I am truly saddened by the Court's decision. And I'm a bit frightened for our country's future. Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are each in their 50s. We can expect another 25-30 years with them on the Court. Scalia and Kennedy are both in their early 70s and probably aren't going anywhere, either. Scalia wouldn't be able to find a larger pulpit to preach from and Kennedy, I have little doubt, is high on the thought of being the swing vote.

We need to win in 2008 without a doubt. And I can't shake the thought that the 4 "liberals" should simultaneously resign at the end of the '08-'09 term so that they can be replaced with younger justices. Of course, that would only crystallize our contemporary disputes for the next 20 years.

It's going to be difficult for us to get through this court.

I find myself to be mostly beige, with pink and brown spots. Once there is an objective, measurable definition of race, let me know. Until then, I totally disagree with your interpretation of colorblindness, and will continue to consider colorblindness an excellent moral goal. As Dr. King put it, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Think of this venue. Unless you have a picture on your bio, I have absolutely no way even to guess at your race. Even if there was such a picture, when I last checked the Bureau of the Census criteria, race was considered a subjective response of the person being surveyed.

A number of major medical journals are in the midst of controversy whether to continue race as a parameter in clinical studies, or whether objective genetic specifications may be more accurate. In some studies, "race" also may be a surrogate for socioeconomic status.

Official definition of race wasn't pretty in South Africa, the Third Reich, or the Confederacy. I can remember segregated public facilities, and newspaper advertisements for "white men, white women, colored men, and colored women". I see moving away from those labels as a real advantage.

If you want to talk about social improvement for the poor or for the less well educated, fine. I'm not going to fight for something that can't objectively be defined.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

The stealing of the 2000 election has now achieved results that, even the most paranoid among us, would never have imagined. Thanks, Ralph Nader.

In fact, you should thank the American people twice, for they reelected Bush with full knowledge of his incompetence.

Sorry, but America, not Nader, deserves your scorn.

Well, Howard, don't you think that if you were instead a deep shade of brown or black you might have a different opinion? Say if you were never called back after a job interview, or not shown houses in the best part of town by a real estate agent, or denied a decent rate on a mortgage by a bank, or you were unable to get to a decent hardware store because there just aren't any in 'your' part of town?

The fact is that Dr. King's dream is still that for many good people who don't deserve to be segregated in our society.

Yes. nbo is correct--America produced Roberts and Scalia, Nader didn't. And don't forget the congressional Dems who helped put Roberts and Scalia on the Court with nary a whimper.

I voted for Nader and contributed to him because he was the only candidate that represented my views, and if he runs again I might do the same. This is a democracy, isn't it? Isn't that the idea that is America? Or must we only vote in ways that are acceptable.

The Democrats' failures over the last 10+ years has to do with a lot more than just Ralph Nader.

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

There's the idea that is America, and the reality that is the American system of electing a president. And the reality is that in the 2000 election, a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for George Bush. Only the naive or deluded would claim otherwise.

You're entitled to your vote. I would never argue otherwise. But you should also accept responsibility for the consequences of your vote. Nader voters are the ones who made possible what happened. You voted your values, and in the process contributed to making president the man who couldn't have been further from your values.

Vote how you must, but don't dare blame the consequences of your vote on others. Unless, of course, you're a member of the G.O.P. Blaming everyone else for their failures is what they do best.

Oh, good, yes, heap scorn on the American people. Not the piece of shit Nader, whose lying, destructivist candidacy handed the presidency to the fascists.

Fuck you, you smug, self-serving asshole. I bet nothing Bush has done has affected YOU, has it?

Oh, good, yes, make your excuses, you numbnuts. It's all somebody else's fault, not the piece of shit Nader, whose lying, destructivist candidacy handed the presidency to the fascists.

Fuck you. I bet nothing Bush has domne has affected you personally, has it? Asshole...

Nobody's asking you to discriminate. They don't need to, you're already doing a fine job all by yourself. Black people are "the injured group du jour?" How about the injured group of the last 600 years? It's obvious that you are just using your so-called "color-blindness" as an rhetorical device to maintain your offensive and simple-minded prejudices.

Hey guys, I think you're taking a few too many nasty shots at Rosenberg here. In fact, my views on race or not much different from his. But his views and my views are besides the point.
The people who are really welcoming this decision have their own very specific views on race. They want to go back to the day when their views of race defined society.
This supreme court decision is a step in that direction.

It is also obvious you prefer to attack than discuss, and automatically condemn that which does not agree with your prejudgments.

