The following law that looked to be a vote on a technicality to remove segregationist language from the Alabama Constitution became a hotly contested election day issue that remains too close to call.

Alabama faces recount over segregationist laws


Judge Roy Moore, famous for being removed from office for his defiance in putting in a statue of the ten commandments in a public place in Montgomery and refusing to follow orders to remove the statue, lined up opposition to the law by claiming it would lead to higher school taxes and frivolous lawsuits.

The question for debate is:

Why was this vote so close? Is this evidence of racism or is it because other issues such as taxation clouded the issue?

It is racism and bigotry, straight up, no ice in the glass. It confirms what so many of the 56 million folks that voted against this mindset have said all along- this last election was really a referendum on bigotry vs freedom, racism vs diversity.

We are truly slipping into a fascist nation. Makes me want to cry for our nation.

Jaime- with all due respect- I did address the question:

Why was this vote so close? Is this evidence of racism or is it because other issues such as taxation clouded the issue?

Answer to the first- because Alabama is a rascist bigoted state- to even contemplate segregation being okay makes you a flaming bigot- how can there eve BE an argument the other way?

Bigots and racists have ALWAYS used "side issues" to cover for thier racist policies "safety- if we let blacks in our nieghborhood our women will not be safe"
etc- this is just a way to try and justify thier racism.

In my own experiance- I was almost shipped off to Bob Jones U- a hot bed of racist though and christo-fascism. There they did not allow interracial dating because of a phrase in the old testament of "not being unequally yoked together" - so, racist will always use some convoluted logic to make thier racist beliefs seem logical.


I hope that clarifies!

Why was this vote so close? Is this evidence of racism or is it because other issues such as taxation clouded the issue?

Amendment 2 would have removed un-enforced language mandating racial segregation from the state Constitution (the longest and most confusing in the nation), which was written in 1901. The measure would have re-written an education section of the constitution, specifically taking out a line about separate schools for "white and colored children."

In its original form this was a decent bill, which simply removed racist language from the Constitution. However, before the amendment was passed out of the Legislature, the entire focus of the bill was changed by the removal of some wording in Amendment 111’s Sec. 256 from the Alabama Constitution regarding guarantees of an education for every Alabama citizen.
Had it not been for Sec. 256’s presence in the Alabama Constitution all of the education system and the taxes required to fund it would be under the direct control of judges, not citizens.
The real purpose of this bill is control of education and increased taxation.

The amendment reads: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to repeal portions of Section 256 and Amendment 111 relating to separation of schools by race and repeal portions of Amendment 111 concerning constitutional construction against the right to education, and to repeal Section 259, Amendment 90, and Amendment 109 relating to the poll tax.

Without this one phrase, this amendment probably would have passed. Most Alabamians want to move beyond the era of racism and Jim Crow, but they were angered by the threat of increased taxes. Was it reason enough to vote it down? Not for me to say, I'll be selling my home and moving next summer to wherever Uncle Sam tells me to go. And I didn't vote on the amendment, as I'm registered in Oregon.

Those who live outside the state, or who are simply uninformed won't see past the news headlines of "Alabamians vote to keep racist language" that every news organization is screaming at the sheeple. And surely there were some who voted NO simply because they pine for the old south.
But to those citizens who take the time and investigate the reasoning behind the amendment, as worded, just may think differently. Not that it matters to those who would paint the entire state as racist. Who exactly is the close minded rednecks?

From the article{



It looks to me that the problem was eliminating the statement that Alabama youth had no constitutional right to an education. The racist language can be removed without eliminating this statement. I am certain some individuals were influenced by bigotry but it seems like the focus of the opposition was entirely on school taxes and protecting alternatives to the public school system.

Thanks much to DTOM for explaining this vote - I was confused by it but hadn't read beyond the headlines.

As for another state making progress - Arkansas not Alabama...

City attempts 'white out'

The common sentiment here seems to be the same as mine...this was not a racial issue, but a monetary one.






CR, I can understand your perception based on some of your background that you shared...but as prevalent as rascism might be, I think monetary issues will trump it almost every time. I'd look under that rock before making any conclusions...

For whatever it might be worth, here's another article about the recount.

Recount set Monday on Alabama segregation amendment

The real issue here is the the controversy over whether or not the state of Alabama has the duty to provide an education for its citizens. There are some of the Libertarian persuasion who think that all schools should be private, but I doubt that they were a big factor in this vote. Given the fact that this amendment was most strongly opposed by ex-Judge Roy Moore and the Christian Coalition of Alabama, it seems likely to me that the real problem here was not the spectre of higher taxes, but the religiously neutral culture of public schools. The Religious Right, a very strong force in Alabama, detests public schools because they are not Christian.

I'm stunned by these words from Elbert Peters, former chairman of the state Republican Party:

When I first saw the header for this thread, it seemed like a no-brainer. How could anybody not want racist law to be removed?

Thank you to DontReadOnMe for pointing out what really happened. Another well-intentioned bill that got hijacked by dishonest people who added on a hidden agenda. It is very disappointing that CNN did not investigate the bill before it cut and pasted its article. There was a clue in the opponent's objection that would have raised the interest of a curious 14 yr old.

I am tired of deceptive bills, and media who report them on their headline merits without vigourously investigating them. I am tempted to get 30,000 signatures to enter an Initiative on next year's California Ballot. It will be called the "Care for all" Initiative. It will raise CA sales tax by 0.25%. Proceeds will go towards health-care for the poor, shelter for the homeless, and rehabilitation expenses for veterans of all wars. And in small print, on page 17, $5mil a year will be allocated to the author for adminstrative purposes.

DTOM's explanation about Amendment 2 was dead-on. I have lived in Alabama my whole life, and I can say that this is the typical way politics run (politicians regularly hijack well-intentioned legislation and pack it full of crap). In addition, the whole-sale attack on Alabama for being "racist" happens quite often, often without there being any real investigation into the issues. Alabama (and other southern states) are the favorite whipping-children in the nation. I'm not saying that AL is perfect, but the state tends to get demonized in the national media.

