This article by By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer, reminded me of what Jesus said about being honored in your hometown. Secretary of State Colin Powell is honored in the fomer Soviet Republic of Georgia. The irony is also present that the Republic of Georgia and our own state of Georgia!

"To some in Washington, Powell's political stature has been diminished because the weapons he warned about in his U.N. Security Council speech have failed to materialize more than nine months after the Iraq war.

It has not been an easy time for him. His weekend visit to the former Soviet republic of Georgia offered him a welcome respite, albeit brief, from the Iraq issue.

Georgians seemed delighted that this important man from the West was visiting their deeply troubled country. They felt that perhaps his visit could make a difference.

"Powell awoke Sunday morning in Tblisi, the Georgian capital, to one of the most important days in the country's history. Mikhail Saakashvili, a 36-year old political wunderkind who led a successful uprising last November against an unpopular president, was taking office after a landslide election victory on Jan. 4.

Presidents-elect normally have the limelight to themselves on inauguration day; Saakashvili was willing to share his with Powell.

At the Georgian leader's insistence, Powell was at his side at three separate events on Sunday. One exception was the inauguration itself.

In addition to a private meeting, they held a joint news conference and appeared at a town hall meeting. For the two latter events, it was Powell and not the newly installed president who received most of the questions.

After the town hall meeting, a large crowd cheered Powell enthusiastically on his departure."

The citizens of this fomer Soviet Republic seems to be more appreciative of Secretary Powell than Americans and particularly some Black Americans.

I think he will be remembered as one of if not the greatest State Secretarys of all time. What are your thoughts?

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

Answers

Colin Powell is held in high regard by a huge majority of African American people. Harry Belafonte's remarks were distasteful but unfortunately not without merit. Many Americans both Black and White are very disappointed that our Secretary of State perhaps knowingly misled the world on WMD in Iraq. Secretary Powell was used by the administration to present this misinformation because he is a man known for his integrity.

No matter how it is dressed up, the unilateral pre-emptive attack on Iraq was justified time and time again by the fact that they had WMD and that a post 9-11 America was at risk for imminent attack. Now over 500 dead American soliders later we are discovering that the intelligence did not support administration assertions.

Can Secretary Powell regain his integrity? I certainly hope so. He is a very honorable man who despite this incident still deserves our respect.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

Where is this huge majority of Black folk who hold Secretary Powell and Security Advisor Rice in high regard? Even on this board most folk try to pretend that Mr. Powell nor Ms. Rice really believe or support President Bush. I argue that it is not inconsistent to be both black and conservative; and that conservative is not a code word for being racist or to favor the rich for that matter. These two persons has risen to the highest posts ever held by Black Americans including Justice Thomas and the late Justice Marshall.

Do Black Americans hold him in the same regard as the Georgians? It has been my experience that white Americans hold both in higher regard than most black Americans do.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

I think my views on this topic have been clearly articulated over the past few years. QED

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

I do not think that disagreement with policy and politics is equal to disdain. I think it would be great if both Powell and Rice made themselves more accessible to African American audiences but their politics often prevent this. I know of a group that attempted to invite them but were turned down because they supported democrats in the past. So it is a two way street. However just because one may not agree with another's political beliefs does not translate into disrepect for the office or disdain for the individual.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

How can they make themselves more accessible?

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

I think that most African-Americans are indifferent to Secretary of State Colin Powell or Dr. Rice. This is very plausible in light of our indifference to getting registered to vote. I just read in my local RICHMOND FREE PRESS that only 30% of Black people voted in the last presidential election!!! I hope that is not true.

I am also getting annoyed at people for the repetitive mention that "weapons of mass destruction" were not found in Iraq. Let me share with you how the scientific method can help your thinking with this process. There is a principle that scientists use in research and is based on the following statement. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". What it means is that research findings in science are not final but tentative.