That's not obvious, you say? Indeed. Many things are less obvious than they may seem to those who want simplistic answers. It's also easier to attack than think, as demonstrated by The Decider.

Incidentally, where did I refer to black people? I've never met a person who was black, although I'm proud to be considered extended family by a clan, from Sierra Leonean immigrant to second generation here, who include a lot of very strikingly attractive people with purplish-black skin.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

Even if it can't be objectively defined, do you agree that there are black people and white people?

Let's say for the sake of discussion that in the near future Dr. King's dream is realized. What would the make up of our society look like? Do you imagine that it would very nearly mirror the current socio-economic conditions that people find themselves in right now? Or would it be different?

Even if it can't be objectively defined, do you agree that there are black people and white people?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

So you are saying that to avoid categorizing people by a subjective criterion, they must be categorized by subjective criteria to avoid discriminating due to said subjective criterion?

Basically -- yeah. Ironic, isn't it? But how else are we as a society going to walk back the effects of centuries of discriminatory treatment based on subjective categorizations if we as a society now insist on being completely blind to the fact of those categorizations?

I agree with you that there is no scientific basis for dividing people up along racial lines. And yet, in the real world, people do it all the time, and use it as a basis for treating other people -- individual people, and groups of people -- differently.

If schools are allowed -- forced, even -- to re-segregate because neighborhoods are still largely segregated, then we do indeed go back to the pre-1953 world. The Court in Brown was absolutely right: "Separate but equal" is always going to result in unequal treatment, at least as long as a society perceives race as a valid categorization.

I'd very much like to move into a world where there was no official notice paid to race. But I don't know how to do that without also dismantling any protection afforded to people who are treated unfairly because of race.

If you do, please tell us how we get there.

Howard Berkowitz comes by his insensitivity to African-Americans and other oppressed minorities honestly.

The technical term for that is bull hockey.

If my cousin O'bama (all us Irish are related) is to be harmed by one of you folks, you will find we are quite unhappy, especially if it is by a certain Republican lite that some folks think for some reason is a Democrat.

Perhaps you would like to detail what a black race or white race is? I don't think any educated person believes there is any such race.

Is an African-American born in Africa, a member of your black race? I can tell you for a fact that there are some folks in Chicago that would strongly disagree. What color is black blood? How much does it take to make one black?

Be mighty helpful if you defined your terms when throwing out unwarranted accusations but then that tells you how old I am and that my opinion doesn't matter much.

The court decision stunk to high heaven BTW but not for the reasons given here by most.

Best, Terry

Pigmentation impacts revascularization rates in people with severe coronary artery disease. These differences persist despite equivalence of income, insurance, and access to institutions performing revascularization procedures.

Perhaps you would like to submit a paper that demonstrates this fairy tale. I hate to think where you might find such a journal.

Darker pigmented females in certain ethnic groups have more aggressive forms of breast cancer than lighter pigmentated women of other ethnicities

Like Ashkenazi Jews for instance?

Are you sure it is only skin pigmentation that matters.

Genomics will not provide a full explanation of the differences in cancer aggressiveness.

DNA does provide clues to race. You deny science at your peril.

Of course there are racial differences but they are not synonymous with skin pigmentation, not to mention racial admixture.

Popular prejudice is not the way to do medicine or science or court decisions.

Best, Terry

Of course there is discrimination for all sorts of reasons. There are those that will discriminate against anyone who is not a lawyer. There are those that discriminate because people are union members, and others that discriminate because people are not union members.

However, no one was ever enslaved for being a lawyer. And while union members have been treated very badly in some periods of this country's history, they have never been told by the United States Supreme Court that they had no rights under the Constitution that anti-unionists were bound to respect.

And of course, two other major diferences here are:

(1) I cannot look at your face or listen to your voice and make much better than a random guess as to whether or not you are a lawyer or a union menber.

(2) Being a lawyer or joining a union are choices that a person makes, and it's something that person can choose to change. You cannot choose what someone else sees as your race, and you have no power to change that.

You're right, race is not something that can be cleanly and scientifically measured. But that doesn't mean that people don't make judgements about it, and act on the basis of those judgements. Do we just shrug that off because we want to be too pure to make the statistical measurements that would show up unfair and disparate treatment?

If someone comes to a government office to complain that they are being treated unfairly as a result of their race, is the reply going to be, "I'm sorry, there is no such thing as race. Therefore, you cannot be descriminated against because of it"?

"If you don't understand Howard's good faith concern then you are probably not someone who is worthy of engaging in debate."

