white guy in a black organization? You havent' explained why that has o be an exception and not a new norm?

IF allies are the norm and inevitable for one civil rights movement after 30 years, why would it be wrong for another after almost twice that long?

"You throw around the word fallacy. Do you know what it means?"

Yes, it means a false arguement. So when you say "When I state that in my experience there wasn't a significant straight presence that's a matter of history as I experienced it.", that is, I beleive, a fallacy of the general rule. (might be something else, I'll check) since basicly you are trying to assert that since you didn't personally experience straight people helping to fight for gay rights, that there were none or that at least rare..

But then you acknowledge one in the beginning of this post..PFLAG. Again, the "exception that proves the rule is another fallacy. Obviously straight people were involved in gay rights. Just as White people were involved in the black civil rights movement. And while Black people speaking up for themselves was an issue, that doesnt' mean that white allies couldn't speak up as well. MLK didn't become the spokeman for the black civil rights movement becuase he was black. he became so becuase he was a damn good speaker who best represented the movement.

So your arguement that a civil rights movement must confine it's membership to only the specific class of people that it 's trying to help or else lose it's identity is false. It's not true. It does not bear with reality.

Which has been my point.

A White guy in the CBC would not dillute thier voice anymore then PFLAG has dimished gay rights. People like Conyers and Lee and mcKinney seem to be pretty good for speaking for themselves with or without other black congress people being behind them. If Republicans couldnt' shut these guys up, I doubt it wil happen becuase of one guy who actually agrees with them. The day when black politicans couldnt' speak up for themselves is past. Just becuase there is still racism in this country doesn't mean that the civil rights movement hasnt' had any successes at all.

A White guy that wants to be an ideological brethren to those in the CBC is a sign of success, not a threat. There's no better sign of success then having people say.."I want to join you."

Having a straight person running one of many gay organizations doesn't negate the fact that GLBT people are organizing and have a voice in society (such as it is). If there was only one gay organization then it would be much more important that the leader be LGBT.

In congress there is only one Congressional Black Caucus. A white person speaking up represening black members of congress isn't one voice among many. He wouldn't be suplimenting the black voice as an ally. He's be replacing the black voice as a white man.

As long as the CBC exists as the black voice on the hill, if a second anti-racist caucus existed I would have no objection to white people joining. It would encourage it. Because then the black voice would not be replaced. It would still exist. That would be like PFLAG standing besides gay-run organizations.

As for your falacy statements, until you present some contrary evidence you don't have any ground to stand on. My experience counts as valid evidence, and reality trumps theory. My experience isn't all-encompassing, and I certainly wouldn't claim it is, but it is extensive and representative. Present something that says I was wrong? Until then, you're presenting theory, and I'm discussing reality.

the group.

How did women get the vote? By men voting to give it to them.

Every civil rights movement has only won by winning over a plurality.

Amazing.

Now recognize that the sufragettes had an organized voice for the men to agree with. The women men and set their own agenda, and organized themselves and their male allies. They didn't let the men show up and speak for them.

But an unfortunate lack of knowledge of the men who were involved in women's suffrage from the start.

And if you want to honor the women and men who struggled for this right, use the name they called themselves - Suffragists. "Suffragettes" was coined as a derogatory term.

and what's a better sign of success by the CBC then a white guy wanting to join and work towards thier goals?

That's white privilage again. You'll tell them what they should do and how they should do it.

They have decided that having him as a member is not compatable with their goals.

How is it a "RW talking point" to say that people shouldn't be treated differently based on the colour of their skin? Isn't that the ultimate goal?

People haven't bothered to ask or consider why the CBC is all black, and whether progressive, anti-racist causes benefit more from an all-black caucus or a mixed one.

If people want a mixed caucus they than form one, and I'm sure the black members of congress would join that too. Any member can join as many caucuses as are appropriate.