Let's look at the facts. Mr. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Therefore, at one time, he had "weapons of mass destruction". The next question should be, what did he do with those chemical weapons? Were they depleted? Were they destroyed? Were they hidden in Iraq? or Were they hidden outside of Iraq? In light of Mr. Hussein's egomaniacal behaviour and known support of suicide bombers against Israel, I think the probability is 50% that he either has weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or they are being stored after already being purchased by him in somebody's warehouse in Russia, China, or North Korea.

The vast majority of Americans are not even troubled by the fact that weapons of mass destruction haven't been discovered yet. It's only the politicians in an election year who are concerned. That's the hypocrisy of it all.

Jazzman

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

Jaxxman, my Brother: you said something there. Amen and Amen.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

In regards to African-American support of Gen. Powell and Dr. Rice. Give me a break. To most vocal members of our race they are sell- outs. I am embarrased by our races lack of respect for achievement by a member of our race because of thier political leanings. Justice Thomas has still not recognized as being a Supreme Court Justice. All I hear is how he was not qualified for the job. We as a people should be proud of the fact Powell and Rice were chosen by a "racist", "not elected by the people", "daddy's boy" President. Unlike the first Black President, W chose them based on their qualifications not their race. How do we know this? First, we as a race did not vote for him so why would he try to please us. Second, in positions of this importance a President can not afford to have incompetence. The first Black President had not African Americans in these type of positions, even though he loved Black people. Mr. Clinton however did dial 1-800-blame-a-negro when he needed to push blame on someone.(Mike Espy, Ron Brown, Jocelyn Elders, Hazel O'Leary, and Alexis Herman) Each of them left their position under scandal. Brown did not live to see his name smeared but the DNC was doing its best to throw him under the bus. I will say no more. Maybe it is time to forget about our race and just be Americans and human beings.

-- Anonymous, January 28, 2004

I'd never thought of that. GW wouldn't worry about pleasing people who would never vote for him, so any black folk who were hired must've been hired for their qualifications. Excellent!

I think this is backed up by seeing how he handled another group that didn't vote for him: Californians. Here they were in the midst of a huge energy crisis (of their own making), and the out-of- state power companies (some of whom were from Texas) were charging the California utilities out the nose.

When the California Governor, a Democrat asked for federal intervention the Prez declined. I wonder if it'll be different now that Ahnold is Governator?

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2004

Wait a minute folks,

George Bush hired Dr. Rice and General Powell because they are qualified. Most of the African-Americans that have ever gotten a high level post in the legislative, executive, or judicical branch have always been qualified because we have been taught that we have to be " twice as good". Some of you on this board know exactly what I mean.

Number two, George Bush hired Dr. Rice and General Powell because he is a politician. His predecessor hired more blacks to high level positions in the executive department than any President in US history. Mr. Clinton's appointment of blacks in his administration placed pressure on Mr. Bush to do likewise because Mr. Bush knows that up to 15% of black people vote republican. I have noticed that in the last 5 years that republican candidates for office are making their campaign stops to the black churches because they recognize it as being crucial to their election. As a kid, I never saw republican candidates in the black church.

I would also like to say that General Powell's skin color is the only reason that he didn't get the republican nomination for President. He is more confident, better educated, and has given more public service to his country than Mr. Bush. The racism in this country as evidenced by the death threats that he received when his name was mentioned as a possible candidate for President makes it politically unfeasable for this man to get elected.

Jazzman

-- Anonymous, January 29, 2004

I agree with Jazzman with regard to the qualifications of Secretary Powell and National Security Advisor Rice, but why should any group of people be expected to be ga-ga over individuals who embody a position they disagree with. If the administration was serious about bringing everyone to the homeland security table Powell and Rice would also be speaking at the HBCU's and in the African American community.

Yet in spite of the fact that I may not agree with them politically I celebrate their accomplishments as evidence of hope that Senator Blanche Kelso Bruce spoke about in 1876 when he said

I have confidence not only in my country and her institutions but in the endurance and destiny of my people. We will as opportunity offers and ability serves seek our places...sometimes in the field of literary arts, science and the professions.