What a pompous statement! This guy you're defending is way too cute. I don't think he is exhibiting a "good faith concern" about people who suffer from bigotry and prejudice and their aftereffects in our society. And I don't think he exhibits good faith in his argumentation either. He lays claim to being so beyond the stain of prejudice that he is (or perhaps just feels he ought to be) incapable of even distinguishing between people of different races. He rejects the very idea of race, and since nobody else does, this winds up being just a convenient way of ignoring racial injustice.

His "concern over race-based government intervention" that you say we should take seriously is such a stretch that it's hard to take it as genuine. Is he concerned about the government's "age-based intervention", when it prevents kids from dropping out of school before they're 16? Is he concerned that mandatory education for the young might well lead to mandatory euthanasia for the old and infirm?

That makes just as much sense as mandatory school desegregation leading to extermination camps.

Sorry. This guy's level of argument may be excused as idealistic, but it's utterly juvenile and ultimately just annoying without being enlightening. It's all about him and his idiosyncratic view of the world, and not about the issues.

I don't know, MJ. I'm pretty paranoid and I had no trouble imagining this long before it actually happened.

Well, Howard, don't you think that if you were instead a deep shade of brown or black you might have a different opinion?

Not necessarily. Look at Justice Clarence Thomas. If he at all acknowledged his own race, this ruling would not have come down.

Jewish "genes"

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp

Ideally we shouldn't use race as a factor,....but the reality is that we live in a society that needs to be on the same page,...a good way to do that is to have as much diversity in each school so that our cultures intermingle and start to understand and be comfortable with race and class. It has every bit to do with poverty in this country,....education and poverty are linked. The majority of african americans aren't as economically advantaged as caucasians because it takes generations to bring families up from poverty. It's sad that our highest court members give rulings that give a message that there is no race/poverty problem in America. Colored people are under priviliged in a general sense because that is our history. Historically they're weren't given the opportunities to be doctors/lawyers etc,etc. We are not yet equal in opportunity although we can give plenty of examples that say we are. We can also give plenty of example where discrimination exists,...therefore I think it's worth forcing that diversity because it makes us all better Americans.

Jeff, you were right. I'm usually quite paranoid but I dropped the ball in 2000. I never imagined anything this bad!

Same here Jeff. Once I learned that Roberts was the Appellate judge who upheld the DC cops physically removing, handcuffing and jailing a black twelve year old for eating french fries on the subway. I knew he should not be on the Supreme Court.

Regarding revascularization rates

Popescu, I. The Journal of the American Medical Association, June 13, 2007; vol 297: pp 2489-2495.
Popescu and colleagues found that compared with white patients:

* When treated at hospitals that provide angioplasty and bypass surgery, African-American heart attack patients receive these services less often (34% vs. 50%).
* When treated at hospitals that do not provide these specialized heart services, African-American heart attack patients are less likely to be transferred to a hospital that does provide them (25% vs. 31%).
* "Even after transfer to a hospital that provided them, African-American patients were less likely to receive these services," Popescu says.
* While African-American heart attack patients are less likely to die in the month after their heart attack -- possibly due to the short-term risk posed by the procedures -- they are more likely to die within a year of their heart attack (37% vs. 33%).

"Unfortunately, the differences we found were not small," said the lead investigator

A reviewer of the study for the website WebMD
"This study tells us there is a difference in quality of care for heart attack -- and it leads to a mortality difference," Giselle Corbie-Smith, MD, tells WebMD. Corbie-Smith, director of the program on health disparities at the University of North Carolina Sheps Center for Health Services Research, was not involved in the Popescu study.
"What I like about this study is it gives another point of discussion for patients to have with their doctors," she says. "I see it as another opportunity for people to have more open discussions with their doctors."

The study could lead to better patient-physician discussion.
-----
Regarding genomics. Please read that I said genomics may not provide the FULL answer. The genome is a blueprint. The proteins are the building materials. A bad genome does not mean a bad outcome. That bad outcome could be determined by the proteins (enzymes, tumor fighting proteins, etc produced). I'm still fully science based.

If we use his rationale veterans should not recieve benefits based on them fighting in a war. The disabled should not receive benefits based on them being handicapped. The poor should not receive benefits based on being poor, either. No group should benefit from any subjective criteria as that is discriminatory to all individuals not 'of' those groups.

I think your reply was meant for Howard, not for me, but I am compelled to answer anyway.

I don't think "subjective" means what you seem to think it means. Whether or not someone is a war veteran is most certainly not a subjective judgement -- it can be determined objectively by examining the person's military record. Disability may be a little harder to determine, but it, too, is largely objective, based on fixed medical criteria. Where to draw the line that establishes poverty is open to debate, but once the line is drawn, it's not a subjective judgement which side of the line any given individual falls on.

