[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Demiajax wrote:
I just think it’s really funny that anyone considers this guy a fabulously gifted and well-informed writer.
You’d need to be more literate to make such a claim. Kimball is well-respected as a critic and author, even outside of political circles.
From sensationalist Kimball:
" �??The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.�??
Got that? That, according to the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was part of the �??tragedy�?? of the civil-rights movement. "
This is a statement unsupported by the portion of the transcript in which Obama talks about the “tragedies” of the civil rights movements. At most you can argue an indirect correlation between the “tragedies” and the “redistributive change.”
The “tragedy” is, in part, referring to Civil Rights Movement’s reliance on the courts instead of building “coalitions of power.”
Completely false. Here is the transcript:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I�??d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.
The point was victories and failures, per his opening sentence. Read it - victory was “formal rights”, failure was not getting “redistribution of wealth”. That is his own thesis of the litigation strategy for civil rights - good for formal rights, but wasn’t good for redistribution - and it is clear he wanted both.
More:
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn�??t that radical. It didn�??t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can�??t do to you. [b]Says what the Federal government can�??t do to you, but doesn�??t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn�??t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.[/b]
Note that the “tragedies” that he speaks of is that too much of a litigation focus failed to get “economic justice” realized - a strategic mistake that “we are still suffering from”.
Aside from your initial ad hominem, your post doesn’t even make sense to any honest reading - no doubt that Obama was discussing that one of the disappointments of the Civil Rights era was the failure to bring about “redistributive change”, whether through courts or otherwise.
Obama notes that the overconcentration on the “court focus” was a strategic error if you want the whole kit and kaboodle - he is just a realist that the effort to get “redistributive change” must done politically, rather than judicially (to his chagrin).
In conclusion (so you can follow it this time), Kimball knowingly misrepresents Obama’s quotation by positing a direct correlation between the “tragedy” and the “redistribution of wealth.”
There is no misrepresentation at all, but given your initial hysterics to try and discredit the author while making no attempt to address his argument (or anyone else’s), there’s little reason to extend you any leeway.
Obama’s bit shows his true colors - and your little partisan fire drill can’t change it.[/quote]
Despite your underlining and bolding, you still never proved a direct correlation between the “tragedy” and the “redistribution of wealth.” In fact, you proved an indirect relationship between the two. Thanks for proving my point that Kimball doesn’t understand a fundamental distinction of discrete mathematics and logic.
If you’ll notice, I never said that Barrack Obama didn’t want the courts to address “issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society” during the Civil Rights movement. I just like making fun of a pompous “writer” in a bow tie who can’t coherently differentiate between indirect and direct correlation. I’m sorry I offended you.
You made certain assumptions about my argument, and typed out a long, drawn out response to something I never said. Keep shadow boxing.