And Sen. Bruce was a Black Republican Senator from Mississippi.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2004

If I understand it correctly, the HBCUs will not invite Black Republicians. I know that several have refused to invite Justice Thomas. There was an elementary School that refused to allow him to speak a few years ago. It was the adults, not the kids.

I guess we must learn to separate politics from reality. We should be politically diverse otherwise as a group we will be taken for granted which is the situation at present. The Democrats know they can count on at least 80% of blacks who vote. Republicians proved that they can control the White House, the SEnate, and the House, without the black vote.

Neither President Bush nor the Republician is courting the black vote and they shouldn't. He reached out to the churches with his Faith Based Initiative and the AME Church Leadership rejected it. Dr. Anthony Evans of Dallas accepted the Faith Based Initiative. The Presiding Bishop of the COGIC and many other denominations are actively pursueing this program. Where are we?

I dare say that if Secretary Powell or Dr. Rice are extended an invitation they will come. However, they will not come to be humilated. The NAACP invited all the presidential candidates when then Gov Bush was campaigning but he refused to go into a hostile environment. Can you blame him? As President, He visited Dr. Evans.

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2004

Parson Paris is absolutely correct. The vituperative scorn displayed by the liberal black intelligentsia against Justice Thomas and President Bush illustrates that intolerance is OK as long it is directed against the "political enemy". President Bush (I) was invited as the Commencement speaker at Hampton Univ. in the early 90s only to be greeted by the graduating class which stood in unison and turned their back on the President as a show of solidarity (read:defiance) and political speech against having a Republican President as a Commencement speaker. Now what if the US Naval Academy's graduates "protested" against having President Clinton as a commencement speaker by standing and turning their back on him while he gave the commencement address? Ever major daily (NYTImes, WashPost, LATimes) would have had a field day criticizing such behavior as rude, juvenile and disrespectful to the President. Of course since these were black students who engaged in this form of "protest" no one wanted to offend the Hampton grads by referring to them as rude, immature and disrespectful.

We get really worked up over a "conservative" yet our women are raped with immunity in our communities, our elderly live in dreaded fear of their safety and our children are learning little of nothing in our schools which happen to be run by liberal Democratic elected officials. Yet despite the evidence of dysfunctionality which is largely perpetuated by a largely black incorrigible criminal drug culture in our inner cities, our focus is disproportonately directed at Thomas, Powell and Rice. Our priorities are misalinged with real world realities. QED

-- Anonymous, January 30, 2004

I admire Powell and Rice, but I would not utter Thomas' name in the same breath with theirs. His is strictly the result of choosing a Negro. Look at his credentials compared to the other Supreme Court Justices. His are a joke.

I may not agree with Powell and Rice's politics, but I respect how they got to where they are... the hard way... they did earn it!

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2004

Well if President Reagan had gotten his way in 1987 Judge Robert Bork (whose credentials dwarf that of all current Supreme Court members) would be sitting on the Highest Court and Thomas would probably still be serving on the 3rd Circuit. But credentials are overrated. Bill Clinton did not have the right "credentials" when he ran against Bush in 92 and Dole in 96. Prior to being elected President his only notable public service accomplishment was being a two-term governor for a small and largely undeveloped state, Arkansas. He had NO experience in Federal Government, Foreign Affairs and Military/Defense (he was after all a draft dodger). Still, with his Oxford/Rhodes Scholarship firmly in grip and a politically ambitious spouse on the other arm, he was smart enough to hire James Carville as campaign manager and the rest was political hisory.

