As to whether Thomas or Hill was telling the truth, I have no real idea other than to point out that Thomas stood to gain a lifetime appointment if he stuck to his story and Hill stood to gain nothing at all. My problem with Thomas isn't that incident but the way he has conducted himself since.

The man is, simply put, a lackey of the right wing of the Republican Party, playing the race card to defend it when this perfectly obvious conclusion is pointed out. For just one example, in his book Thomas rails about how Howell Heflin, the Alabama Senator, is "a slave owner" while Strom Thurmond, whose politics were much more openly racist than Heflin's even were until it became convenient to change his tune in 1991, gets a free pass. He remains public friends with Rush Limbaugh, whose appeals to racism are a national scandal that even the NFL got tired of.

There is no question that a black man has every right to take a conservative position but there IS a question whether or not a black man has a right to take a position that opposes black voting rights, as Thomas will undoubtedly do in the upcoming Indiana case. With zero, repeat, zero evidence of past fraud, the Indiana legislature passes a law which forces Indianans who lack photo IDs (estimated at around 12% of the total electorate) to go get them AND PAY FOR IT. That's a poll tax. Everybody knows it, and everybody knows how it was used as a "low-tech lynching" of the right of black people to vote in the old South. Thomas's vote is not a "conservative" one in this case -- it's an act of racial treason.

if a white person married a black person and fails to bring more pink toed blue eyed kids into the world is the white person a racial traitor? Racism in the service of non racism makes no sense

I have expressed myself badly in that I have clearly given you the impression that I regard "race" as solely a matter of color, which is what underlies your reply. My definition of race is NOT meant as a matter of color, but as a matter of a commonality of interest among people who share a common ethnic heritage and the problems which attend that heritage.

Armenians, to cite just one example, are little different from any other Caucasian peoples but have a clearly distinct historical heritage. One can term this a "racial" heritage without outraging logic -- Armenians do have an identity which is different from that of other Caucasians. What defines that heritage most clearly is that, at one time in their past, they suffered genocide based upon that racial identity. The same can be said of Jews, certain African tribes, etc.

Not all of history's outrages are racial -- Pol Pot's massacres weren't -- but many were, and it is not at all unreasonable to argue that those who give aid and comfort to those who oppress their "race" in such situations are "race traitors." This is what I meant, and I think Clarence Thomas clearly fits that description.

If you wish to debate the matter seriously, rather than to use absurd examples like the above (possibly due to my lack of specificity, in which case they're understandable), I welcome your response.

slasher the simple solution would be for you to use the word "ethnicity" instead of "race". The burden is on you to use correct terminology not for others to interpret your use of language and figure out what you really mean.

That's funny. I had no trouble understanding him. How about you define race for us.

"to take a position that opposes black voting rights" but it is not racism to expect that black man to then have a reasoned argument why and not be an underqualified affirmative action right wing lackey any more a left wing hack who votes based on ideology is acceptable. Thurgood Marshall was emminently qualified and had a long practice history including many cases before the Supreme Court. Thomas, in having nothing to recommend him, has more in common with Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales, two other underqualified minority hacks.

slasher:

as it would refer to a family, a tribe, people or nation. Perhaps, it could even be defined as a people with similar interests or characteristics. You have taken the broader view of the definition and the other has taken a much narrower view.

I take your point and did my best to explain my terminology. "Ethnicity" doesn't really work in discussing the situation of African-Americans, I feel, because it is commonly used to discuss a far more narrow group of people -- e.g., Italians. African-Americans represent a group of people who were the victims of a massive criminal enterprise, and they were selected on the basis of their color, not their nationality and certainly not, as is the case with almost every other immigrant group, on any voluntary basis. To discuss their circumstances in this country using the terminology applied to Italians is to deny the reality of why they're here and of the crime that brought them here.

Furthermore, the identification of African-Americans based upon race alone (as opposed to, say, what part of Africa they came from) continues to this very day -- by all but a tiny handful of Americans. Do YOU know what part of Africa Clarence Thomas's ancestors came from? Michael Jordan's? Oprah Winfrey's? They're blacks, and before that, were Negroes, an equally broad term. So I use the term "race," because it fits the case.

There is overlap between the terms race and ethnicity but in their current, American usage, using the term "race" implies more of a genetic basis for grouping and "ethnicity" implies a cultural basis for grouping. Hopefully that is helpful.