You're being unfair to Howard, who is really a very decent guy. You're throwing up all sorts of straw men and arguing against things he never said. I don't entirely agree with his take on what amounts to affirmative action, but I do understand, and have some sympathy with, his argument. It is rather Orwellian to try to fight the effects of judgements based on race by making judgements based on race. I dont' like doing it -- I just don't know how else to address the problem.

Is he concerned about the government's "age-based intervention", when it prevents kids from dropping out of school before they're 16?

Age is not a subjective criterion. It can be objectively established whether or not someone is over the age of 16.

Is he concerned that mandatory education for the young might well lead to mandatory euthanasia for the old and infirm?

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic of that at all. How does one thing follow from the other? And how is it at all related to Howard's argument?

If it helps any, there's a Medtronics 700 series DDD pacemaker in it, along with assorted plumbing repairs.

Seriously -- well, cardiology is serious,but you know what I mean -- I'm fascinated by the vitriol that my comments generated, as well as the presumption that my beliefs must be in a certain pattern. Why, I see my motivations being glibly explained by people judging by a couple of posts. Perhaps it's me, but I don't see a lot of difference between judging someone by some reasonably courteous words, and judging someone to be in a certain protected category due to pigmentation (as opposed to genotype) or their apparent gender (without a pelvic or chromosomal exam). It's apparently OK, however, to generalize due to someone's religion, or perceived ethnicity.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

MJ,

From what I've read and heard, this isn't just the worst decision since Plessy v Ferguson: it is an invitation to return to Plessy v Ferguson!

This is the opening salvo of a new round of white leaders signaling to the larger white population that it is okay not to care anymore about what happens to black people as we have seen before in our history. It is always the lust and greed for power and the insistence on getting their way despite every sensible observation that sinks the right wing's hopes and dreams for a return to the middle ages or worse. In a weird way, their perfidy bodes well for the future, not ill.

Each and every time such a reactionary move is made it inevitably produces a much bigger, more potent and long lasting swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. Over the past 50+ years since a courageous court ordered the nation to integrate public schools, phenomenal progress in that direction has been made. That progress cannot simply be rolled back because a few uptight, repressed and hateful old men on the Supreme Court want to turn back the clock. Once again, I predict that we will see that the people are far more intelligent than the leaders of this reactionary attempt to reestablish greater inequality. The people understand that progress has been made and they will not be willing to go back to the bad old days because they understand we are all better off as a result of the forced integration undergone since Brown v Board of Ed.

Whenever ideology and tortured logic have been used to twist the justice system against the expansion of equality, it always ends badly for those who tried it as we learned after far too long in the Plessy case. It may take a while, but I don't think it will take as long as it has in the past. As a people we have learned much that cannot simply be wiped away by five fools. America is a conservative nation in many ways, but it is the liberal parts of the tradition that endure and set the tone for our society, not the ossified and atrophied thinking of those who fear an uncertain future and who deep down do not wish to see the dreams of the founders eventually fulfilled. Unwittingly, the bigots and racists like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and their Porter Thomas perform the work of the founders anyway by trying to hold back an irresistable force: the demand for true equality. It simply cannot be done.

People should not despair, but should get angry and use that energy to go out and fight the right with every ounce of their being on behalf, not of ourselves or the current generation, but on behalf of posterity as the founders made clear they were doing when they wrote the Constitution. They did it for us and for generations yet to come. The great Frenchman Toqueville's work, Democracy in America, is predicated on the notion that we live in an age of ever increasing equality and you cannot resist it's progressive march.

So, let's condemn them at every opportunity. Let's use their putrid and infected attempt to reverse human progress against them with a vengance the likes of which they have never seen.

The fascist Roberts, Alito, Scalia junta on the court will be found, over the course of time, to have actually been tightening the noose on the extremist, un-American agenda they wish to advance by this decision and the other foolish contrivances of theirs that are not based in law, but in their warped ideology. Things political in America are rarely what they seem when it has taken so much corruption and dishonesty to put them in the positions of power they now so openly abuse. They want people to think they are strong, but they are very weak indeed. That is why they are making these desperate and extremist moves now: they have no confidence that they will remain in power and they are right. Their very actions will ensure the right is ousted from power for a generation or more.

If Gore hadn't adopted DLC mush for values and had run with a strong environmental platform and given people something to get excited about maybe a lot more people wouldn't have slept through the election

Republicans win by pandering to racists. The least the Democrats could do is welcome liberals in the party instead of trying to insult us out of it.