Like Judge Bork, Justice Thomas served on the 3rd Circuit Appeals Bench, the premier Appealate Court in the US, before migrating to the US Supreme Court. Justice Clarence Thomas is the most influential black in America. Many black Americans can remain in denial about this fact but it won't change the outcome one bit. He is in a position to impact the lives of ordinary black folks far more than Rice and Powell (particularly since most black folks are not active in foreing policy issues). I have not read all of Thomas's opinions but I have read some. Some I agree with and some I do not because his opinions cover more than just "race" topics. I suspect many of Thomas' critics have only read his opinions regarding race topics (if that) and nothing else. Suppressing information about Thomas only perpetuates a disservice to our children who need to know who he is and why he is the single most important public servant today. QED

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2004

Bravo Bill! You make good points.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2004

Sometimes you two paragons of African American Republicanism crack me up.

Bill says "I suspect many of Thomas' critics have only read his opinions regarding race topics (if that) and nothing else." For many people what the Supreme Court says about race is very important. From Dred Scott to Brown v Board of Education to the recent University of Michigan cases what the Supreme Court says about race shapes the public policy of this nation with regard to race. So in light of his opinions in these matters they have a reason not to esteem the justice thomas.

And please specifically point to specific publically available documentation to support the charge that HBCu's don't invite Black Republicans? That is probably an urban legend.

Finally, what kind of president is your buddy George Bush, if he is soooo afraid to face his critics? Oh does Georgie only speak to those who looooooove him? Yes I do blame him. And do you think appearing at Dr. Evan's church is the same thing as appearing before the NAACP convention?

If he had the "guts" to stand up to Saddam in Iraq, surely he can handle some black folk in a convention center. Give me a break, It is a sign of ultimate disrespect to citizens of this country. And isn't he supposed to be the president of the all the citizens of the USA?

You guys crack me up.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 2004

Harold opines -

"For many people what the Supreme Court says about race is very important. From Dred Scott to Brown v Board of Education to the recent University of Michigan cases what the Supreme Court says about race shapes the public policy of this nation with regard to race. So in light of his opinions in these matters they have a reason not to esteem the justice thomas."

The error in your logic is asociating my comments with some form of "hero worship" of Justice Thomas. I am simply acknowledging (something you refuse to do I might add) that he is the key and central figure in American public policy for black Americans. Meansering responses cannot change that fact. I have NEVER read in any of Thomas' public and private musings where he indicated that his particular view of jurisprudence led to a conclusion which would have upheld the infamous Dred Scott Decision of 1857 or the Plessy Case of 1896 or overturned the Brown v. Topeka (54). If you or anyone can produce a reference for my edification about Thomas' views on Dred Scott, Plessy or Brown please feel free to email me ASAP. What I have read is the Justices' apprehensions and opposition to that sacred cow of the black intelligentsia, affirmative action.

This is precisely why rational debate about "controversial" figures like Thomas are pointless because critics choose to rely on hyperbole and missinformation to overly dramatize their argument. I understand its hard to interrupt a man when he is enjoying a good laugh but if I may, when you have finished your round of merriment, consider the following question: Does Thomas' opinion of the Michigan affirmative action case have any impact on the litany of problems which infest many of our black inner cities? While a lot of folks on this BB eschew answering direct questions I trust you will spurn that temptation and not conform to the norm. QED

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2004

Bill--

I did not make myself clear, I was trying to express that the Supreme Court historically, has set the stage for American public policy with regard to race. I did mean to infer that Thomas has done any writing in regard to any of the historic decisions either you or I quoted. However we do know that in the majority of the minds of African Americans Thomas has ruled against them in the sacred cow cases you referred to called "Affirmative Action."

Now Bill, I never alleged that Clarence Thomas is an object of your "hero worship" and by his position he is indeed a pivotal member of the American government but even most informed causasians know that there is nothing black about thomas but his skin color.

To your question about whether his ruling on the UM matter does anything to affect the problems confronting the African American community, the thoughtless answer is probably nothing, but (and we can agree to disagree about this) many African Americans see Affirmative Action as a positive because it allows them to have an opportunity for access. For many people in the community, they have lost hope. Perhaps to some Thomas' rejection of their vision of hope is a callous slap in the face and it leads to sense of hopelessness and negativity that has prevaded many communities.

Enjoy the Super Bowl!