As far as Amendment 2 goes, this was a stop-gap measure designed (originally) to get rid of racist language in the AL constitution. The real problem, as DTOM pointed out, is that Alabama's constitution is the longest in the nation, full of outdated, useless legislation. In addition, the way the constitution is set up, citizens of the state must vote on legislation pertaining to only one county (one other Amendment, which did not receive much press, dealt with whether one of the counties could spend money to raise awareness for peanut farmers). If it got passed --and I must admit to not caring in the slightest about the issue, so I didn't exactly keep track of it -- that would be yet another useless add-on to the constitution, just making it longer. The whole thing needs to be chucked out the window. But that won't happen because the politicians are too lazy to do it.

Why was this vote so close? Is this evidence of racism or is it because other issues such as taxation clouded the issue?

This vote was about removing segregation-era language from the state Constitution meaning it was about healing old wounds which are not too old for the majority of Alabama voters. Everything else related to the segregated langauge could've been worked out on other amendments such as taxes and education. But,
using those issues as a reason to justify not amending the law is total BULL!!!

Alabama even today in my opinion is still living in the 1950s & 60s. But one thing these voters, who still want to cling to the Old South mentality expressed by their vote, should know: this generation of blacks will not take the CRAP their ancestors took in the OLD SOUTH!!

Can somebody please tell me where is the MORAL VALUES in all this? Alabama
is one of the most conservative Republican states in the country. Is this an example of COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM?? where is the outrage from conservatives??

I'd also very much agree with what DTOM wrote and in my mind it almost makes this debate pretty one sided. The bill most likely would have passed if someone didn't try and slip other legislation in to it.

But I do want to comment on the second part of your statement. I too have had plenty of experience with Alabama and I lived in the south for 25 years - Thankfully I don't now. You are correct that sometimes the South is demonized in the media, but then again you have to ask why that is the case? I happened to run across this article from Birmingham News today and it shows you exactly why a lot of people hold the opinions they do. I won't quote from the article because it isn't necessarily on topic with this debate, but in summary there is a legislator making a big fuss about authoring legislation to ban gay books from libraries and universities.

Granted, that probably won't happen (but then again if it did it really wouldn't surprise me), but the fact that things like this always seem to come out of southern states and the people saying them aren't crackpot extremists, they are elected politicians! The sad thing is that this isn't an Onion article, it is the real thing. So in a lot of respects the south is deserving of the reputation that it has. I don't think everyone holds the beliefs espoused by politicians there but I know for a fact that many do and many more are atleast sympathetic or will nod their heads in agreement even if they won't take action.

There is the possibility that the voters who voted this amendment down (or the majority of them) were thinking with their minds instead of their hearts. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with re-writing official language from bygone days to reflect current standards of fairness, equality and decency. But in truth, that language in the Alabama constitution has absolutely zero effect on anything that occurs within the state. There will never again be Jim Crow laws, poll taxes or segregated schools. In Alabama or anywhere else in the south. You simply can't argue (realistically) that the opposite could ever be the case.
So, a vote to amend the wording of the arcane document, is from a practical standpoint, an exercise in semantics. It makes us feel good and tries to heal old wounds, but it really doesn't affect a thing.
The amendment as initially proposed was not a big deal to go and vote for, but why do politicians feel they have to try and sneak in other legislation, whereas they could have done it via a stand alone bill on it's own merit.
My guess......they (the democratic majority state legislature) knew that an education/tax bill would be easier to pass if it was integrated into an amendment that couldn't possibly be defeated. After all, why would anyone vote against removing racist language?????

Fortunately, informed voters decided that for all of the hue and cry of racism and derisions of the 'old south', they the citizens, would be the victims of the underhandedness that was slipped in, not people in blue states who will write off Alabama no matter what they do.

It's sad that elected officials continue to play these games, for they are the ones who contribute to the rest of the nation's view of Alabama.
What the state needs is a constitutional convention, and a total re-write of the state's base document. Sadly, this will likely never occur.

Not always Southern states - Oregon passed a ban on gay marriage -- as did other non-Southern states in the 2004 election. To imagine that it is only in the South that you find bigotry is folly. Bigotry and hatred unfortunately reside in all corners of the nation and I resent my state being singled out by people who do not know all the facts and use it as the whipping-boy of the nation.



Cgorham, from what are you basing this opinion? Do you have any first-hand experience with the state? I am not attacking here, but would like honest feedback. Are you basing this opinion on first-hand knowledge of the state or by reports in the media and stereotypes of the state?

The history of my state was what got me interested in issues of diversity and finding out about people who are different from myself. I am a graduate student in Anthropology and work in cultural diversity training for the University of Alabama at Birmingham. To think that everyone who lives in the state of Alabama is a racist is insane and a stereotype, and an insult to all of the people in the state who work to overcome the problems of our past. I work with many people in Birmingham who actively educate, advocate and seek to improve the state -- people with open minds, liberal and conservative, and it is a disservice to their efforts to judge them based on a vote that was clouded by economic issues.

While I voted for the Amendment because it is insane to keep such racist language in our constitution and because I realized we would be demonized in the media if it didn't pass, many people place economic concerns over political correctness. The laws that would be changed by the Amendment are NOT enforced and haven't been enforced since the schools were desegregated in the 1960s.

For the record I did state it was pending legislation and that it probably wouldn't pass. I also don't think I implied it was limited to southern states.

The comparison to gay marriage I don't think is a valid one. I would say that if you took a poll of everyone in America on whether or not it should be allowed you'd have a pretty even split. I personally don't agree with it, but many people do.

Now the article I cited was talking about banning gay books from libraries and universities. That is worlds different as far as lunacy goes and I doubt you'd even find a small subset of the population that would support something like that. Just take out the "gay" modifier and talking about banning books is bad enough.