But the frequent attitude here has been to jump without looking first, judge without asking, and assume that the caucus should change to fit their (white) presumptions.
x(

Though I think you're too aggressive with the idea of the black voice being diluted. If a white member is serving black constituents, I can't see where his membership in the CBC would harm their purpose.

so if that's the criteria for membership then the CBC is really the entire congress. What good is that?

It's not about constituency, or even entirely about issues. It's about having a place to organize a coherent minority voice and strategy. In order to achieve that, it has to be a place of, by and for members of that minority.

For that same reason, the democratic caucus isn't going to allow republican members, even if they often cross the isle and vote together. And vice versa. The boundaries have to be defined.

Especially not a MAJORITY black constituency.

Black people are considered a minority for a reason.

And Democrats and republicans differ on ideological grounds.

IF a republican starts agreeing with Democratic Values, he then becomes a Democrat.

But one doesn't change skin color becuase of one's personal beleifs.

Sorry but your Republican/Democrat thing is a bad analogy.

who have large black consituencies, then our members of congress could form one. But that's an entirely different caucus than the Congressional Black Caucus. We should not, and have no right to insist that their caucus be changed to accomodate a white guy, no matter what is views. That's just racist on the face of it.

similarly, men can't join the Women's Caucus. Republicans can't join the Democratic caucus.

What if every white, male, Republican chose to join the Black Caucus? Would the Black Caucus have any meaning?

If its purpose is around camaraderie/mentorship/ that might yield one answer. If it's about a shared legislative objective it might yield another.

No, the CBC would not have any meaning any longer. Any united voice it might have had would immediately be deluted among all the new white perspectives, and there would no longer be a united black voice in congress.

Why is it that "we" are not allowed to caucus amongst ourselves?

It is the Congressional BLACK Caucus (CBC).
For those who are sympathetic to the cause, I'm sure their input would be appreciated... outside of the constraints of the caucus.
It's not a matter of racism, it's a matter of making sure that "we" can speak in our own voice.

Tempest, meet Teapot...

Can I go back to lurking now?
Sheesh! :eyes:

an honorary membership. He wouldn't have voting privledges, but would be allowed to attend some meetings and offer up view points or questions from his primarily black constituency.

Barring that, perhaps an associate caucus called Congressional White Representatives with Primarily Black Constituents Caucus (CWRPBCC). :silly:

their issues and perspectives they'd let him attend some meetings.

As a white person who has worked with black organizations, and as a man who has worked with feminist organizations I can tell you from experience that I've never heard of a group that won't work with anyone who wants to help. But that doesn't mean they want to open their doors and change their purpose either.

It's astounding that there's such cluelessness going on around this issue. Thom - have I told you that you are one of my favorite DUers? :hi:

:hug:

Such a statement alone doesn't tell us anything. Do you mean that there is no such thing as prejudice against whites? That it is too politicized a term? etc...

Racism = prejudice + power. Without the power to act on your prejudice you don't have racism. You only have prejudice. Prejudice is the thought, Discrimination is the action, Racism is the combination of the two.

So by definition, only people in the majority, people in power, can be racist. Though anyone can have prejudices.

They have the power to accept or reject someone based on skin color, and they are using that power to exclude.

is not power. Excluding an entire group of people from having any voice at all is power.

Denying the black members of congress the ability to organize a coherent voice from their common experience, perspective, and position as black members of congress is power. And it's a power that white people here apparently insist on having.

No white member of congress loses anything by waiting to hear what the black members of congress think as black members of congress.

But the overall debate brings it all back to different colored people are separate and there are legitimate reasons we can make for it.

And that concept is somewhat scary to me.

There was a similar debate here locally about an afro-centric school. Excluding others to focus on only one color of people. Many fine people have fought against such a thing, and then it appears the left at times is actually endorsing it.

Hell, they could have a southern and northern caucus for all I care. But over the years the idea was that we became a more educated society and could work together well without race, sex, etc being a factor - because we have all experienced some form of discrimination at the hands of others. We all were taught to have empathy and see things through the eyes of other - and this made progress.

