At a state Senate hearing on California’s efforts to cut emissions and shadowbox global warming, an African-American Sacramento preacher was pushing for participation in this process by minority spokespeople – because they will have the most trouble bearing the higher energy costs associated with going green.
He got an earful from Democratic Sen. Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa…
She’s since apologized, shockingly…
You stay classy Sacramento.
Though I can’t say that his argument is total bullshit, the poor in general, not just poor minorities will be the ones most impacted by foolish attempts at gaming the earths climate. The “senator” was out of line in her comment, and instead of the other one covering for her, she should have called her out on it publicly.
I’m not sure what’s more arrogant – the presumption that if you are of a particular ethic group, you need a “spokesperson†or that such a “spokesperson†is almost always self-appointed.
And Pastor Jones is shown exactly what loyalty to the Democratic Party gets those who aren’t of the latte-sipping, Prius-driving ruling class.
And Gabriel, his argument isn’t out of line at all. Anything that affects the costs of manufacturing, transportation, and distribution hits the poor harder proportionately than anyone else. A Democratic Party that was truly a party of the poor and the working class wouldn’t lose sight of that fact.
Gee, I wish I was a Democrat representative, and could tell an advocate exactly what I thought of his attempts to mitigate the damage that my party intended to impose upon his community. My bad. I thought that only evil, heartless Republicans could speak like that in public spaces.
_I’m not sure what’s more arrogant – the presumption that if you are of a particular ethic group, you need a “spokesperson†or that such a “spokesperson†is almost always self-appointed._
What’s actually more arrogant is the belief that a person of a particular group is a spokesman because of that ethnic group, or that it was needed at not motivated by realistic facts and a person concerned, willing and able(connected enough, or loud enough) to say it.
But don’t let that stop you. Do you think you could follow up, and find out how he was able to speak? Nahhh. Let’s just insult him. Good work at that!
Maybe I went to a different school than most posters, but I saw a preacher from Sacramento suggesting that they take into account his particular congregation.
There’s nothing wrong with this.
#2 from Thorley Winston at 8:49 pm on Aug 11, 2008
_I’m not sure what’s more arrogant – the presumption that if you are of a particular ethic group, you need a “spokesperson†or that such a “spokesperson†is almost always self-appointed._
You are, of course, referring to the white woman, who, by the way, doesn’t speak for me. How about you?
I will have to point out that not all ‘minorities’ are poor.
Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Iranians, etc. are wealthier than whites. And California has a sizable number of each.
Well let’s see, pretty much every media reporting of the incident said that that the good reverend was there as a “minority spokesperson.†And the chairwoman of the committee responded to his suggestion that they needed to have people from the “community†weigh in by pointing that they had included representatives from the “Black Chamber†and the “Hispanic Chamber†to weigh in on the proposal.
I get though why some on the AGW-skepticism side of the issue think that this is just about the fact that any policy that increases the costs of energy, transportation and manufacturing is going to have a disproportionate impact on lower income people.
I don’t think that’s why the guy was here though and neither apparently did the reporters who covered the event nor the chair of the committee. He was there because we have gotten to the point where our government cannot even examine an issue like AGW without the legitimacy of the proposed policy being questioned for a failure of policy makers to supplicate themselves before the god(dess) of Identity Politics by including a representative or “spokes person†for every potentially aggrieved ethnic group.
Bulls**t indeed.
Uh, Thorley, I’m kinda puzzled here. You’re saying that someone who is a member (and leader as a pastor, given the cultural norms) of a group that’s going to be harmed by proposed regulation has no right to speak out? You really don’t like the whole “interest group liberalism” thing do you?
A.L.
#9 from Thorley Winston at 10:00 pm on Aug 12, 2008
Thorley, I think you are a bit overwrought here. I am an Irishman by heritage and the way I was brought up is that you built machine politics so you made sure that your “community” had a say in what was going on.
So, from my point of view this is how the system is supposed to work. You stand up for yourself and you certainly don’t trust any politician to look after your inerests.
Quite frankly, This nobody does not have any right to say “bullshit” to any citizen. She got elected, so what. that means she works for the guy she insulted. I don’t think that politicians should forget that even for a second. She was offensive and anybody has the right to give their opinion to anyone in office.
I can’t for the life of me understand what make you so apolectic conCerning this guy stating his opinion.
_Well let’s see, pretty much every media reporting of the incident said that that the good reverend was there as a “minority spokesperson.â€_
Funny, AL’s link didn’t say that. No where where I’ve seen this story has it. Multiple other news reports do not have it either. Surely, since you’ve quoted it multiple times, you have a credible major journalism outlet which has said this?
Here’s a news report about it “as well”:http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=60702
_He was there because we have gotten to the point where our government cannot even examine an issue like AGW without the legitimacy of the proposed policy being questioned for a failure of policy makers to supplicate themselves before the god(dess) of Identity Politics by including a representative or “spokes person†for every potentially aggrieved ethnic group._
The Knights of Columbus are sad, as is the Ancient Order of Hibernians. AIPAC needs to be warned!
A “thoughtful legislator” who wants to cut emissions
in California should work to close the border, and enforce the basic laws citizen motor vehicle owners here must obey.
Oh, and stopping the anchor-baby automatic citizenship would go a long way toward salvaging California.
Jump ugly – you know it’s true.
Maybe I’m too cynical, but what I heard in the “spokesman’s” somewhat rambling and repetitive statement was not so much a plea that the legislators consider the impact on the poor before they passed some kind of crazed knee-jerk AGW law, as a suggestion that they lard it with financial concessions to the “community.” So for me, yes, this was interest-group pork-barrel politicking at its least attractive.
Yegad….where did you hear all of that? I heard a community leader (who did not mention color) but by tradition would be considered a leader of his congregation, veeeery politely ask the politicians to be cognizant of the concerns of the common people when they look for ways to serve the concerns of all. The lady was just plain rude in response. And she assumed he was referring to color. What a shame.
I wish I could have taken it that way, and it’s true that the spokesman was not speaking very clearly. Maybe he was being extraordinarily polite, as you suggest. But seriously, do you listen to this clip and take away the impression that his message was, “Maybe you shouldn’t pass this bill, because it will visit unpleasant consequences on vulnerable people that are all out of proportion with its probable benefits?” In other words, “Please vote no”? Or do you hear, “I understand you’re going to pass this law anyway, and I don’t really mind as long as you throw some pork my way”? The chairwoman’s response was shockingly rude, but her underlying message was, “I gave at the office. Back off.” I found that refreshing, and only wished she had found a better way to express herself.
Maybe what I’m reacting to is the persistent use of the term “the community.” Not “my community, the one I live in,” but “the community,” which for a long time now, it seems to me, has meant, “the voting bloc you all recognize, and you’d better pay attention to it when it makes demands or you’ll be accused or heartlessness and general insensitivity to PC values.” Not that I mind a voting bloc making demands so much, especially if they can be squared with a rational view of the overall public interest. There was just a kind of oily indirectness in the cadging here that set my teeth on edge, combined with an apparent indifference to whether the legislation itself was a good idea.
But you’re right. Maybe I totally misunderstood the speaker, and he was just not a very good speaker, and I’m being unfair to him.