If I vote for the Democrat in 2008 it will be out of desperation, not conviction. Conviction turns out more voters.

The sentence "It was a lot of fun. I've never been out with a $FOO girl before" has rather little meaning for $FOO = blonde, as only her hairdresser knows for sure. For someone of a comparable educational level, no, $FOO = black doesn't have much significance to me. "black" isn't synonymous with "African", as there were different social customs with my immigrant friends from Sierra Leone. Apparently, it had a lot of content to them when I went into the kitchen and started my mad chef routine, since men just didn't do that -- but I couldn't stand to watch one of the teenagers being equally likely to cut her wrist or the tomatoes.

Now, it perhaps made more content when I went to dinner with my Swedish friend Pia, who explained to me that one of the most puzzling things she encountered in the US was the idea of a "date". She told me that it's perfectly common for single Swedes to meet for dinner, and even mutually decide to have sex, but the idea that the man takes out the woman was alien.

Pia speaks perfect English (and, depressingly, about 8-10 languages perfectly or at least professionally, and about the same number at lesser proficiencies). $FOO might have been somewhat more significant with my friend Izumi, whose English is not perfect, but still better than my extremely limited Japanese. We had a great time, when we got stuck on a word, of acting it out, drawing pictures on a napkin, or whatever.

I knew Marion Barry when he was still effective, and supported him politically because, in 1971 or so, he was the best man for the job. He only started playing a race card later in his career.

I apologize, but I seem to have missed your other question.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't think "subjective" means what you seem to think it means. Whether or not someone is a war veteran is most certainly not a subjective judgement -- it can be determined objectively by examining the person's military record. Disability may be a little harder to determine, but it, too, is largely objective, based on fixed medical criteria. Where to draw the line that establishes poverty is open to debate, but once the line is drawn, it's not a subjective judgement which side of the line any given individual falls on.

With all due respect, I think the meaning you have chosen for subjective is far too narrow. The use of the word subjective need not preclude objective measures, rather subjective could have a much broader connotation  in that the society views that a veteran warrants benefits. Just as a boss promotes one person over another based on his sole subjective opinion independent of all the objective measures that may or may not exceed another employee.

 The society is making a highly subjective value judgment just as they do on the basis of race. Whether someone can prove they have been to war is not the issue. No one can prove they belong to any race as Howard as asserted. Rather, race and racism is highly subjective. Ergo, anything that the society subjectively values or devalues reaps benefits and rewards orr merits reprimand and penalties, respectively. 

Thus it is highly subjective that white skin in this society reaps benefits and rewards. Whites are advantaged and white membership has its privileges  The same holds true for veterans, handicapp, poor and aged in this society. The value they hold and/or prejudice they endure is entirely subjective.

You're being unfair to Howard, who is really a very decent guy. You're throwing up all sorts of straw men and arguing against things he never said.

Please do not make accusations you cannot substantiate. Howard is a big boy if he wants he can respond himself. Simply because you do not comprehend an argument does not make it a straw man. Broaden your perspective so that it encompasses a more diverse thought pattern.

 I don't entirely agree with his take on what amounts to affirmative action, but I do understand, and have some sympathy with, his argument. It is rather Orwellian to try to fight the effects of judgements based on race by making judgements based on race. I dont' like doing it -- I just don't know how else to address the problem.

No it is complete hypocrisy to think you can dissociate the history of this country from the discrimination it wields. This is not about eliminating discrimation. It is about redressing wrongs that were perpetrated on a group of people for over twelve generations in this country. For Howard to speak to there not being race, race was defined by law as one drop of black blood so there is an OBJECTIVE criteria.

Perhaps, Robert could use this total BS on the court but it does not fly in reality. What he did was shift the focus to judgements vs. the effects. We can not legislate the judgement of people what we can legislate agaisnt is the IMPACT of those judgements and that is where Roberts arguments fail.  It is the impact that is discriminatory.  The judgement that being white is advantaged and has privledges is not altered by this ruling. Only the disadvantaged judgments are now secure in knowing there will be no consequences for their race based decisions.

Oh, both parties would like nothing better than controlling who votes and they'd be perfectly content if 99% of us stayed home as long as they could control the other 1%.

Background, eh?

I happen to be adopted. While I knew my birth family, I was not born with the surname Berkowitz. Great analysis.

Rating based on choice of language. I guess people who grew up after the 60s think it's a reasonable approach to dialogue to label comments crap and then accuse of racism.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

For what it's worth, I wasn't talking about what it meant to all your friends, but what it meant to you.