So to bring it back to my point, it is things like this that give the south its bad rep justified or not. In my experience some of the criticism is very valid and true and some of it is false hype, but that is just my opinion.

Not sure how you figure the even split, CJ. Even Kerry voters in Michigan and Ohio were against. As I recall, there were several states making the same choice in 2000.

Actual votes in 2004 Gay Marriage initiatives / amendments
(percent for - percent against)
Arkansas 75-25
Georgia 76-24
Kentucky 75-25
Michigan 59-41
Mississippi 86-14
Montana 67-33
North Dakota 73-27
Ohio 62-38
Oklahoma 76-24
Oregon 57-43
Utah 66-34

I'm basing my opinion on the truth. Ask any Black person in the South and ask them is Alabama a racist state. I will gurantee you 80& or maybe 90% will say yes!!! Its easy for anyone who isn't black to suggest this vote was related to other issues such as race, education when they have NEVER experienced what it is like for their ancestors and children to live through America's greatest sin which is segreagation.

This is a slap in the face and an insult to the African-American race as a whole.
Don't believe me? ask any black person in the state of Alabama about this amendment being voted against and NOT ONE will think its about education. When
a race of people has been suppressed like blacks and called degratory names for simply trying to live another life its sad.

Its even more sad that those who cannot open their eyes and see what this vote is all about.
Simply put, you have to be black (no offense to anyone, just speaking what I feel is the truth) to understand the ANGER, FRUSTRATION and CONFUSION. No other race will ever understand to live through that. That is why this vote hurts so much.

I'm not sure how long it's been since I've read a more insulting post. Insulting to black and white.


No....you're basing your truth on your opinion.

I'm sure the black population of Alabama would be grateful that you believe that 90% of them wouldn't be able to comprehend legislative language, but be swayed like sheep to the blaring, uninformed headlines in the media.
Or they must be proud that you think they must have a herd mentality and a group-think............sounds just like the race whores we are treated to in the media. You must conform and be assimilated, or you're an oreo, Uncle Tom, sellout, take your pick. Derogatory names indeed.


OK, done. Yes, I even have friends who are black.....though white people aren't supposed to say that. He saw the amendment for what it was, though he didn't even vote........I'm still working on him about that one.

I'm confused at how one can call an entire state racist.........aren't you saying that the black citizens are racist too? Considering there are quite a number of black legislators in the Democrat controlled House and Senate. Where does the notion come from that different people can't think differently about things? If I see the terminology in the bill that represents a higher rate of taxation, and control of that taxation taken out of the hands of voters......does that make me racist?

As I've said before, I agree with removing such language, but there are smart ways to do it, and there are manipulative, deceitful ways to do it. Unfortunately the people who claim the loudest to stand up for a race or a group are often the ones most deceived.

Not the entire state, just MOST white people in the South. You know why I know,
because its what most of us go through.
As I said in my previous post, you have to be BLACK to understand. There's a difference between having black friends and EXPERIENCING racism being BLACK. NO comparision.
My opinion comes from being BLACK because I know my people. Its really laughable that you believe all things I'm saying come from the media. (Can't wait to tell my friends that one). I know what its like because my family has been through many of these struggles. Do you honestly believe I need people like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or the so-called corporate media to tell me about blacks.

I said it before and I'll say it again, YOU HAVE TO BE BLACK TO UNDERSTAND!!

Really? I have to be BLACK to understand?

Well I am white and I understand. How can I say that? Because I lived in an 80% black neighborhood/city for ten years in Georgia. I experienced alot of racism, but I also know that the majority in the area where not racist. That's why I dont make blanket statements because of my personal experience stating that "most black people in GA are racist". I had alot of black friends, and alot of black people didnt like me because I was "the one white guy" on the wrestling team who could take down many of them in a heart beat (and did in some cases). Since everyone in Alabama is racist why is the constitution not enforced?

OK, we've established the fact that you're black, that you've stereotyped most of the south, and that since I'm white...I shouldn't obviously be allowed to have an opinion on the merits of the argument. It seems that I should simply defer judgement to you based on the notion that you have more pigmentation than I.

If the wording of the amendment contained no reference to taxation, I would agree that the defeat would be an indication of continued racism in the south. However, since we both, as logical adults, can see that there is said reference.....can you not wrap your head around the idea that I shouldn't have to pay taxes to make you feel better?

Because that would seem to be what you are arguing. I should sacrifice more of my money to remove language, that though offensive, has no tangible effect on anyone's life, and I should suck it up because I'm white and I surely wouldn't want to be viewed as a racist by the uninformed masses.

Well, who said everyone in Alabama is racist? Here is my quote:



Which is TRUE. You are also right that racism goes both ways. Now, try to understand why most black people are racist towards whites? It doesn't mean they aren't in the wrong, however there are obviously hard feelings that come from what their family and themselves have expreinced in their life due to racism. Again, two wrongs do not make a right.

Do you think I'm just making this stuff up? Man, this happens everyday to us around the country especially in the south where basically all my family lives. Come on man, there is nothing you can't tell me. You talk about growing up around a 80% black neighborhood?? OK, what does that prove. It sickens me that some people think all is well and the past is the past. You think black folks believe racism is dead in the South like states such as Alabama? PLEASE!!!!!!!

White folks compared to blacks have it A WHOLE LOT EASIER IN THIS COUNTRY.
Its the simple truth.

Uninformed masses. You know, to tell me I'm uninformed about the problems blacks go through today when I EXPERIENCED IT shows how out of touch most people are who feels this way.

Again, this is not about taxation. This is about removing segregated language from a state Constitution. We can debate about taxation some other time, lets remove the racist language from the law. You can debate the two issues separately. It sends a symbolic message to blacks in the state that they want to move on by removing the language. That is why I said you have to be Black to understand what I'm feeling here. Thats no offense to you or anybody else.