-- Anonymous, February 01, 2004

Look at Thomas' credentials as opposed to the other Supreme Court Justices. THEY DO NOT ADD UP! He is an embarrassment. I am not speaking of his decisions nor what he can do or cannot do. What I said is he does not add up. For all of you who claim you are not for affirmative action... he is nothing more than an affirmative action judge. Clearly, there were others more deserving than Thomas.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2004

Mary

I provided an appropriate response about "credentials". What are you exactly trying to say, Thomas is unfit to serve? If "credentials" are a proper screening technique then as I point out Bill Clinton would have not been elected President since his pre-1992 professional vita was equally modest. Thomas holds a law degree from a prestigious law school (Yale). He served on the prestigious 3rd Circuit Appeals Court. He doesn't have the academic record of Scalia, O'Connor or Breyer. He doesn't have the net worth of his colleagues. But, what difference does this make since Thomas is on the Bench? There is no re-call provision for Supreme Court Justices so I don't understand your bantering comments. If you want to make an issue about his modest experience as a practicing judge go right ahead. But, remember Thurgood Marshall's legal experience prior to being selected to the High Court was largely defined by his role as head of the NAACP-Legal Defense Fund and a brief stint as Solicitor General of the US. Using your criteria Marshall's credentials were modest compared to his colleagues (Brennan, Burger, Stewart, Rhenquist,etc.) on the Bench particularly since he was not an Ivy League trained attorney nor prominently represented in leading law review journals. This did not however diminish Marshall's influence.

Thomas would not have been my first choice for the Supreme Court. At that time I was supporting Federal Judge Richard Posner, a truly cerebral thinker on matters of jurisprudence and a prodigious author. But, a discussion about credentials is moot since politicians, irrespective of party affiliation, base their selection on a combination of factors for which credentials is only one. Bork's credentials were impeccable but did that get him confirmed by the US Senate? No! Thanks largely to your senior Senator from the Keystone State, Arlen Specter, Bork was "borked" from a job he was immimently qualified to hold. I have another related question to this thread. Why didn't President Clinton select a black to serve on the US Supreme Court during his two-term Presidency? Your native son/daugther Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, while up in age, was available so was Mary Frances Berry but Clinton ignored both when he chose Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. I also seem to recall that Clinton reneged on supporting a brilliant UPenn Law Professor, Lani Guinier to hold the position of US Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. That particular nomination imploded largely because of a lack of White House support for the nominee. At least President Bush (I) did pick a black to succeed Thurgood Marshall. The same can't be said of the man who many consider the first "black" President of the US. QED

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2004

This is where I meant to place this post. Sorry for the error.

OK! I will file it away. Affirmative Action is acceptable when placing a less than competent Black Conservative on the job. Bill, you can go on and on about Clinton, etc., etc., etc. as you always do. However, the first Bush and his buds placed "their boy" and those were their words, not mine, as Supreme Court Justice. Again, look at his credentials. He should not be where he is. He played his cards right down the conservative line and it paid off well for him. Whatever Justice Scalia's position is...you might as well say ditto for Thomas. Personally, I admire the people with the credentials to back up their office. Again, I do not agree with Dr. Rice's politics, but she has the credentials to back up where she is. Colin Powell the same. He earned his way. Thomas, no way!!!

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2004

Bill,

That was a very educational post you made. I learned a lot. Thank You. Perhaps we should consider you for the next vacancy on the Court.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2004

Oh Bill I am ashamed of you. It's fine by me if you want to hold up justice thomas as an example of all the things wrong with affirmative action "He doesn't have the academic record of Scalia, O'Connor or Breyer. He doesn't have the net worth of his colleagues. But, what difference does this make since Thomas is on the Bench?" That's cool and it makes a compelling argument against affirmative action.

But what I cannot buy is your comparison between the two. Justice Marshall, did not have the opportunities that thomas had but he was a fighter for justice, he argued a landmark case before the court and was instrumental in changing the course of our nation's history.