You say it wouldn't have much significance to you, but would you know what I meant if I said it. If I said it, would you think I was talking about a pale skinned red head?

Don't worry about my other question. You took a shot at answering it--I just wasn't satisfied with the answer.

Anyway, you remind me of Stephen Colbert.

The use of the word subjective need not preclude objective measures, rather subjective could have a much broader connotation in that the society views that a veteran warrants benefits.

That's true, but I think maybe you guys are talking about different things. 

You seem to be saying that subjective value judgments may be implemented based upon objective criteria, which makes sense, but I think others were talking specifically about "subjective criteria" used to implement a value judgment, rather than the value judgment itself.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, but just sayin'.

do you believe that this group of self-labelled "black" people face discrimination in education, employment, housing, wage scales, job advancement, medical care, or any other other area of our national social and economic life

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I wouldn't think you were talking about a pale-skinned redhead if you referred to someone as black, although I did occasionally date someone who self-identified as a black, who was light-skinned and had red hair. I can't speak to the provenance of the red.

As far as the experience of your date, I'm not sure what to make of it. It would be more meaningful to me if I knew if the girl was from Maine, Louisiana, Sierra Leone, or Kenya. Those are more likely to convey cultural information.

Visible aspects certainly can be descriptive. I can think of telling someone to look for a woman in a wheelchair who was with a teenager wearing a bright green jacket and having dark black skin. That was just a physical description of my friends Kathleen and Ibrahim. On first contact, people do tend to see her wheelchair rather than her person, but, if they continue talking over her, she has been known to run her wheelchair over her foot.

Now, there are a range of things that are courteous to do in interacting with a person in a wheelchair. Having a motion disability is pretty objective, and I don't think it's discriminatory to do appropriate things such as trying to talk at the same eye level. I can't think, short of a Mel Brooks movie, of specific ways to talk to a person of arbitrary ethnicity and pigmentation, until I know more about them.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Your arguments are very persuasive.

Maybe a little repetitive, but no one's perfect.

The problem with racial categories is not that they are inherently subjective, it is that they are arbitrary.

Yes, because race is arbitrary what people actually identify with are cultures and cultural heirtage. Which is why there is such a thing as wiggers.

mrrdooo 

"This study tells us there is a difference in quality of care for heart attack -- and it leads to a mortality difference

And what else other than race accounts for the disparity in clinical treatment? Let this Supreme Court tell it we should not judge on race to eliminate racial differences. Tell that to all those folks who die from cardiovascualar disease that jsut happen to black and untreated or inadequately treated.

Is it me, or have you noticed how this site, simply will not engage in an intelligent discoruse when the topic is race? I can't beleive the number of posts denying even the concept of race, yet this thread is all about a landmark decision based on race.

 All the blatant obfuscations, hypocritical tangents and circuituous nonsense is unbeleiveable for what is generally a fairly high level intellectual exchange.  The most ominious thing about this is that no one at the site can identify others racially. Yet race is such a hugh obstacle in American society that even on anonymous boards it is skirted and pooh-pahed and just basically ignored. Incredible.

He certainly did not run a "hard right" campaign. He ran a centrist campaign

I.e., rightwing.

BTW what do you call Joe Lieberman?

Nader may be alot of things. But he is no patriot.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.

Ralph Nader is a lot of things but no scoundrel he.

Thank you.

Best, Terry

So, to summarize your post: "Nuh-uh! And look over your shoulder! The boogie man!"

You really can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with you on, apparently, race being the most important thing in the world, can you? I hear intelligent arguments against your position, and, rather than recognize them as possibly serious points of view, that which does not accept race is essential are

blatant obfuscations, hypocritical tangents and circuituous nonsense

fairly high level intellectual exchange

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Race is not a subjective criteria for a value judgement anymore so than being poor, disabled or aged.

I see.  Maybe a better word for the kind of criteria that may be used to judge "poor," "disabled," or "aged" (and mebbe race?) would be "arbitrary" -- or, y'know, it's a social construct that exists on a gradient, where you draw an arbitrary, but still possibly useful, line to categorize who is "poor," for example.  The people right next to the dividing line may also be pretty much poor, but you have to draw the line somewhere. 

I'm not sure that there is any specific arbitrary dividing line in use for racial categorizations though... the only thing I can think of is self identification?

