“I believe that there is a moral and constitutional equivalence between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality.... In my mind, government-sponsored racial discrimination based on benign prejudice is just as noxious as discrimination inspired by malicious prejudice.”

Clarence Thomas RULES!!! I'll bet Sharpton and Jackson hate his guts.

Read the Wikipedia entry for Paul Robeson, a super-human who achieved all that he did *decades* before Affirmative Action. Had Affirmative Action existed in Robeson's time, "The Man" could *easily* have dismissed Robeson's achievements as the result of "help". Robeson was an OUTSTANDING individual, who got shafted by the McCarthy Red Scare.

Byron, he went to the Soviet union and denounced America.

The overall sentimet is correct; that being - state sponsered benefit distribution (student financing, job preference, assistance of all types, etc.) promotes noxious discrimination (class warfare, racial prejudice, etc.) Lawfully, morally, and Constitutionally, there is no provision, with equivalence by design or otherwise, that authorizes a beneficial distribution. Thomas here back handedly promotes the occupying statist theocracy that infests this land.

Byron, Robeson was a great man if you happen to be a fan of Communism.

The overall sentiment is correct, viola! Mike is right! But because we live in such an imperfect world, where as Mike well knows "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons unto the fourth generation". There was once a time in some jurisdictions (Columbus, Ga) where it was illegal for a slave to think, or when some races were locked up for having the potential for sedition. Now how does one correct the sins of the fathers. We live in a much better country and world today, I believe, due to leaps in societal thinking upon issues like race, humanity and equality, and by correcting are former ways. How would Clarence correct the past malicious prejudice, huh?

Byron - Yes, Paul Robeson did go to the Soviet Union and came home a broken man. For all that he was truly a great entertainer, but during that time and because he was black he could not get the recognition and accolades that he so much deserved due to the very detrimental prejudice that was rampant in the U.S. during that era. Ironically, he discovered the same prejudice in the Soviet Union. He was a great sportsman, excellent baritone singer and actor. He deserved so much more than what he received.

Waffler has it right again (almost)! "Uncle Clarence Thomas'" assertion that "there is a moral and constitutional EQUIVALENCE between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality is questionable because Civil Rights laws and other remedies were NOT based on any effort to "distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality." And I did not know that the constitutional definition of equality had changed to include a "current notion". Here, the problem appears to be one of semantics -- BUT it all comes down to the question Waffler raised: "How would Clarence correct the past malicious prejudice, huh?" First, to get rid of some semantic chaff; first, there is no equivalence between constitutionality and morality, else slavery could never have existed. There is certainly no moral justification for slavery, although it was constitutionally acceptable to the U.S. government. And somehow, I don't really believe that the attempt to enslave a race is morally equivalent to distributing benefits to members of a race. I do not believe that stealing a loaf of bread is morally the equivalent of stealing billions of dollars from retirees, leaving them destitute. They are both thefts, but the equivalence ends there. What Uncle Tom is really saying, in effect, is that a wrong committed by the state may go unpunished and uncompensated so long as the state stops committing the irreparable harm that it had perpetuated for hundreds of years. Thomas is calling remedies to make the victims whole RACE-BASED, but they are race-based only in the sense that the ATROCITIES committed were RACE-BASED. The laws in question are NOT "based on laws designed [to] that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality;" the laws were designed to MAKE WHOLE those who have been injured by OTHER LAWS promulgated over centuries by the STATE. Of course, the argument becomes 'but whom shall we make whole'? After all, there are no more slaves, although we still see the effects of slavery -- and the lingering effects of Jim Crow, segregation, "separate but [un]equal, red-lining, disproportionate public funding (based on race) and a vast array of other effects and conditions which emanated from slavery and remain as ongoing RACIAL injustices -- from Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney's 1857 exhortation from the bench that "no black man has any rights that a white man is bound to respect," to the present-day efforts to suppress black and other minority voters by power-lusting republiCONS. Is Thomas' idea that if you wait long enough, you don't have to do anything about centuries of ongoing injustice? Is the idea that as long as an offensive act is racial in nature that can be no racial remedy to it? Essentially, slavery has served to cripple blacks economically, socially, physically and psychologically, ad nauseam, and the Tom's response is to say 'OK, let bygones be bygones: you are now EQUAL'! If someone hits your car once, on one occasion, they have to pay compensation, they may be fined and/or jailed. If a banker (hypothetically) embezzles money on just one occasion, they may have to pay restitution and may also be jailed. But if a government subjects a people to slavery for centuries and then puts illegal roadblocks in their paths for another century, limiting their opportunities and denying them due process of las, the proper response is: "OK, we've stopped the most overtly blatant racism and discrimination, so you're now EQUAL, end of story -- is that MORAL or CONSTITUTIONAL or EQUIVALENT to the way OTHER wrongs are dealt with? Or maybe you don't find anything wrong with what was done, in which case I can only say, God help us all!

I THINK THAT SLAVERY IS JUST ANOTHER FORM OF THE CORRUTION UNDERWHICH THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED.....CAPITALISM IS INHERENTLY FUELED BY, AND OF, CORRUPTION. IT WILL NOT EXIST WITHOUT CORRUPTION. IT IS FERTILIZED BY GREED, IMMORALITY, AND THE GOAL OF MAKING THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLES AS POOR AND SUBSERVIANT AS THE ELITE WEALTHY CAN IMPOSE ON THE MASSES .....ULTIMATELY; MAKING FINANCIAL SLAVES---WORKING FOR THE ELITE FOR AS LITTLE AS THE ELITE CAN GET AWAY WITH PAING THEM.....THIS IS THENEW SLAVERY THAT THE WEALTHY WISH TO CREATE AND PERPETUATE.....PETER IGNAGNI

I think what is done is done and there is no amount of money that can undo the past. I do think that boat loads of monies should be dumped into the inner city and rural school systems. Also college funds should be established respectively for those schools in need. The monies should continue to be distributed equal to the number of years of slavery. At some point the educational system should be nationalized giving youth in every part of the country access to the same books, competent teachers and other materials that will give all students and equal opportunity to succeed. --D.L.Chitty, Columbia, SC

Peter? Are you a Communist? Because you sound exactly like Che Guevara. The problem is "Central Bankers who OWN our Government. Without "capitalism" we might as well move back to the caves. The two things have nothing to do with each other, but you must have the eyes to see it and the mind to understand it.

This is in Response to D.L. Chitty: I don't know who did it or how, but there was another short post on thi site that is now missing which was posted by "--Anonymous, Columbia, SC". I know, because I wrote it. I'm really curious about who you are, as I've never had the pleasure of either hearing of you, nor meeting David L. Chitty. Would like to speak w/you @ChittyofCA on Twitter. L.A. Chitty, III

Capitalism is what made this country GREAT. My father (Italian Immigrant) prospered under it; and so did my relatives and Americans in general. It's stupid and ignorant for anyone to talk against Capitalism PERIOD. An INTELLIENT person might say, prosecute or get rid of the DISHONEST ones, but not the entire idea of Capitalism. If you don't like it, go live in Cuba where only government associated people can have internet or cell phones, or a few regular people who have the rich relatives out of the country that help them.