If the CBC thinks it is the only ones that can have empathy and focus on the needs of black people then to me there are issues. There are plenty of white folks, especially here on DU, that can and do understand the plight of black people in this country and have fought against the racism. Hell, that is part of what we are all about as progressives.

The name should denote the focus of the caucus, not the race of it's members.

The Congressional Black Caucus allows black members to develop a coherent unified voice that they then take back to the caucus of the whole (the entire congress). It allows them to represent themselves better in the existing central power structure.

In afro-centric schools there is no guaranteed point at which people merge back into a whole. There is the possibility of real segregation throughout ones entire academic lifetime.

But at the same time, if black kids in predominantly white schools do not get treated equally, if bussing and other strategies aren't working, and if kids are being left behind largely because of race then having a school that focuses on race might be a valid solution. You can't fight a problem if you don't address it.

The problem in schools is, even when the school has a policy and makes an effort to fight racism, once you reach a certain threshold (usually, I believe, around 20% black) you hit a tipping point where racism escallates. A lot of white people start to freak out and leave. You see the same place in offices where too many black people get hired, and in neighborhoods where too many black people move in. Segregation happens not because black people isolate themselves, but because where ever they go white people leave. And if they can't leave, hostilities tend to escalate.

In the other direction, if there are too few black people they're not considered a big enough constituency to be taken seriously. They're left isolated.

You could argue that black Republicans are being discriminated against. After all, they find it almost impossible to win an election.

:popcorn:

Voters, after all, simply pick from predetermined candidates. The power is in picking and influencing the candidates, or being one of the candidates, and then weilding that power by getting elected. That's the power the CBC is trying to develop.

I'll ignore the flamebate about black republicans. :)

and wield political power. Are they racists if they deny government jobs or contracts to Hispanics or some other group based purely on race?

I'd add some qualifiers, but I certainly agree with him far more than I'd ever agree with certain other people on this thread.

Edit:
For example (to clarify) I think it's possible to believe in reverse racism out of ignorance rather than prejudice. But most people who argue strongly about the existance of reverse racism are in fact racists. They're using the hypothetical or rare situation in which a white person (man) doesn't get the benefit of white privilage as a rallying cry against civil rights. It's a backhanded way of supporting racism.

He should have been rejected for bad taste not skin color.

It is as if a man wanted equal rights at Victoria's Secret. Maybe he has the legal right to try on the clothes, but he is not the kind of customer they want.

He may be a valid customer, but that doesn't mean he can represent women and talk about what it's like to be a women. He's still a man who simply shares an interest in their underwear.

:rofl:

Or was it absent from birth?

That's why I often hang out in the lounge.

Did brain surgery make you this defensive, or were you born that way? :P

That seems pretty clear cut to me.

I went to college on an Indian reservation. I am not a tribal member because I'm not Indian even though I feel I have a strong understanding of Native Americans and their perceptions about the world around them. My husband is part Blackfoot Sioux. Because his grandmother was a tribal member, he can be one if he wants. I can't. I'm not Sioux. My kids could if he was a member. I don't view this or the refusal to allow Cohen as reverse discrimination at all.

...but that's just me.

It shows a lack of understanding of what racism is and how it works. x(

You're thinking of prejudice. Prejudice is prejudice no matter who has it.

But racism requires some ability to act on your prejudices. Racism is the result of the action, not the thought itself. So a powerless person can't be racist by definition. They can't do anything that deprives the more powerful people. They can hate, and they can be biased against people, but it's an impotent hatred.

Anyone can be racist.


racism
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

But that isn't a definition that's accepted in scholarly circles by people who study racism or organize against it.

That definition is a part of racism, but if that was truly racism then it wouldn't have any effect on the world. Beliefs without power have no effect. It's the combination of belief plus power that does the damage.

That definition of racism is a nice white-washed one (literally) that makes racism a nice neutered thing. By ignoring the power aspect of racism, racists are able to pretend that nothing can or should be done about it. "It's just a belief."