You can slam clarence thomas all you want. But don't descecrate the memory of an esteemed fighter who opened doors for me and you. Shame on you.

-- Anonymous, February 02, 2004

Mary opines -

"He should not be where he is. He played his cards right down the conservative line and it paid off well for him. Whatever Justice Scalia's position is...you might as well say ditto for Thomas."

This discussion has progressed pretty much as I anticipated. Little to no attention is directed at evidence and reactions are largely skewed towards political preferences. Let me remind all that if Thomas was unqualified for the post of Supreme Court Justice, 51 Senators would have voted 'nay' and not confirmed him. However, a majority of US Senators voted to confirm him and his "qualifications and credentials" passed the test, despite protests to the contrary. You may not like the outcome but that is democracy in practice. You also open yourself up for additional criticisms by making the flippant remark about Thomas's voting record with Scalia. Are you implying that a collusion exists between the two Justices? If not, why throw out this red herring? If so, what evidence do you have about a collusion? Your statement appears judgemental since you fail to give Justice Thomas any credit for independently arriving at conclusions similar to his colleague. When Justice Marshall was on the bench he voted voer 80% of the time with Justice Brennan. Does this fact make Justice Marshall a clone of Justice Brennan or a black Justice incapable of basing matters of jurisprudence independently of a white colleague. If you say no to the joint-voting record of Marshall-Brennan but say 'yes' to Thomas-Scalia it only means your conclusion is based on political preference not logic. Oh, and thanks again for not answering yet another direct question (Clinton not choosing a black Supreme Court Justice) since the non-response speaks volumnes to the veracity of my comments. QED

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2004

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/fullcourt.html

It still does not add up. Enough said!

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2004

......... "Enough said!" Perhaps for you but not for me. Your link to the Supremes' bios is appreciated but it in no way substantiates anything you have proferred in this thread since I have already acknowledged that compared to Thomas's colleagues on the Bench his "profile" is less-than exemplary. What you steadfastly resist, in addtion to answering direct questions, is recognizing that the most important qualification for Thomas has been met via the Senate referendum in 1992 which confirmed him as a Supreme Court Justice. Nothing else matters. Not law review articles, not honorary memberships, not prestigious clerkships, nothing. You have created a trap in your reasoning by emphasizing "credentials" when in fact my counter-argument about Judge Bork clearly illustrates that qualifications are vastly over-rated in the political game of nominating Supreme Court Justices. Barring death or retirement, Thomas will be around for the forseeable future so as folks in the 'hood say we best, "get over it" and move on. Lamenting about lack of credentials does not and will not change the outcome. QED

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2004

Thank you again Bill for pointing out the ineptitude of your hero clarence thomas. Thank you for reminding us once again, that in a world like this we really need a Savior.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2004

It is possible that Sciali is voting with Thomas and that Brennan voted with Marshall, isn't it? The white Justice may be following the lead of the black Justice. To assume otherwise may mean an internal problem may exist within the person making the assumption.

-- Anonymous, February 03, 2004

Yesterday evening I was fortunate to attend a lecture at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia hosted by the gifted author Lorene Cary. Dr. Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard provided his thoughts on many subjects, one of which is Justice Thomas.

According to Dr. Gates, Thomas is one of the most self-loathing black men in America who got a position that he did not deserve. He also spoke of Justice Thomas' siding with Scalia on his decisions (Scalia's shadow). Dr. Gates stated that if they were looking for a Black Conservative, Bush Sr. could have appointed William Coleman (from Philadelphia) whom he described as brilliant to the Supreme court.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

The National Constitution's website is www.constitutioncenter.org. The program was taped. I am not sure if the tapes are for sale, but for those who are interested you can certainly contact the Center to find out.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

If Dr. Gates has stooped to name-calling because he differs politically from Justice Thomas, then he is demonstrating that he is not deserving of his Harvard professorship. Imagine, such an educated person engaging in such. Disagree with one's position but respect the right of each person to make choices in accordance with their values.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Mary opines (despite a prior plea for 'Enough') -

"According to Dr. Gates, Thomas is one of the most self-loathing black men in America who got a position that he did not deserve."

