4A
EDITORIAL AND OPINION/C^rlotte ^ojctt
Thursday, November 2,2006
Watt
CI)e CI)arIotte
The Voice of the Black Community
1531 Camden Road Charlotte. N.C. 28203
Gerald O. Johnson ceo/publisher
Robert L Johnson co-publisher/general manager
Herbert L White editor in chief
EDITORIALS
Endorsements
in the interest
of constituents
From Charlotte to Washington,
races will shape public policy
The Nov. 7 elections won’t determine the next president or
U.S. senator finm North Carolina. There’s no hot-button refer
endum to consider or polarize voters. Yet, Tuesday’s balloting
will help determine the balance of Congress in Washington and
the General Assembly in Raleigh. Ballots will also determine
the makeup of state judgeships on the N.C. Supreme Court as
well as the Court of Appeals.
Below are The Post’s endorsements, which we feel will best
represent Charlotte, Mecklenburg Coxmty and North Carolina:
U.S. House of Representatives, District’.8
Larry Kissell is a first-time congressional candidate, but he
has shown a willingness to listen to constituents and protect
the interest of the 8th, which includes urban Charlotte east to
rural areas near the Sandhills. The district has its share of
challenges, including the dying textQe industry and job loss,
but we feel Mr. Kissell would provide the kind of leadership
necessary to boost the district’s economic standing.
U.S. House of Representatives, District 9
Sue Myrick is best known these days as a crusader for immi
gration reform, but the six-term Republican representative has
shown more willingness to go against the GOP grain at times,
a refi-eshing change from her more partisan days.
U.S. House of Representatives, District 12
Mel Walt is the most liberal member of the N.C. delegation
and as chair of the Congressional Black Caucus has emerged
as a national figure on issues of interest to cities
and underserved populations. His opponent. Dr.
Ada Fisher of Salisbury, is a feisty campaigner
with some good ideas, but we feel Mr. Watt is a
better match for the 12th.
N.C. Senate, District 40
Malcolm Graham has proven to be a consci
entious representative who brings energy to the
job. We feel his growth wfil prove to be an asset
to not only his district, but the Charlotte region.
N.C. House of Representatives, District 100
Jim Black has been besieged by bad news with several asso
ciates either convicted or indicted for serious misdeeds related
to creation of the N.C. lottery. But Black, speaker of the N.C.
House, hasn’t been indicted or convicted of anjdhing. Until that
happens, the Matthews Democrat deserves the benefit of
doubt.
N.C. House of Repr^entatives, District
103
Jim Gulley
N.C. House of Representatives, District
104
Former Mecklenburg Coimty commissioner
Rulh Samuelson has shown an astute knowl
edge of issues and needs of her district and flex
ibility to develop working consensus with others.
We believe she’ll do the same in Raleigh.
Mecklenburg coxinty commissioners at lai^e
Incumbents Wllhelmenia Rembert, Jennifer Roberts and
Parks Helms stuck to their 2004 pledge to beef up funding for
public schools and social services. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Schools is just starting to tackle its most pressing needs, which
require smartly-crafted outlays of public funds. These incum
bents delivered what was asked of them two years ago, and
deserve the opportunity to continue.
Mecklenbui^ county commissioners District 2
Norman Mitchell
Mecklenburg county commissioners District 4
Dumont Clarke
Mecklenburg County sheriff
Jim Pendergraph has handled the difficult task of managing
an increasingly crowded jail system as weU as implementing a
program to identify illegal immigrants who are brought to cus
tody. Mr. Pendergraph has sounded the alarm for more pro
grams and jail space , and we feel he’s been an excellent stew
ard of law enforcement.
N.C. Supreme Court chief justice
Sarah Parker of Charlotte is the first woman to be named
chief justice and this publication is of the opinion that she will
continue to do a fine job of leading the panel.
N.C. Supreme Court associate'justice (1)
Mark D.Marfin
N.C. Supreme Court associate justice (2)
Patricia Timmons-Goodson of Fayetteville is the only
African American on the state’s highest court, but she also has
a breadth and depth of experience we feel would
further the cause of justice in North Carohna.
For a state that is 20 percent black, not having
an Afncan American on the bench not only robs
the state of a different point of view, it does little
to address the need for equal justice under the
law. Gov. Mike Easley was wise to appoint the
former prosecutor to the position, and the state’s
voters should follow suit.