Maybe not the greatest analogy (but really interesting, IMO), one example of a social categorization in widespread use that doesn't have a generally accepted dividing line (other than individual perceptions/self-identification) is language.  Although linguists agree that languages exist on a gradient, rather than as discrete categories (at what point, specifically, does Spanish become Catalan or Italian?), they don't have any generally agreed upon measure for distinguishing one language from another, or for categorizing linguistic varieties as either dialects of a single language, or as separate languages.

They do it anyway, but there's no discipline-wide standard.  Even "mutual intelligibility," which might seem like a not-too-arbitrary dividing line,  hasn't worked for making distinctions along the language continuum, because individuals' (subjective) judgments of this criterion vary wildly, with political beliefs often coming into play.

Nevertheless, language categories can be meaningful.  If you want to hang out with some Tagalog speakers, you'll probably be grateful for any language learning materials you can get that are categorized as "Tagalog."

Yours is the axiom that has created the biggest nonsensical tangent. You are just blathering on about something that is non-existent when everyone knows that in America race matters, whether you believe the science about race or not. Racism is a sociological issue not a scientific one on the basis of race. Your axiom is thus totally superfluous to the focus of the thread.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't know about Ralph, but listening to Colin Powell tonight, if he ran as an Independent, I'd be mighty tempted.

How about Powell/Obama!

Man, you've got 'way more patience than me. Thanks for hanging in there. Like Andrew Golis said, we sure could use some diversity on this site. Like having some outspoken Afro-Americans would be nice.

Howard,

I can't think, short of a Mel Brooks movie, of specific ways to talk to a person of arbitrary ethnicity and pigmentation, until I know more about them.

I couldn't agree more, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is, or that we should be looking for those sorts of things.

Earlier I posed two questions then I asked you to set the second aside. The second was really about the content of Dr. King's dream. My question is essentially, what would the world look like if the dream had been realized?

The real question, though, what is the best way to achieve the dream. I've been think about this as if it were a garden or a forest. If we want to grow a forest, there's a couple ways we might go about it. We might simply stand back and wait. After all, the winds and birds will carry seeds to fertile ground and the forest will grow. On the other hand, I personally don't see the problem with planting a few seeds and giving them some water.

And race is arbitrary as well. All of these are social constructs

And no doubt you believe the earth is flat too.

Your racial admixture is in your DNA, not in the color of your skin.

If you don't know what DNA is, don't worry about it. Not everyone is able to spell such strange words.

Would you say that you couldn't tell whether you were in Tokyo or Stockholm or Lagos by simply looking at the faces of the people in the street?

Most other people could make a wild guess without doing any social constructing.

This social construct crap is the kind of racism that the Supreme Court used in reaching its decision to be "colorblind."

Congratulations. You just qualified for an appointment to the Supreme Court whenever the Republicans get to name another justice.

Best, Terry

Maybe the supremes are worried that the street smarts and common sense of black Americans will interfere with the proper indoctrination of white youth. Blacks were heavily against the Iraq war before it began, link, and are waiting out George Dubya's administration before enlisting in the military link

If people hadn't thrown away their votes on Gore instead of Nader, Nader would be president! Actually, I voted for Gore and Nader (trading my Texas Gore vote for an Oregon Nader vote). Gore ran center right and Nader is not anywhere near as radical or extreme as he's made out to be.

Nader was trying to challenge the two party stranglehold on the system. It is this duopoly that creates the spoiler effect of an alternative candidacy. The Dem and Repub Parties are corporate owned in many ways and some rightly wanted to challenge that. Of course, there was little to no chance of Nader winning but it could have made a third party candidate more viable in the future.

Most voters don't vote at all. Aren't they also responsible for who wins then? It could be that Nader voters would not have voted otherwise, but who could know this before the election?

It could have turned out any number of ways but just because Nader got more votes in Florida than Gore "lost" by, doesn't make Nader responsible for that defeat. But blaming Nader for Gore's loss is just woulda, coulda, shoulda. I think the closeness and stealing of that election by the SC has everyone looking for a scapegoat (psst, the goat is now president).

There are those who make an issue -- subjectively -- of race -- an objectively observable reality.

Then there are those who deny that race is an objective fact in order to pretend those who make an issue of race -- racists -- do so on non-existent grounds -- even though race is an objectively provable fact. They tend to be racists who deny the existence of race as basis for their racism.

And tend to be "Libertarians," who insist we live in a perfect reality, therefore everyone is on an equal playing field, so there is no need for "sepcial rights" for those of minority statuses.

The reality is shown us by the history: race exists, even if only subjectively, in the minds of those who lynch minorities who, though not of a different race, are not white. And such racists are aggravated by such "special rights" because they _protect_ minorities traditionally victimized from the "conservative" tradtion of lynching without impunity.