Or, just as bad, they say that because it's just a belief, all you need to overcome racism is education. But history has proven time and time again that education changes nothing if you don't address the power structures. You have to address who has power, and how, before you can combat racism.

But thanks!

But please feel free to try again.

racism is racism is racism.

without explaining how...

Isn't it wonderful that a small group of black people have so much power to deprive all those white members of congress simply by wanting to have a conference room for an hour where they can discuss among themselves? Why, the gall!

The nerve of them to want to have discussions among themselves about the black perspectice without white people coming in and inserting white perspectives into everything.
:eyes:

:sarcasm:

So many people do not understand the privilege that comes with being white...

That's likely to start an entirely new flamewar! Don't you know that there's no such thing, and it's racist to imply that there is?
:P

(Kidding, for the sarcasm impared. Just jaded from too many of these discussions. And I think I can get away with being snarky because I know WindRavenX gets it.)

:wtf:

Same thing with heterosexual privilege, Christian privilege, male privelege...Western privelege...There are many types of privileges that exist. Becoming aware of these privileges is key to moving forward.

:shrug:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the CBC wishing to limit membership to African Americans, for reasons discussed at length in the other thread and elsewhere in this thread.

There is something wrong with a white politician inviting himself to join the CBC, for reasons Karenina pointed out on the other thread in a couple of posts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=17258&mesg_id=28965

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=17258&mesg_id=27926

I don't want to pirate them and repost them here because they're hers, but I wish she would repost them. They're worth seeing again.

Certainly some of those on this thread who didn't read the other thread could benefit from reading them :)

for your kind words and for UNDERSTANDING what I wrote.

My understanding was that he asked, was declined, was gracious about it, and then third persons got upset.

as a campaign tool while simultaneously setting them up for what we see now that his demand for entrance has been refused. No he didn't "ask." There is a history of whites demanding access. Stark and Campfield were denied entry for entirely different reasons, although whites will insist it was solely about colour. J'ein.

The third party is the corporate media. They are having a field day.

So NOW what we have is the first Jewish representive elected by a black majority handing the rope to M$M to lynch the CBC. I just cannot believe this is happening. :cry:

supporting civil rights, you would hope he would have known better. :(

But just because people in the past have cooperated and developed savy understandings doesn't mean people today automatically understand.

Or he might have thought issues rather than race would be a factor.

he would be familiar with the Jewish tradition of maintaining a Jewish voice despite assimilation. Maintaining your own identity and representing it is important.

But thank you for the flamebait straw-man argument. :)

Care to explain to this Jewish kid what your point is?

Anyone who thinks the CBC was racist should read them with an open mind.

An Honorary Gay is a friend who is straight but "gets it". They get the culture and the motivations and they are gay friendly.

So why can't there be an equivelent for race?

I can see the CBC side sorta. They want to protect thier mission.

But if accomplishing thier mission means having to exclude people becuase of the presumption that no one else wil ever 'get it" then what's even the point? Why bother fighting racism? Or Mysogeny or Homophobia if there really is this gulf of understanding, if the only way you can appreciate the harm that prejudice can do is if you are the victim of a specific form of it? To no longer have such prejudices, everybody would have to be mixed race, Bi, transgender and athousand other classifications.

And if one accepts the idea that experiences cannot cross racial lines, doesn't that also mean that such experiences should be uniform within those lines?

But if given a choice, who would you trust more with black issues? JC Watts or Bill Clinton? Clarence Thomas or Jimmy Carter?

In short, does reality go along with this idea?

This is why I think Cohen should have been given a chance, that the CBC should not be closed off based on what color your particular skin is, If the CBC is about promoting black issues, then Cohen would seem to qualify. HE WILL BE DEALING WITH BLACK ISSUES.

Sorry, i know I will get flamed but what the CBC has done seems a mistake to me. It's like what conservatives do, take appearence to mean more then substance.

If the CBC doesnt' have space for allies, then why are they bothering? There will always be racism that way.

You know your friend very, very well. You know if he should be an exception.