N.C. Supreme Court associate justice (3)
Robin Hudson
N.C. Court of Appeals judge (1)
Bob Hunter
N.C. Court of Appeals judge (2)
Linda Stephens
N.C. Superior Court (26B)
Richard Boner
N.C. District Court judge 26th District (2)
Tim Smith
Samuelson
FoRmXKJW«rt .
fWLVERfWtW-
Ward Connerly: Weapon of distortion
After Proposition 209, the
anti-affirmative action ballot
initiative passed in
'California, the number of
African-Americans enrolled
in public universities dropped
to about half of its previous
levels.
There was also a dramatic
decline in the number of gov
ernment contracts issued to
people of color and women as
a result of the ban on consid
ering one’s race, gender or
ethnic origin
along with
other factors
when evaluat
ing qualified
applicants.
Now, Ward
Connerly, the
chief architect
of Prop 209, is
leading another
crusade in Michigan to repli
cate what he did in California
and the state of Washington.
And like those previous cam
paigns, he is proving again
that he will go to any length
to distort the definition and
benefits of affirmative action.
Let’s start with the defini
tion of affirmative action. The
U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights defines it as a contem
porary term that encompass
es any measure, beyond sim
ple termination of a discrimi
natory practice, which per
mits the consideration of
race, national origin, sex and
disability, along with other
criteria, and which is adopted
to provide opportunities to a
class of qualified individuals
who have either historically
or actually been denied those
opportunities, and to prevent
the reoccurrence of discrimi
nation in the future.
Admittedly, that’s a long
definition, but it is a clear one
that strips the debate of
inflammatoiy buzz words cal
culated to turn the public
against affirmative action.
That’s why it was misleading
for President Bush, in
annoimcing his opposition to
the two University of
Michigan cases that found
their way to the U.S.
Supreme Court, to character
ize them as “quota” pro
grams. In fact. Executive
Order 11246 specifically for
bids quotas. So, it should not
even be part of the debate.
The point should not be lost
that even though the
Supreme Court struck down
Michigan’s numbers-oriented
undergraduate admission,
the Republican-dominated
court upheld the concept of
affirmative action and
approved of the University of
Michigan’s Law School
approach to affirmative
action. But you’d never know
that judging by the com
ments of President Bush,
Ward Connerly or their right-
wing allies.
Not surprisingly, Connerly
has linked up with Jennifer
Gratz, the lead plaintiffin the
Michigan undergraduate
suit, as they campaign in sup
port of Proposal 2, which will
be on Tuesday’s ballot. In rail
ing against affirmative
action, Connerly and Gratz
have become weapons of
mass distortion.
They consistently portray
the Michigan undergraduate
admissions process as being
race-based. Of course, affir
mative action has never been
only for Afncan-Americans.
As the official definition
makes clear, it seeks to bene
fit women, the disabled,
immigrants and people of
color. More important, unlike
alumni preference programs,
it seeks to benefit only those
who are qualified for college
enrollment, government con
tracts and employment.
Even the University of
Michigan program struck
down by the Supreme Court
was not race-based, though
one might not know it from
media coverage of the issue.
Nor has the, cause been
helped by news media’s will
ing use of “preferences” and
other loaded language that
obfuscates the real issue.
A guide used by the
University of Michigan at the
time presents a clearer view
of the admissions process.
Yes, Afncan-Americans could
get 20 points toward admis
sions. But that was only part
of the story. Twenty points
were also awarded to any dis
advantaged student, regard
less of his or her color. Thus, a
disadvantaged white appli
cant could get the same num
ber of points as the black
applicant.
Scholarship athletes were
automatically awarded 20
points under the plan. The
provost could award a discre
tionary 20 points as well. Yet,
the undergraduate admis
sions pn)gram was portrayed
as being race-based when
nothing could be further from
the truth.
But Ward Connerly is not
interested in the truth. He
doesn’t even like to admit
that before he became an
opponent of affirmative
action, he personally benefit
ed from a California set-aside
program. In fact, in the
1970s, Connerly &
Associates, a housing and
community development con
sulting firm, which he owns
with his wife, who is white,
received more than $1 nullion
in state business after he
signed up as a minority con
tractor. Of course, he is not
the only black Republican to
ride the affirmative action
train, only to jump off after
the/ve reached their desired
destination.