Race exists, objectively, so long as racists insists either that it does, or that it is irrelevant, therefore need not be given necessary protections from the traditional victimizations based thereon.

Directly to the racist who denies that race is other than subjective: you are a racist, regardless how "perfectly" you deny it.

Perhaps you would care to point out where it says that skin pigmentation controls revascularization rates. I could find it nowhere.

...........It is very unfortunate that racism creeps into medicine as well as other facets of our lives. Apartheid medicine is by its very nature bad medicine.

Help me out please. You attack me for identifying African-American patients based on skin color. you then end with a statement that racism and apartheid medicine are bad. What criteria are you using for the term apartheid? Oxford Univ Press uses the following definition: An institutionalized discriminatory system of restricted contact between races, as occurred in the Republic of South Africa when the population was separated and defined by law into ‘whites’, ‘blacks’, ‘coloured’, and ‘mixed racial’. Genetic analysis was not used to define "black" or "white". Skin color and parentage was used from apartheid's beginning in 1948-1950 until it's demise.
In clinical studies such as the one from JAMA, DNA testing was not used either. In infants the race defined on the birth certificate is used. In adults it is the patient's skin color and self-definition regarding his/her race.
The criteria conforms to societal classifications. In 1993, the Office of Management and Budget made an attempt to classify the races.
Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. terms such as Haitian or Negro could be used as well as Black or African American.
I expect you to disagree with the criteria.
There have been studies that indicate Blacks who faced discrimination and were non-confrontational had higher systolic blood pressures than Blacks who confronted the situation when faced with discrimination.
Krieger N , Sidney S: Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA study of young black and white adults.Am J Pub Health 1996; 86(10): 1370-1378. Neither those doing the discrimination or the investigators measuring blood pressure did DNA testing to classify race.
Pigmentation was all that was necessary.
It's good that you have found a good place regarding different ethnicities. Be proud.
Finally, bias is a double edged sword, if you are sure that a treatment works or that race doesn't exist you may blind yourself to certain realities experienced by others, or created by those not as accepting of other groups as you may be. Thus looking into reasons for differences in procedures offered or even effects of certain stressors faced in society based on pigmentation may go undetected.
You are free to have you view of the world. Just as the smoker is free to smoke as many packs a day as they wish, the smoker as no right to impact my health via second hand smoke. You may dislike the use of pigment, facial features, hair characteristics etc to classify race, but you don't get to dictate studies looking into health impact that the societal classification of race has on health.
Finally, I have tried to be as dispassionate as possible about this issue. Note in the revascularization study, I focused on providing patients with facts so that they can ask a health care provider whether revascularization is an option in their case, not calling the providers racists or using the term apartheid medicine. Your tone has been harsh. You might look inward and ask yourself why. We just have a disagreement of opinion.

Instead of blaming principled liberals who voted for Nader instead of Gore, why not blame unprincipled conservatives who voted for Bush rather than Buchanan or Phillips?

I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 and Michael Peroutka in 2004 and I couldn't be prouder of my vote.

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

social constructs are real.

Social constructs are not science. Sociologists deal in mythology. Scientists deal in the real world.

Race is in your DNA, not in your prejudice.

Best, Terry

Help me out please. You attack me for identifying African-American patients based on skin color. you then end with a statement that racism and apartheid medicine are bad. What criteria are you using for the term apartheid?

African-American is not a race anymore than black and white.

When you compare groups in that manner, you are using characteristics that are not scientifically defined.

The best example I can give of the problem is that the "Caucasian Disease," cystic fibrosis, is underdiagnosed by doctors in Indian children. Many doctors see only the skin pigmentation of the child and do not recognize that they are looking at a predominantly caucasian child.

There is a rather interesting DNA test that can predict European nationality from the racial admixture of the European's DNA. With what degree of error I don't know but it is rather strange. For example, the Nazis' ideal Aryan race, Swedes, have a hefty admixture of East Asian DNA.

Apartheidists had to make a determination of race so that they could determine whether South Africans had the right to be citizens or were to be shipped off to bantustans in order to not contaminate the pure white race.

The FDA is more benign in its effort to adjust medicine to race but it would be helpful if those political scientists at the FDA knew what race was rather than taking the word of apartheidists.

Best, Terry

Did you know that the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Natural Law Party, the Reform Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party, and the Workers World Party each got more votes in Florida than Gore lost by? Did you know that 12% of Florida Democrats voted for George Bush? Anyway, Gore lost by five votes..,