Its the emotions here I'm focused on because of the painful past and the hidden racism thats at work here. Let me make this clear: Not every white person in the South is a racist. But most are, I don't need paper evidence to prove that to you.

I guess I'll wade in on this.

I'm black, I've lived in Alabama my whole life, and I voted for the amendment.

That said I don't think anyone "has to be black to understand". DTOM has made a perfectly reasonable request for evidence to back up your assertion that most Southern whites (a group he happens to belong to, so you may see his reason for concern ) are racist.

I too would have to have evidence to believe that.

Why?
1. Because I do not claim to know the minds of the people in my state.
2. Because in all honesty I don't suspect most of the white people I know in Alabama are racist.

I have my doubts as to the validity of the concern over taxes from this bill, I don't know if that is the reason why most people voted against it...
but I do know that we are much more likely to find the truth if we research and provide evidence rather than making tenuous blanket assumptions.

I don't know what you are looking for in terms of evidence for experiecing racism especially if it exist in Alabama. If anything, the vote itself spoke LOUD and CLEAR at least to me. However, I respect your reasoning and why you feel the way you do. But I disagree with you on point number 2. Though, I wouldn't mind believing it.

You've pretty much summed up my point, probably inadvertently though. We could debate taxation another time, if it hadn't been inserted into the bill. And we can debate the two issues separately. The sponsor of the bill intentionally intertwined removal of racist language with taxation, for the primary purpose of slipping through legislation that wouldn't pass on its own merit. And yes, I think that anyone who can't at least consider the deceit of this action, but simply screams racism....is uninformed, or blinded.

And you are correct, it is a symbolic message to remove the language. I support that, but it is, at it's core, symbolic.

And I'm not specifically offended, (even with the old 'it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand' line), but I would question a possible double standard you may have, as would most people. And that is sweeping generalization based only on opinion. You can't possibly know the minds of even most whites in the south, and I would assume that you might take some offense at generalizations directed against blacks. My main point is can you not see how reasoned people would see this amendment for something more than the racist language?

And for clarification.......I'm in the south thanks to Uncle Sam, I'm actually from the flaming liberal state of Oregon.

I admit sometimes I may unintentionally apply double standards and thats not right. This subject is really personal for me it still emotional affects me and my families and friends lives. However, I'm all about treating people with respect regardless of race. With that said, I believe some need to understand why this issue is important to everyone. This country has an opportunity to make amends for past sins. Though I feel that vote was a setback, it was encouraging to see that it was close.

I also want to add that you are a great debater Dontreadonme. I'm impressed with your knowledge on the issues we discussed. We may disagree on some aspects, however I'm glad we understand that its important for the state to pass this amendment and let old wounds heal.

DTOM

I had a few questions for clarification. You state



I mean you propose that the good people of Alabama did some investigation and that they realized, unlike most of the steeple in America that this will raise taxes or could potentially raise taxes yet never explain exactly .... how. Many people seem to have jumped on this idea of "yeah, it's not racism!! It is because of taxes!!" Yet.... how?? I've read up and down the revisions in amendment 2... is it the fact that veterans would no longer would be exempt from poll tax that gives this idea of higher taxes credence?? You said poll taxes aren't an issue.

The state legislature can raise taxes without this amendment... Judges can't raise taxes... So what was it that the mass people were afraid of?? What is it that you say they researched??

Here is why it is racist ( I admit that we need to agree on on a definition of racism), or should I say "neo-racist" Here we have just the idea brought forward that taxes might be raised and it is enough to knock this amendment down. That kind of apathy to injustice say alot. You characterize it as "thinking with the brain, rather than the heart", but there is no direct or indirect evidence that by allowing this bill to pass, taxes would be raised. Talk about steeple!! "Your taxes may be raised if you allow this bill to pass"..... "Ahhhh!!! ya'll hear that? our taxes will be raised if we allow this!!" Yes, baaahhh indeed!! It seems to me it is racist because the sheer idea that there might be some inconvenience caused majority of the Alabamians to vote to keep racism IN the constitution.

DTOM
Just a hypothetical, you can answer it if you choose, but just something you should think of to truly see this. Do you think, if there was an unfounded CHANCE of a tax increase attached to an amendment to ban homosexual marriage, would that bill fail, in Alabama. That's why it is racism.

Well, I just might as well give up the facade and come clean. All of us whites who live in the south are flaming racists who get our news and opinion from Reverend Zebidiah 'Bubba' Clanton's Old Time Brimstone Gospel Hour (seating for whites only, of course). Don't get caught within the state lines after dark.......know you're place, and don't look sideways at our white women!

That's certainly the tenor of many mouthpieces around the country and sadly, some of our members here at AD.
Contrary to many people's opinion, here in Alabama, aside from indoor toilets, we also have a news media, advocacy and special interest groups and a public education system that at the very least, allows people to review legislative and judicial records.

Alabama has a recent and vocal history of standing up to oppressive taxation. I'm speaking of the type of taxation that is moved out of the sphere of control of the citizens, and for all intents and purposes, throws money at failing programs without reform and accountability procedures.

It is not a foregone conclusion that taxes would be raised under passage of Amendment 2. But it opens the door for it. And Alabama has another recent history of the door being propped open and all the critters and varmints from outside come right on in.
The first rule of public policy is to do no harm. The origin of the bill was housecleaning in nature, to simply remove racist language from the Alabama constitution. That was the case until Rep. Ken Guin (D-Carbon Hill) got ahold of it. He saw fit to add a third passage to the bill that included the issue of whether the state can create a right to public education that brings into question equity funding, separation of powers and philosophy of governance.

Why is this a potential problem? In 1991 Judge Reese (D-Montgomery), in a lawsuit known as Equity Funding, took over substantial portions of Alabama's education system, to the point of dictating toilet paper and office supply quantities. In the early 1990s, Judge Reese declared Alabama's education system was unconstitutional and ordered the state legislature to address the issue by whatever measures were necessary (tax increases, revenue shifts). Eventually the legislature adopted Equity Funding measures that took school tax monies from some school districts and gave them to other districts.