And, I'm sure the erudite Harvard scholar provided evidence which I can corroborate concerning Thomas'loathsome personality trait. I seem to recall that Professor Gates expertise is in the area of Classical Literature, not clinical psychology. Neither do I recall the distinguished Harvard scholar being credentialed (here's that word again) in the field of psychiatry. So, what can a reasonable reader therefore conclude? Since Gates is neither a clinical psychologist nor an MD with a specialty in psychiatry permitting him to make a professsional medical diagnosis and provide therapeutic drug treatment, his musings about Justice Thomas' psychology profile (self-loathing) are disingenuous at best and at worst, cowardly, irresponsible and dishonest. Since you refuse to answer any of my questions under this thread I might consider directing them to Dr. Gates since he too appears to be interested in the voting bloc between Scalia/Thomas. It will be interesting to read his reaction about the same voting bloc pattern between Brennan/Marshall as well as why the "first black President" failed to appoint a black to the High Court during his Presidential Tenure. Silence is not always golden. QED

-- Anonymous, February 04, 2004

Oops...there goes that word "credentials" again. Yes, Dr. Gates credentials were presented at the beginning of the lecture, and I accept them. He is a highly intelligent black man who has EARNED HIS RIGHT TO BE WHERE HE IS! Wish I could say the same for more out there.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2004

The term "self-loathing black man" is typically applied to any black man who marries anyone other than a black woman and specifically if he marries a white woman. According to DR. Randall Kennedy (there's that name again), Frederick Douglass married a white woman in his second marriage and he was accused of being "Self-loathing". Somehow there are many of us who does not believe that one can meet, fall in love with, and marry a white woman just as easily as one could with a black woman. The fact is that along with the breaking down of barriers in race relations in education and employment the barriers in social relations were also broken down. There are many blacks now who live, work, and play in a world that is peopled with mostly white folk. Let face it, we meet and marry where we live. Those who are married to someone other than black will recognize that the first question asked is: "Where did you meet him/her?" The answer is at work, play, church, etc.

I notice and marvel as I read the society pages of my hometown (Fort Worth Star Telegram) newspaper, as I note the presence of black men and women included in all aspects of our society. Our clubs, farternal organizations, etc. are becoming integrated just as the workplace and schools. As we come together socially, interracial marriages are increasing and will continue to increase.

The point is that some of the invective directed at Justice Thomas is because he has chosen to marry white rather than black. (Personally, I enjoyed seeing the late Strom Thurmond defending then Judge Thomas in the Senate hearings, smile.)

BTW, you can find more on this subject in a book I am currently reading Dr. Kennedy's "Interracial Intimacies; Sex, Marriage, Identity, and Adoption." It is a good read for anyone who is interested.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2004

Rev. Paris:

Who cares if Thomas married a white woman! God bless him because of it. There is no problem there. The point is he does not deserve to be where he is because of his lack of "credentials." There were other men (black and white) much more deserving to be Supreme Court Justices rather then him and they were overlooked. Thomas' own grandfather did not care for him.

In addition, I love Frederick Douglas regardless of whome he married. I love my daughter whom has dated a white young man and I liked the young man as well (no one regardless of color is good enough for her in mybook )I love my black niece whom is married to a white man and I love her children as well. I love my friends whom are married to members of other races as well. I do not consider them self-loathing Negroes, but people whom are able to love despite of color.

Stop playing the race card (like Thomas did when he almost didn't make it to Justice), and make demands that black MEN rise up and act like black MEN. With the AME background, for those who know it, our churches have been full of black MEN despite whom they married.

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2004

I Praise the Lord for you my sister. You have the right attitude regarding who marries whom. I wish there were more with a good attitude towards interracial marriage.

Be Blessed

-- Anonymous, February 05, 2004