Supreme Court Justice
Clarence Thomas and HUD
Secretary Alphonso Jackson
followed similar paths.
But affirmative action is
not about Ward Connerly,
Clarence Thomas or A1
Jackson, though they clearly
benefited fi’om it. It’s about
opening up the doors of
opportunity to all, not just a
select group.
GEORGE E. CURRY is editor-
in-chief of the National
Newspaper Publishers
Association News Service and
BlackPressUSA.com.
North Korea has reasons to be concerned
I offer another take on the
North Korean nuclear situa
tion. The day of the
announcement of North
Korea’s first nuclear test, a
specialist on North Korea
was inter
viewed on a
Public
Broadcasting
System televi
sion program.
The gentleman
said that he
had visited
North Korea
immediately
prior to the illegal U.S. inva
sion of Iraq. In the course of a
conversation with a North
Korean official he was told by
the North Korean: ‘We see
what you are about to do in
Iraq and we will not let you
do it to us.”
The statement by the North
Korean official confirmed a
conclusion that I had come to
about the Iraq crisis.
Contrary to everything that
President Bush stated about
showing force in order to stop
the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq sent a very
different, but quite simple
message: obtain weapons of
mass destruction as quickly
and quietly as you can in
order to discourage big pow
ers from pushing you around.
In the U.S. media the North
Korean crisis has focused on
the alleged madness of the
current leadership of the
Democratic People’s Republic
of Korea. That is both specu
lative and fundamentally
irrelevant. The U.S., contrary
to what many of us may
believe, was the first power to
introduce nuclear weapons
onto the Korean peninsula.
These weapons were intro
duced back in the
1950s/1960s and were
allegedly tactical, but they
were stiU powerful enough to
make one glow in the dark.
The reported paranoia of the
North Korean government
could certainly have a bit to
do with having ejqjerienced
nuclear weapons pointed at
them.
Have the North Koreans
been sneaky? I suppose the
conclusion is “yes,” but here’s
the interesting point: so have
been both the Indians and
Israehs. While North Korea
did sign the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation TYeaty (later to
drop out of it), India and
Israel both possess nuclear
weapons and neither of them
are signatories to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty
(indeed, Israel will not admit
to having weapons of mass
destruction even though the
South Africans blew the
whistle on them some time
ago). Yet, the Bush adminis
tration seems to find a way to
play paddy-cake with them.
What sort of signal is the
Bush administration convey
ing when they rewar'd coim-
tries that have not signed the
NNPT?
It is also a bit odd that after
North Korea exploded its
nuclear device, countries that
possess nuclear weapons and
have taken few, if any, steps
to de-nuclear-ize (something
that is supposed to take place
imder the provisions of the
NNPT) started yelling about
another country possessing
nuclear weapons. Perhaps if
there was an example of
major nuclear powers elimi
nating nuclear weapons the
protests against the North
Korean test would be a bit
more credible.
The North Koreans have
alftiost literally begged the
United States for one-on-one
talks. The Bush administra
tion refuses to talk with them
unless there are six party dis
cussions (involving China,
Russia, South Korea and
Japan). The North Koreans
have been insisting on direct
talks with the U.S.A. because
they are extremely fearful
that the U.S. is going to
attack them. Paranoid?
With the US contemplating
the construction of a new gen
eration of allegedly tactical
nuclear weapons and imply
ing (or stating outright) that
they could be used against
North Korea, and with the
example of the illegal inva
sion of Iraq, why should this
be surprising?
Should North Korea pos
sess a nuclear weapon? The
short answer is, in my opin
ion, “no.” The entire Korean
peninsula should be free and
clear of nuclear weapons.
That said, we in the USA
have to imder^tand that oiu
government speaks with
forked tongue when it comes
to nuclear weapons.
President Bush wants to
decide who can have and not
have weapons of mass
destruction, and then threat
ens war against those he has
chosen as the undesirables.
Such an approach lacks any
maturity, not to mention com
mon sense. Backed up
against a wall, any oppo
nent-legitimate or illegiti
mate—in seeing no way out
will decide to maximize their
ability to hit back. The con
sequences can be catastroph
ic.
BILL FLETCHER is a labor
and international writer and
activist. He is a visiting professor
at Brooklyn College-CUNY.