The Alabama Supreme Court intervened in early 2002 and dismissed the Equity Funding lawsuit. Two of the opinions ordering dismissal of the Equity Funding litigation specifically quoted and relied on the language Amendment 2 seeks to delete.
The two opinions cited above found the Equity Funding suit failed for lack of jurisdiction because there is no Constitutional right to an education for the trial court to enforce and because management of Alabama's education system is a matter for the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. Although spelled out differently, these two opinions quoted by chapter and verse, the language Amendment 2 seeks to delete.

So, instead of being racist.......why cannot the good citizens of Alabama take offense to the hijacking of a bill that would have removed said language, or take offense at the usurpation of control from the citizens to the judiciary?
Why isn't any of the above in the national media? You want to call Alabamians sheep, go ahead, but I would contend that they are more learned in the politics of their state than those that reside outside of it.
Amendment 2 was voted down as a change to the constitution. But the voters didn't kill it outright, they voted to send it back to the legislature in the hopes that they would remove the trojan horse and bring back a clear bill that eliminates the language, but isn't used as a vehicle for special interests.

Higher taxes and loss of control of the public education system might be an inconvenience to you Droop, but other people think differently, the people affected by this bill. There wasn't a large hue and cry from civil rights organization over the bill, at least not in comparison to the Alabama Education Association......Hmmmmm



Not only do I fail to see the analogy in your question, I have shown you above that it is more than a mere 'unfounded' chance of a tax increase, there has been a history of it.

DTOM

I thought this would be the case you brought up, in fact, I counted on it. You talk about the case that Judge Reese ruled on. What exactly was it the Judge ruled had to happen. That taxes must be raised??? IF that's what you believe, (which I don't think you do) you would be woefully wrong. The Judge said that education is a right to Alabama citizens, not only education but equitable education? Equity, no doubt, this is a word that sends conservatives over the edge, but what ever the case the judge did not demand that taxes be raised, nor did he take control of the legislative branch right to figure out how to get it done. People throw up taxes to put the, again sheeple, into a frenzy. You said yourself


Emphasis mine

Here are the reasons why I brought to attention things you said.

First, I just like the word equity, it has a nice ring to it, sort of reminds me of equal.

Second. The Judge ordered the legislature to to make schools equitable, by whatever means necessary. They, the legislature, could raise taxes or they could shift monies, just make the schools equal So, this is what the good people of Alabama were truly worried about. As long as... how did you say it....



But the fact that there was a possibility that this bill may have brought any tangible change that would cause equity was enough to make majority...very small majority, to vote against it. If they had researched then this is exactly what they would have found. A judge ordered the schools to be more equal, told the state legislature to fix it. How, was their chose!! So the judge did not raise taxes, which leads me to my third and fourth points.

Third, you say it in the paragraph "the legislature adopted Equity Funding measures" So where are the raised taxes that is such a sure thing?? And was it the judge or the legislature that made the changes?? You just said it was the legislature. And fourth, they took monies not just from school districts, but from more affluent districts to give to poorer district school, which does and does not(but not specifically or exclusively), relate to institutionalized racism.



But there have been no higher taxes or loss of control in the way you have portrayed. In Brown v. School Board the Courts ordered the desegregation of schools, one could argue by not allowing the state to keep schools segregated the legislature loss control, in a sense they would be right, but I wouldn't characterize it as school systems fell under the judiciary. The same goes for this case you bring up. The fact that a judge ordered that funds be spent in a manner that was equitable between all public schools in the state, does not mean that congress has lost control of the schools. There was no raising of taxes so that also was unfounded.



Don't you see what I am saying?? The door has always been open!!! The state legislature can always raise taxes a judge can not.



the only history you have shown is that a judge told congress to make schools equal, which was overturned because the state disgustingly, in my opinion, argued that no one has the RIGHT to education in the state of Alabama so the state didn't have to make schools equal. As to the "analogy", read it again, it is not an analogy. I wasn't really asking something cryptic, but simply an honest question. Like I said it could take the debate off topic so it wasn't necessary to answer. I will make clear the implication, the admittedly unproven, unresearched opinion of mines. I believe that the Alabamians given a similar situation likely the same ones that voted against this initiative would have voted for a bill with the chance of a tax increase that banned same sex marriage. Why is it relevant? When you speak about the people of Alabama thinking with their mind instead of their heart I laughed, because it was a nice way of saying "They're not going to take a chance of inconvenience when all that is at stake are the feelings of Black people" but had it been something like their feelings of bigotry toward gays, I believe they would have been overjoyed to get that bill passed. That was all I wanted you to ask yourself, would this vote have panned out the same way had this been a ban on homosexual marriage? If not, why?? It is very speculative, and so I won't debate it... it was just a question.

Lastly


Try to take it easy, I don't want you popping a blood vessel. relax smell the You've had a heated discussion with cgorham who was a bit impassioned. The Bill failed by a very small amount, I recognize that. But it did fail! Racism is so much more subtle than "I hate N____" That is old racism, and when looking at it from that point of view, I agree with you, it has pretty much died out to a small minority. But racism in the form of "if it ain't white, it ain't right" is still rampant. Like some conservatives point out they like Blacks, your Condaleeza's, Clarence Carters, oh let's not forget Larry Elder's of the world, you see many conservative whites find these people fine examples of people regardless of the color of their skin. So I don't view most Alabamians as racist in the old sense, it is racist because the reason why I believe the bill was shut down is because the only thing it resolved was derogatory language toward blacks, which was not an important enough issue to overcome the idea that taxes could be raised by making schools equal.

