The title is, of course, a takeoff on the old Lone Ranger and Tonto joke. The Longe Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by a thousand hostile Indians (Native Americans), and the Lone Ranger turns to Tonto: "It looks like we are in real trouble, now, Tonto." Tonto; "What do you mean, 'we', WHITE EYESS?"
Segue to approximately 1972, at the University of Texas at Austin, where I was in law school (directly after being honorably discharged from the United States Army). It was the time of the Vietnam war, and the Unitversity of Texas, including the llaw school, was a LEFTIST place (even more so, I think, than it is now). The student newspaper was, and probably still is, "The Daily Texan. It was a FAR LEFT ublication, even though it was paid for by the taxpayers of Texas. The editorial pages, espeailly, had NO "oposing" voices. "Guest columns", and even letters, were almost ENTIRELY leftist. Then there was ME, although very little of my stuff- was actually printed--even though it would hae provided a LITTLE "diversity of opinion in a PUBLICLY OWNED newaper (shades of NPR), The left did not believe any more then in fREE SPEECH and diversity of opinino that it believes now.
It was not only the time of the Vietman War. It was the time of the Bakke (specialling may be uncertaain, as it was a LONG time ago now): the very first decision where the U.S. Supreme Curt addressed REVERSE DISCRIMINATIOIN: discriminating againast people because of the WHITE color of their sking. The case involved a medical schol applicant who was not admitted to a medical shcool because black students simply received added "points" on the admittance score SOLELY Bbecause of the clor of their skin. It was a public university, and the Supreme Curt held this to be unconstitutional. I don't even remember now whether the Court also heeld that it vioilated civiil rights statutes of Congressss. This decision would later be foolowed up with the Hopwood (speling? again) directly involving the Unitversity of Texas School of Law, where the 5th Circuit held that such REACIAL DISCRIMINATONIONI could not be used to discriminate against applicants to law school based on the color of their skin. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did NOT say what it SHUOLD have said: that government could NEVER use the color of a person's skin as even a FACTOR in determining who gets rights and benefiits from government. Thhis was FORTY YEARS AGO, and the LEFT still wants to DEFINE people based on RACE, and the Supreme Court has never QUITE had the nerve to sstop them totally (dancing around the question time after time). The poknt is that this waws a HOT issue then, andThe Daily Texan was filled with LEFTIST criticism of the Supreme Court not fully endorsing the RACIL DISCRIMINATION urged by the left. Although the issue is not quite so 'hot" right now, the despicable aP/Yahoo?AT&T had an article for this LEFTIST point of view a matter of about a month ago, talking aobut hoe the Obama Admministration--and the left in general--was "nervos" about year another "reverse discriminatin" case that the U.S. Suppreme Court has agreed to hear. Whenever yu hear a lefitst say that he or she believes that a lperson should not be "judged" based on the color of his or hers skin,realize that the person LIES. That is exactlyl what letists believe including the mainstream media in this country (CNN, AP, et. al.).
Since this point of view was not being represented at a PUBLIC university-the poknt of view that people should be treated as INDIVIDUALS, aqnd not based on the color of theiir skinn--I wrote a "guest column" on the subject. It was not printed "surprise!!!). However, I did not stop there. I, with the help of a few law school friends (who did not, however, sign their names to the letter, which jsuts had my signature) wrote a letter to the ENTIRE TEXAS LEGISLATURE telling them how The Daily Texan was SUPPRESSING free speech and "diversity" of opiniion in a PUBLIC newspaper. The article got printed. You can still find it, I presume, in the archives of The Daiy Texan (assuming they have not been destroyed). What does this hav ve to do with Elizabeth Warren? A lot. She may have even read the article, learned the SUBSTANCE of what I wrote and said (including on many later occasionis, including in this blog) from ohter sources who had been "inspired" by me. I know. That is my ARROGACE showing through (see lprevious article)). Most likely, Elizabeth Warren just decided to do what she did based on the advice of people who UNDERSTOOD the same thing that I undersood (then and now). There is NO "definition" of "race", and there CANNNOT BE (as their is no way of GENETICALLY determining race--all of us being members of teh species homo sapiens, with INTERBREEDING, and a COMMON ulitmate ancestry, makng it certain that we are aLL of "mixed" race such that there is no such thing as a "pure" race).
