Maggie's Farm

color of skin was important enough to justify 150 years of jim crow laws. like it or not, or, in the case of others, "accept" it or not, this is how constitutional law works in race bias issues.

it doesn't matter what you accept (which means want to believe) or not because it is a fact that you are dead wrong and have as little understanding of this concept as zachriel, which sets the floor as low as it gets.

assuming, and I hope not too optimistically, that you know what race relations were in the pre civil war era, those didn't end because the "war of northern aggression" or whatever fantasy phrase is in use this Thursday didn't end with the war.

I also assume, again, I'm hoping we are on board with this, that you "accept" the idea that excluding a man from jury duty, voting, public education, property rights, etc. just because he's black is wrong.

Maybe you "accept" this, or not, but it is a fact that the former confederate states did not "accept" blacks as equal under the law and enacted a series hundreds of jim crow laws denying men and women voting, education, residency, property, employment and other rights for no other reason than they were black.

you'd think that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14th Amendment equal protection clause, CRA of 1870 would be enough, but no, jim crow was more "acceptable".

bear with me, I'm trying to make this as simple as possible to understand. When the USSC treats blacks as a protected class or "suspect classification", it means that if you enact a law that excludes a man from a jury, or from college, or restricts his right to own property, or vote because he or she is black, then the government has to show it meets some compelling state interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that need and is the least restrictive way of doing that. it forces a government to justify that denying a black man the right to sit on a jury is constitutional.

this has been developing for over 150 years, whether you "accept" it or not. and because you don't "accept" it, you surrender credibility and moral high ground to people like zach, who is also clueless, but at least superficially correct enough to appeal to anyone not suffering from a mental disorder's sense of decency.

progressives like zach have been at least as destructive of blacks in the last 50 years as 150 years of jim crow laws. the conservative inability to articulate civil rights issues or grasp the fundamental ideas is not going to make the battle against progressive bullshit any easier.

the rest of you: stop whining. learn how to defend and argue civil rights issues without looking like a klansman from the 19th century or a conservative bruised snowflake. because if you don't, won't or can't, asshats like zach will roll over you.

"We allowed the designation of "protected class" believing it was necessary to protect equality. We should have known better. It should have been obvious the effort to create a protected class was the effort to create a class of people who were more equal then others."

blame the 14th amendment and the 150 year war against jim crow laws because until fairly recently, some animals were created more equally than others.

that is, unless (1) you think laws against black voting or prohibiting blacks from attending public colleges went away on their own or (2) you don't have an issue with jim crow.

reflexively trashing civil rights law is why zach, who is cunning and dishonest enough to manipulate both history and civil rights law, would embarrass you in any neutral forum.

The “Bias Incident Reporting” effort

here is a link to the CU online reporting page, if anyone needs to file.

Erdely’s UVA story written with ‘actual malice,’

nothing special here, "actual malice" is a term of art where the plaintiff is a public figure. it means that the publication was made with "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." it doesn't mean hatred or ill will.

China’s missiles can reach nearly all of U.S.: Pentagon report

sez the washington times, which didn't read the pentagon report, or intentionally mislead its easily mislead readership.

Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2015 describes these missiles as part of China's policy of deterrence, explained at p.39:

"China’s nuclear weapons policy prioritizes maintaining a nuclear force able to survive an attack and respond with sufficient strength to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy. A new generation of mobile missiles, with warheads consisting of MIRVs and penetration aids, are intended to ensure the viability of China’s strategic deterrent in the face of continued advances in U.S. and, to a lesser extent, Russian strategic ISR, precision strike, and missile defense capabilities."

yeah, I know, scare mongering is important but still...