To pass the time until I have enough time to properly respond to your post, please answer the following question for me. When you say:


Whip out your checkbook and tell me how much you personally are willing to shell out to remove language that has no effect on anyone's life. It must be nice to be affluent enough that raising taxes is merely an 'inconvenience' to you, but surely you can see that some people take it a little more seriously when they have to give up even more money to fund a school that's not even in their county. Which in theory is where their local taxes are supposed to go. I guess we could extrapolate this out and Bostonians can start helping to fund Mississippi schools........

Of course, your point of view on the possible taxation is noted, but neither one of us is the know all-be all of this issue.....so I have to assume you can at least SEE the other side of this issue?

Tell me please, what would change for Alabama blacks if the amendment had passed, vice how their lives are now?

And.......why in the world would the ever so tolerant Democrats in Alabama who, in sheeple terms, care more for the plight of blacks than conservatives, saddle the bill with additional langauge that almost guaranteed non-passage?

And actually cgorham and I had reached a mutual, friendly standoff, and realized that we both want the same goal, its the route to it that we differ on.

Here is my problem of how you are debating. At one point in a post you will admit that there is guarantee that there would be a tax increase, yet in another point in the same post you will take an opinion along the lines" "Why should people have to pay more taxes on this bill" not in those exact words, but in a similar. If there is no evidence that by passing this bill will raise taxes, then how can the people have been thinking "This bill would raise taxes!!"



Yes and no People fall in different categories and I don't want to overgeneralize too much, but I'll name three categories I think they fell into

Either

A. They were genuinely old school racists, (small minority)

B. They actually researched the issue an thought hey I don't want vote to take out unenforced racist language at the chance equity in public schools may be established.

or- C They actually believed that allowing this bill to pass would directly cause their taxes to increase, which would make them the exact sheeple you say they are not. Why, because the bill would not have raised taxes!!

I don't know what their view were, but I do know the mere idea of taxes was enough to derail an Amendment that would have removed racist language.



I'm not saying Cgorham was right, but maybe he was when he said you would understand if you were Black. I think you can understand if you let down your defense. Belief. The idea that progress was being made. The belief that equality is possible. So many intangibles within the mind that it is hard to put down in writing what the change would be per individual. And in all fairness, some probably wouldn't care at all. You are absolutely right, that in terms of tangibles nothing would change. But if you think outside the tangibles, I'm sure you can see, if you choose, how it would feel that the language was removed, and how it hurt many Blacks to see the language was not.



I think you were right earlier. I think it put some teeth in a symbolic bill due to the Equitable Funding case. The amendment mostly dealt with school and making them equal. The line about education not being a right was what the Alabama supreme court used to overturn the judge that ruled that public schools. But that goes to a different comment you made



Good for another debate I would say. If at the root of everything is education, should education be equitable for us to truly be equal??

Like I said whole new debate.

Back to this debate. Even if people were using this line of reasoning that they voted against this bill, you have to show how it would raise taxes. Right??

Sheeple are everywhere (BTW, DTOM -- good word). And sheeple can be lead to believe a great many things. Sheeple outside of Alabama can be lead by news sources to believe that Alabamians are racist based on the outcome of the vote on an amendment, the implications and intricacies of which were not reported on. Sheeple in Alabama can be lead to think "this amendment will raise my taxes", when really what it does is open up the possibility that a tax increase might happen -- but people tend to throw out "might"s and "if"s when they hear them and what they hear is "this is going to happen." Either way, droop, you could be correct that people didn't extensively research the legislation, but the "tax issue" was well-known to voters of the state -- in true sheeple fashion -- incomplete and simplified for the masses, but known.

So, if the question is then because the tax issue was so well-known to the voters, I would say it was because taxation clouded the issue, and that it cannot be concluded that Alabama is a state of racists.

I think it is a little insensitive to characterize this issue as something that will have no effect on anyone's life. Where I a black resident of Alabama it would mean something real to me if there were discriminatory language against me left in my constitution.


Amendment Two hangs in limbo

This language is a little confusing but I think it does say something about the Alabama voting public that this measure didn't pass as is. I find it confusing to think that education is a privilege and not a right in the sense that I expected that all American children in this day and age were required by law to get an education. These are decisions by the Alabama judicial system and if it is similar to the issues of education going on today here in Tennessee, the issue is providing closer to equal levels of education spending throughout the state. If I still lived in Alabama I definitely would have voted for this issue.

As far as Alabama being a racist state, well that is obviously a blanket statement. But I will say this, I have lived in many places in this country and racism is an issue everywhere, but nowhere (GA< AZ< CA< TX< TN< DE< NJ< MA< PA) have the race problems been as overt and as pervasive as they were when iI lived in Alabama (1994-1999) I think many people in the state happily voted against this Amendment because they had the issue of the threat of "activist judges" and possible taxes to use as an excuse.

I will say, that Alabama voters will show up en masse to vote against any tax at any time for any reason. So they are anti-tax as was evidenced by a vote that went against a tax reform that was proposed by a republican governor to try to make a less regressive system and one that would help bring Alabama's education system out from the bottom of the pile.

I think in the end the stereotypes will prevail. This issue is more complicated than it appears on face value, but those that want to brand Alabama as a bastion of bigotry will do so

Alabamans uphold bigoted amendment; recount underway

And Alabamans will read articles about the Declaration of Independence being banned in CA and wonder about how the wild-eyed liberal media always misunderstands their fair state so.

I've re-read all of my posts in this thread, and nowhere did I ever state that the bill would guarantee a tax increase. I have stated my opinion and the opinion of many voters, interest groups and ALABAMIANS. Those who would be affected by any legislation. I have introduced background, evidence and statements that would certainly lead some voters to believe that the bill, as voted on, was hijacked from it's original intent, and could lead to higher taxes and monkeying with the school system. (One that is admittedly broke, but never do we see a serious attempt to reform it. The AEA won't stand for that)
You, Droop, have done a fair job at refuting what the bill may or may not say. But at the end of the day, your assertion that the bill was voted down because of racism, is backed up only by your opinion. You and I obviously differ in the possible ramifications that the bill, if it had passed, would bring to the state.
And I don't mean to sound like the 'Chairman of the "Vote NO on 2" Committee'. I just despise blanket, unfounded charges of racism, directed against an entire state by people who don't even live in that state. I posted what I had, to bring to light what isn't in the mainstream media - that there may be reasons that people voted against the amendment.