Some straight person could come up to you and say, "I represent gay people." Okay, so do you take his word for it and make another exception? And how many exceptions does it take before straight people are simply allowed in the door?

If you only make an exception for your one friend, then you're showing favoritism. And people will complain about that too.

So you need rules, and they need to be adhered to. So in order to prevent abuse you say that membership is my invitation only, and if you have someone like your friend who really gets it he's probably going to be willing to listen and help without wanting formal public membership. He'll help without wanting to open pandora's box.

The issue of whether or not all black people are equally committed to anti-racist policy is a moot point, because the purpose of the CBC is to promote the black presence, and to promote the ability of black members to be heard, and to provide a place where they can hash out their perspectives as black members of congress. Disagreements are expected, and encouraged, but they get discussed as black members, by black members, so that they can decide on a unified position.

"You know your friend very, very well. You know if he should be an exception."

You havent' explained why Cohen couldnt' be the exception. Or even why this should thought of as an exception.

How many straight people are simply allowed in the door, you ask?

Simple, as many as those that 'get it". As many that are Gay friendly. And I want that number ot be as large as possible.

That was the goal this whole time, in case you forgot. Gay friendly people should not be an exception, they should be the rule. And if you dont' qualify, then I should work to help you qualify.

And similarily, White politicans concerned about promoting racial equality and the issues of thier black constituents should also be the rule. Every politican should be concerned about these things, not just if you happen to be black In fact, there have been black politicans like Ken Blackwell whose actions have reduced Black political power.

So not only have I yet to hear you give a consistent and coherent explanation oh now Cohen would reduce black political presence but there's also the issue of black politicans who (purposly or not) undermine the mission of the CBC but by your logic as I am reading it could be members.

It's like saying the head of HRC had to be fired becuase he's straight. But if Haggerd wanted to lead the HRC...

if you have to exclude people to be equal to them, that's a problem, Something is wrong there. and the fact that you keep using that word 'exception" is worrisome. Equality doesnt' work through exceptions. But you seem to think differently by what i am reading in your posts.

In the civil rights movement, an 'exception was also called a Token. and no one wants to be a Token.

Besides, you haven't been talking about Cohen having to show he really is in line with the CBC's agenda. You have dismissed him outright due to his race, that having a white guy (and presumably any other non-black person) in the CBC would keep black politicans from having thier voice.

I think it's was a mistake for the CBC to reject Cohen outright. But really I see this a part of a larger problem. And it's not reverse racism. it's something a bit deeper in the human psyche which permeates our entire culture.

If your idea of equality means that anyone who claims to be on your side has to be let in the door then your organization will be impotent. It will be timid, and it will spend more time trying not to offend anyone than actually doing anything. That's what happens when "they" are always speaking up in "our" meeting.

There are times when "we" need to be alone to discuss what "we" think is important from "our" perspective. or to put it another way, you can be a close friend, but you're not family. Sometimes we need to have a family meeting and we'll tell our friends about it afterward.

Real friends don't get upset about it.

That's why there can't be an equivalent for race. Join any chapter of Copwatch and you'll get it within three nights, guaran-teed.

If they don't admit him, the CBC is accused of racism.

If they do admit him, they are defeating the mission of the CBC.


Cohen now says "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."

Too bad he didn't think of that before campaigning with a pledge to seek membership. He should have asked before making any such pledge. Because he didn't bother to do that one simple thing, he's turned this into an ugly mess.

It is simply racism.

that the black members of congress have no right to meet among themselves and speak together as black members of congress?

Do white people have the right to take that away from them? If if a white person insists on taking that away from them, is it the black people who are racist?

Do you believe that the non-Jewish members of congress have no right to meet among themselves and speak together as non-Jewish members of congress?

I'm sure there is probably a Jewish Caucus. I know there is an Evangelical Caucus. Any group of people in Congress can form a caucus.

So what's your point?

Won't make that mistake again!

:-)

straw-man.

Please don't make that mistake again. :)

Check.