In my article in The Daiy Texan, I called this IMPOSSIBILITY of DEFINITION the "fatal law" in any argument in favor of REACIAL PREFERENCE. This blog has presented that same truth many times. How can you give PREFERENCE based on the color of one's skin ("affirmative action" being the DECIT under which this id done), if yu can't even DEFINE the grops your are PREFERRING. Is Barack Obama "African-American"? Who said? His father was not even American, and he is probably LESS than 50% "black". What do you have to be to call yourself "black" , or "Native American"? 1/8 (the old, infamous=, Black Codes used to "define" race in the South)? 1/16? 1/32? 1/64? That you KNOW that we are ALL of "mixed" race, with COMMON ancestors (so long as you go back far enough,), and happen to FEEL "black" or "Native American". As I have meentioined from time to time, by family hisotry I am someting like 1/8 Native American (a great-grandfather on my father's side, who was supposedlyl a full blooded Cherokee, or maybe some other tribe prevalent in the Arkansas/Oaklahoma area where my father's famiy resided). I still remember the SUB-HEADLINE that The Daily Texan inserted in the article, n the form they printed it. The article said this IMPOSSIBILITY of DEFINITION made it IMPOSSIBLE to argue that PREFERENCES should be made based on race (since no such DEFINED froups really exist). I called this the "fatal falaw" in any argument for RACIAL PREFERENCE, ven apart from the obvious IMMORALITY of discriminating for and agasint people basesd on the color of their skin. I still remember that The Daily Texan TYPO made the printed article sub-headlinne read "the fatal FLOW". I alwyas thought that 'ltypo" was DELIBERATE, although people in glass houses should nto throw stones (a left handed way of acknowledging the MANY typos in my articles, and the total lack of proofreading because of my eyesight).
Elizabeth Warren? Elizabeth Warren is running against Scott Brown--asssuming she is the Democrat candidate-for the United States Senate seat in Massachusetts formerly held by Ted Kennedy. One of the things that I said in that Daily Texan article, and which I have said at multiple times since, is that EVERYONE should claim to be part of a "minority" group that gets PREFERENCE. Taht is a way of getting where we SHULD be: where the color of one's skin does nto matter. Well, Elizabeth Warren tok this advice to heart, whether it came to her---in some convoluted way--from me, or came to her totally independent of me. Yep. Elizabeth Warren, in multiple situations in her life where being a member of a MINORITY RACE might HELP her, has CLAIMED to be "Native America". EITHER this claim was FALSE, or you leftists out there "defendin" Elizabeth Warren have come around to MY VIEWS on how MEANINGLESS "race" really is (especially in terms of public policy, and what public policy should be, when you are dealing with possible PREFERENCES, as distinguished from discrimination by people acting on their own FALSE idea tat there is such a thing as "race").
The Boston Globe (leftist newspaper) has had a "geneaologist" do a SEARCH of Elizabeth Warrn's ancestry, and that person has concluded taht THE MAVERICK CONSERVATIVE IS RIGHT: "There is really no such thing as a pure race in this world." Actually, of course, the Boston Globe tried to say that Elizabeth Warren was not "lying' when she FALSELLY calimed a Native Americn heritage she really did not have. The "genealogist "found' that Elizabeth Warren was 1/32 (I could never make this stuff up) Native American, based on a documment from 1890 or so. Look at how far LEFTISTS are willing to go a far as DECEIT is concerned. They are trying to DEFEND Elizabeth Warren wiht an INDICTMENT of racial preferences. WHY did Elizabeth Warren DESERVE a REACIAL PREFERENCE for this kind of "racial ancestry". You can argue a thousand years, and probably will if you are a leftist, and NEVER expaln why this should be so. Again, this is reallyl an INDICTMENT of RACIAL PREFERENCES: proof that The Maverick Conservative, perhaps because he is a Native Americcan, has been right all alog. There is NO "logical", not to mention moral, definitin of "race". Yet, CNN--and the rest of the left--want to DEFINE people based on race and ethnicity more today than ever before.
Yep. The Maverick Conservative has MORE excuse for saying he is Native American than Elizabeth Warren. I may beven be responsible for Elizabeth Warren, and what amounts to dECEIT. I told EVERYONE, as far back as 1972, that YOU have as much "right" to say you are a "minorityh" as anyone else. Who DEFINES who has a "right' to say that, and who does nnot? It is an IMPOSSIBLE question for those who want to justify sd;PREFERENCES based on the color of a person's skin.. Elizabeth Warren proves two things:
1. Tjhat leftists are all about DECEIT.
2. That it is absurd to base racial PREFERENCES on something--"race"--that cannot even be defined.
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).