For both Droop and Eeyore......I get the 'it's a black thing, I wouldn't understand'. And I have said repeatedly that I support taking that language out. But since I'm not black, I have two choices: I can take black peoples word on every issue that concerns them, with no rational thought of my own, simply because 'how could I possibly understand?'
Or, I can take a reasoned look at a subject....weigh the realistic effects on the quality of life for ALL citizens, and reach my own informed conclusion. I believe I have done the latter.
That leaves me with this question: In either Alabama or the rest of the nation, as they continue charges of racism, why is nobody taking to task the Democratic legislators that allowed a well-meaning bill to be addled with confusing and basically unrelated language? Certainly if racism was prevalent in the state of Alabama, those congress men and women would know this, and thus have used this bill for nefarious purposes. Essentially wasting the citizens time and taxpayer money.
I think if I were black, I may just be torqued at the people who claim to represent me the most, because they wasted a chance to remove this offensive language.

And Eeyore certainly has a point, there are many here in this state that will vote for or against something simply in an effort not to pay more taxes. After seeing how tax money is (mis)used in this state, much of my sympathy lies with them.


Yes, I can see that it could be insensitive. But I didn't want to sugarcoat what I feel is reality. The language has no tangible effect on anyone's life, black or white. Since I'm not black, and can't really know how it would make me feel, I am left with looking at it rationally. I don't think I'm in the wrong for that, I think it's normal behavior for anyone who is debating a point.

Pallas, as always you're dead on. I didn't mean to imply that all 'no' voters are MENSA members, who really studied the bill and are all model citizens, but I know you know that they are being portrayed in many arenas as backward, racist hicks.

Pallas Athens

Sheeple... the implication of following without thinking for ourselves. I would have to say every human being is a sheeple in some way or another, I just happen to find that people in the red states are much better at it. That was a joke, I think it's true.... but a joke nonetheless. So what you say rings true to me for the most part. Now at the heart you believe it was a tax issue that clouded the subject... but why was a tax issue able to cloud the issue with such ease, and no evidence?? At the heart of that question is where I see racism or like I say "neo-racism" But it takes this debate too far off of topic, but at the same time I can see that it is the lack of an operational definition that may be causing us to argue in circles, because when you think racism you may be thinking of "hatred" for blacks, and when I think of it I am thinking more along the lines of "disregard" for Blacks and other races. Kind of like we're just visitors in this country, what right do we have to ask for racist language to be remove at the cost of them. Now here is what makes me feel it is racist, I'll throw out another hypothetical. But before we can do that I have to make an assumption. Now, this is detrimental to good debating so I will ask if you can first accept this assumption then i will continue with my logic. Here is my assumption:

Majority of the votes against the amendment came from White conservatives.

Now, this is not to say that only whites voted against, nor am I saying that no whites voted for the amendment, nor am I suggesting that no Blacks voted against or liberals voted against. I am trying to avoid making broad generalizations, as well I am trying to make a point bases on recognizing a pattern of conservative groups.

Now if you can agree with this assumption please read on.

If there was Amendment to ban abortion, I am forced to ask myself how many people out of the group that voted against the Amendment would vote for a ban on abortion, I believe majority of the group would. Again an assumption, but based on the fact that Pro-life people are overwhelmingly conservative. But surely Conservative can see that making women carry babies to term could be more expensive to the State, right? This would mean the need for more revenue, eventually. But I do not doubt that would be enough to stop a conservative who felt abortion wrong from voting for an amendment on to ban abortion.

Now if you disagree with any of my assertions, let me know, but I am trying to show you how my thought pattern is working and why I pose this question about an irrelevant subject of abortion. I have to believe that there is a pattern. That regardless of what bill was put in front of them these people would have voted down the bill had there been the possibility it could touch their wallets or purses. Why?? Because without this consistency I have to ask why were they able to be so easily persuaded to vote against a Bill that at its heart everyone here at AD agrees was morally right. Why did money change their vote?? Well if it is the fact that they love their money and simply hate anything that might cause more of it to leave their pockets, than I understand...nothing racist about it. However we can't honestly say that conservative aren't willing to spend big money can we?? War in Iraq??? Who supports it most?? White conservatives!! So what the pattern shows is that if the issue matters, there is no problem paying money.

Let's bring this back to the issue.

At issue isn't the war or gays or abortion. At issue is Blacks and the racial language within the Alabama Constitution. but conservatives don't mind or are at least are willing paying taxes when it matters to them. So does making a "symbolic " gesture by ridding their constitution of of this racially charged language matter. Do Blacks matter enough?? The answer to me is in that vote. Conservatives constantly tout their moral clarity, so why did the thought of taxes throw the bill into a tailspin?? Because it does not matter... not that much... because Blacks don't matter that much!! And this is the racism of today. If when the word racism is thrown out, we start to look for negroes hanging in trees like coconuts, we can all breathe a sigh of relief because that kind of racism does not exist, except on rare occasion. As I said before it is much more subtle now. It comes in the form of empathy. "I could give a damn less about you, your race, your plight, your struggle... don't ask me to empathize, sympathize or relate.... cry me a river...!!" That's how racism works today. The Amendment, well it was a novel idea indeed... as long as it was only symbolic.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DTOM



Initially I was wondering what the hell you were talking about, but I see that the mistake was definitely my fault.