I'm very familiar with what a straw-man is. That's why I don't respond to them. :)

Do you ever do anything but bait people? You show up on every thread about prejudice of any kind defending the white men, as if white men are persecuted. You nit-pick everyone else to find reasons why everyone else is wrong. It's amusing up to a point.

:P

Edit:
Though it's interesting that you don't acknowledge or address my point about you always showing up to defend white male privilage.

has nothing to do with white male privilege, but everything to do with fairness. :-)

then you have no understanding of what real fairness/unfairness is in any practical situation.
:eyes:

considering that only one of us clearly has any clue what he's talking about. :eyes:

and should never be divided by race or anything else.

that the white male majority should be the dominant voice in every discussion? That everyone else should have to speak around and through them?

Explain how anyone else would be able to develop a coherent organized voice if congress only ever meets as a whole?

no divisions of any kind?

Should Congress be allowed to be divided by political affiliation? I think so. Can they have separate restrooms for men and women as long as they are wanted? I think so.

Earlier I thought the CBC was being prejudiced but further explanation made me realize that they were not. I would advise everyone who disagrees with the CBC to read post #s 12, 25 and 64. Heck, just read all the ones by ThomCat. He breaks it down for us. :thumbsup: ThomCat!

That's quite a compliment. :)

:hi:

the progressive caucaus invites the conservatives...MAYBE the black caucus should invite a white person...WHY THE FUCK HAVE A CAUCAS AT ALL IF IT IS ALL JUMBLED UP? Just foredaboudit!

On Edit: Corrected the spelling of Pulezzzzze as if spell check would fix it!

I think it's pretty clear who belongs in that group.

And I don't think there is anything racist about it, simply because there is still a need.

non Christians because it meets their name, that would be fine?

:puke:

straw man n. 1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted 2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usu. questianable transaction

And there's literally been, oh, 2000 years of domination from the Greek/Roman/European/white culture over most of the world, so I don't think the need is going to go away in just a handful of years.

Although a quick google search (first page) showed information that was only up to date through the 108th Congress. :shrug:

Because he's a racist bully and a coward. No need to sugarcoat it.

majority black.

Revenge racism is still racism.

:eyes:

And you clearly don't understand the caucuses.

:crazy:

- and racism is wrong, no matter who does it.

and forcing black members of congress to give up their voice just to make a white person more comfortable with his white privilage would have been racist.

The struggle against racism requires that black members of congress have the freedom to form a caucus and organize among themselves.

My community has Martin Luther King day dinners every year in which we get together and talk about racism. The first year I went, a black woman at my table told the story about how she is consistently followed around by clerks when she goes retail shopping at stores -- and not because they want to wait on her but because they think she is going to steal stuff.

At that moment I realized how much I don't know about the experience of black people in America, and no matter how much I would like to be their ally, I am never going to "get it" because I didn't grow up with that and I don't deal with that every day.

whose last name begins with the letter 'C'.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

everyone else down and oppressed for centuries.

Including of course the African American.

There is a REASON the black caucus is the group it is.

Look at the number of rich, white males in our Congress. They own it.

Everyone else has to deal with the good ole white boy club.

Some things cannot be changed. We can do our best to empathize with others. We can share viewpoints and agendas. We can live with, and work with others, but we cannot become them. We are who we are, and that is a beautiful thing. We can form caucuses based on any number of things, and as members of a given caucus we have the right, yes, the right, to exclude others from joining our caucus. This is not a bad thing is it? Only when such exclusion is used to injure or disenfranchise a party does it become abusive. Is Mr. Cohen being abused by his exclusion from the CBC? Not any more, and quite possibly less, than the CBC is being abused by his attempt to become one of their members, in my opinion. No person has a "right" to join any group they wish to join regardless of their intentions and beliefs. We are who we are, and some facets of our beings can not be changed, and that is a good thing in the end.

:hi:

Yes, well said. The CBC is clearly taking more abuse than this white member of congress. All the guns and accusatins are being aimed at them.

:cry: It's JUST SO SAD.