There is no question that a black man has every right to take a conservative position but there IS a question whether or not a black man has a right to take a position that opposes black voting rights, as Thomas will undoubtedly do in the upcoming Indiana case. With zero, repeat, zero evidence of past fraud, the Indiana legislature passes a law which forces Indianans who lack photo IDs (estimated at around 12% of the total electorate) to go get them AND PAY FOR IT. That's a poll tax. Everybody knows it, and everybody knows how it was used as a "low-tech lynching" of the right of black people to vote in the old South. Thomas's vote is not a "conservative" one in this case -- it's an act of racial treason.

This makes much more sense if one is willing to accept that the only poor people in Indiana are Black, or that the only Black people in Indiana are poor and will therefore be the ones the law was intended to disenfranchise.

Or that a Photo ID in Indiana costs $2,500.

Let's extend this reasoning to bus fare and screw with it a bit. Couldn't the bus fare to the voting precinct also be considered a poll tax?

I'd be willing to bet that even more of the electorate (>12%) in Indiana lives at a greater than walking distance to the precinct. I'd also be willing to bet that some of those people are too poor to afford a car.

I'd also guess that those people are disproportionately white.

The fact of the matter is that when you hold this against what it takes to cast a informed vote (TV, Books, Slate.com, Newspapers, etc, etc....or even a trip to the library) It's no undue burden to spare enough of your Welfare Check to go have your picture taken and present it to qualify yourself as a legit voter.

Second:

"With zero, repeat, zero evidence of past fraud......"

This is an extremely weak point to stand on. Anyone with a brain knows that absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence.

Voter fraud is extremely difficult to figure, let alone prove, after the fact. But, it disenfranchises everyone when it happens. It's far better to take reasonable measures to prevent it. This law qualifies.

If the Indiana State Assembly really wanted to disenfranchise Blacks, they'd just gerrymander the districts. It'd be more effective and way easier to get away with.

"I'd be willing to bet that even more of the electorate (>12%) in Indiana lives at a greater than walking distance to the precinct. I'd also be willing to bet that some of those people are too poor to afford a car. I'd also guess that those people are disproportionately white."

Well, possibly. So what? By making this argument, you implicitly accept the concept of a property qualification for voting -- something previous SCOTUS decisions have ruled to be unconstitutional. Even if there were ZERO blacks in such situations in Indiana, ruling that the photo ID is constitutional opens the door for southern states such as Alabama or Mississippi which have MANY, MANY blacks in such circumstances to disenfrachise them as well. And make no mistake, they will indeed do so if it is shown that the Court has, essentially, repealed the poll tax ruling.

"The fact of the matter is that when you hold this against what it takes to cast a informed vote (TV, Books, Slate.com, Newspapers, etc, etc....or even a trip to the library) It's no undue burden to spare enough of your Welfare Check to go have your picture taken and present it to qualify yourself as a legit voter."

First of all, it's not a question of "having your picture taken and present(ing)" it. It's a question of going to a central facility, which may or may not be on a bus line, and standing on a line to get your picture taken for a photo ID, which presumably will cost as much as other photo IDs. You are then required to present this ID at your local precinct when it's Election Day. In other words, poor or disabled people have to do what other people do not in order to exercise their franchise.

My driver's license -- which is what I would be presenting if I had the misfortune to live in Indiana -- costs $50; a passport is considerably more expensive than that (and VERY hard to get quickly). In both cases, for someone on welfare or even Social Security (elderly single women living on SocSec are living on less than $1,000 a month), $50 is a severe burden -- the equivalent of about $250 for a family making the median income. I don't know who you are, but I can tell you have no idea what it's like to be on welfare, or dependent on Social Security, or to be infirm. Of course, you're not alone. John Roberts said essentially what you've said here during argument. But Clarence Thomas DOES know -- the people he grew up amongst were in that situation. THAT is why he's a traitor.

As for spending the money on Slate to be an informed voter, anyone who thinks a photo ID isn't a burden for a poor person obviously won't think it's a burden for a poor person to buy a computer and pay monthly fees to an Internet service.

Finally, you would be purple with rage if a state government cracked down on its state police for profiling blacks based upon ZERO evidence, but you're perfectly ready to assume that dirt is being done in Indiana. In fact, while voter fraud is hard to prosecute, it is very easy to prove that it's taking place, because in many cases the voter whose identity is used to cast the fraudulent vote eventually shows up to cast his legitimate vote and presto, we have proof of voter fraud. We may not ever catch the guy who voted fraudulently, but we KNOW that fraud took place. Indiana couldn't cite any such cases.

You know what I think. I think you're a Republican Party flack who thinks it's OK to disenfrachise likely Democratic voters, and if many of them are blacks, well, so be it. Clarence Thomas is exactly like you, but unlike you, he is where he is ONLY because of the struggles of black people in the 1960s to defeat men like those in the Indiana legislature.