The statement:



It should read:

At one point in a post you will admit that there is no guarantee that there would be a tax increase

My point was to contrast the two views I would see within the same post of yours. There is no guarantee of higher taxes yet everyone is supposedly voting against the bill because of taxes. Essentially, my bad on the proof read... not that i usually do



No, I don't think you do. Being Black forces a Black to understand racism to some degree or another. You not being Black does not really mean you CAN'T understand or relate, it just means you have a choice in the matter. Saying that, you can't relate if you choose not to, but if you want to you can understand. You admittedly have Black friends, which I believe it to be true you serving in the military. You say you grew up in an area that was predominantly Black, so it's not like you haven't been exposed to Blacks. And even if you hadn't it wouldn't matter. In the end it is like I asked Pallas "Do Blacks matter?" Do the struggles of Blacks matter enough to expend the mental energy to understand?? If so understanding is but a Army or childhood friend away for you. If it does not matter, because it does not affect you like, say.... taxes, then I guess you can't understand. Maybe we should characterize it as will/won't instead of can/can't.

Just started reading this thread...a few points:

1) Someone asked "If Ala. is so racist why isn't the amendment enforced (as is)". Well, because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it's not constitutional. So, it has nothing to do with attitudes in Ala. as to why it's not enforced.

2) I have a feeling that fear of those dreaded 'taxes' probably did give a lot of folks a reason to vote against something they wanted to vote against anyway and now they had a rationalization. Bigger question is: given Ala.'s miserable showing of educational achievement (use any measure you want) why are people so opposed to spending any money on education?

3) I have only spent a little time in Ala., but, have spent much time in Miss. Claims that racism isn't prevalent there are truly bogus. It's not on the surface like it used to be, but, you only have to spend time in groups of all white people to see how common it still is. I'm dubious that it's any different in Ala...

4) I agree with the person who said you 'have to be black' to really understand. I'm a lawyer, before I began to practice law I thought I was pretty tuned into what it must be like to be black in this country. Since then I've learned that I might as well have grown up on Mars when it comes to understanding what its really like. Here's one anecdote from years ago that tells the story: I was assigned a client by the court for a minor charge and interviewed the client outside the courtroom, he was a black man about 45 years old. Went through all my usual questions...how old, born where, employed, etc., then got to the 'have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense'...answer came back a sharp "NO", then asked 'have you ever been arrested'? The middle aged black man looked up at me like I really was from Mars and said that he was 45 years old, black and had lived in Baltimore all his life and .... "OF COURSE, he'd been arrested, every black man his age had been arrested" ... for something at some time or other. That's the difference, unless you've lived it you really don't know what its like.

My question is this .. fair enough .. the vote against the amendment dealt with a tax issue so there were votes against it.

But then I have to ask .. in the year 2000 (just 4 years ago) in Alabama .. there was 49.9% to 50% vote split over removal of interracial marriage ban language in the constitution. The ban on interracial marriage was lifted by a margin of just 1,900 votes. That's a pretty close vote.

Was there a similar tax rider on that particular amendment as well? I saw none.

Now I understand that the ban on interracial marriages is not enforced .. but why would a non racist person from Alabama possibly want that language in their constitution? Why would anyone want something abhorrent that doesnt stand for their values in the constitution of their state ? Sorry i dont buy the false "historical reasons" argument .. Alabama doesn't seem to have a problem amending other parts of the consitution .. and history books arent going away any time soon. history is to be taught in schools not by referring to current law.

So, my sad conclusion is that racism is alive and well in Alabama.

I was unable to find out the racial split of that interracial mariage ban vote (as in, did a comparable percentage of blacks vote for the amendment as whites?)

Some would say it's a no brainer that blacks would vote for the amendment .. but I have to say that I disagree .. though it's likely a vast majority of blacks would be in favor of the amendment. Unfortunately I couldnt find the polling data.
Unfortunately racism exists in both whites and in blacks (though arguably less?). Racism is a problem that needs to be fixed. ASAP.

Yes there is, I'm 14 and I know there is , in my english class we recently started in on the Civil Rights Movement and were discussing this particular thing. During one of our debates around 12 or 13 of these 14 year olds kids openly stated that they belived that there was nothing wrong with the with the constituion of alabama. I know that out of a class of 23 8th graders that about half of them openly stating that there was nothing wrong shows a problem in the way these kids have been brought up. I live in Utah, and the majority(about 95%) of these kids are all LDS(Mormen). I was wondering why even though the LDS Church was discrimnated agaisnt, that maybe they are having an effect on these childrens and possibly many others in the LDS religion. Does anyone have an opinion and could you give me ideas on diffrent gropus of people who been discrimnated through out America's history?

The taxation issue clouded the issue.

There is plenty of evidence of racism to be found but not where you are looking for it. Racism exists in two form in the US in 2005, (1) the fringe who have no pull in our society and who are essentially outcasts in spite of their periodic acts of violence and (2) the socially accepted and institutional racism such as "affirmative action", "acrocentric schools", race based organizations such as the NAACP, and similar self imposed segregationist/seperatist movements.

I believe you are mistaken here.From:

Marital Color Line
by Randall Kennedy

The missing piece of your argument is the demographic of the 40% of "Alabama electorate" that had a problem with "inter-racial" marriage, which is a concept, by the way, that I think doesn't exist. Humans are the most biologically closely related of any species on earth. You can't transplant a liver from a beagle into a lab, but you sure as heck can from an "aborigine" to a "Wasp" from Long Island. What we call "race" is the most overblown concept on the planet. Racial differences are human adaptations to climate, period. The quicker we learn this as a human family, the less problems we'll have.

I suspect that the demographic of this 40% cuts multiple ways. Racism is most common these days in people not recognized as being 'white". That's sad but true.

Considering the amendment did much better in areas with a higher black population it is safe to assume whites were less supportive of the measure than blacks.

Much better? Do you have specifics to back up that assertion? Frankly, I suspect that the numbers were pretty even from a percentage perspective. Racism cuts both ways these days. The problem is that white racism is not accepted socially by nearly every segment of society except the lunatic fringe. Black racism, in contrast, is accepted and has an army of apologists defending it daily.

Both have to be stopped in order for progress to occur.