Brilliant rebuttal, Gnu. Now make the "savant" side say something.
Ah, "bigotry." There it is at long last. Took you long enough to get around to it.
"Richard Keefe believes things I do not. Ergo and theretofore I shall label him a "bigot" lest anyone else should be swayed by his spurious "facts." We can't have people entertaining "wrong thoughts," after all."
Webster's defines "bigot" as "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." I'm wide open to opinions of all persuasions, even those I don't agree with, as long as they are expressed civilly.
I voted for President Obama twice. I believe in same-sex marriage and I also believe that South Carolina should have waited before operating on this child. I think the State committed a horrendous act of malpractice and the courts will bear it out.
Which pigeonhole should I move to now, Mat?
Your hypothetical "black/white reassignment" is NOT part of this article either and therefore not part of this discussion. Stop setting up these baseless straw men, "Children have no civil liberties??" and stick to the facts. Geez. "Think of the children!!" Pathetic.
You know, I've spent years examining the SPLC's corporate records and public statements and I've come to conclusions that you don't agree with. So be it. But if all you have is name-calling, labels and ad hominem attacks, you don't have much.
Maybe you should examine your own prejudices and intolerance before self-righteously smearing others. I know it gags you, but diversity goes beyond skin color and sexual identification. It includes the world of ideas too.
Here are a few more factoids about your heroes for you to ponder, though I doubt you will. In 1994, the Montgomery Advertiser, the SPLC's hometown newspaper, wrote an expose entitled "Equal Treatment? No Blacks in Center's Leadership.? Here's a link to the article, that you won't bother reading because it offends you: http://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/montgomery-a…
The article claimed that 23 years after Morris Dees opened the SPLC there were no minorities in highly paid positions of authority. The few black lawyers he hired in the 70s had all quit, citing "a plantation mentality." The highest ranking black at the SPLC at the time ran the mail room, where she had worked for the past 20 years. Big deal.
The article continued that SPLC's newly formed "Teaching Tolerance" project, which purported to promote diversity in the K-12 classroom, was staffed entirely by whites only.
Fast forward to 2013 and review the SPLC's IRS Form 990 tax returns, as I have, and you know what's changed? Not much. The top leadership at the SPLC is as lily-white today as it was in 1971. "Teaching Tolerance" has continued to be led by "whites only" for more than 21 of its 22 years, except for a brief interregnum when African American Lecia Brooks was allowed to head the department for a few months until her red-headed, blue-eyed successor could be hired.
Here's another link to my evidence, that again, you won't read because we can't have inconvenient facts intruding in our deeply held personal beliefs, can we?
Maybe you don't see this as hypocritical, but I sure do. Probably the most galling fact is that the SPLC headquarters are located LITERALLY in the back yard of Dr. Martin Luther King's own Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. When the all-white execs at the SPLC gather to discuss their latest fundraising ploy the windows of their Executive Suite look down on Dr. Kings church, as do they.
If the all-white millionaire hypocrites who run the Southern Poverty Law Center are your heroes and impervious to legitimate criticism, you go with that. For my part, a 42-year old "civil rights" group, located in Montgomery, Alabama, the birthplace of the American Civil Rights movement, with more than 200 employees, more than $250 MILLION dollars in cash on hand and NOT ONE minority in highly paid position of authority is suspect.
Insert your defense of the SPLC here:
Right. Rather than simply pointing to this glaringly obvious argument that apparently anyone can see but me, I should prove a negative. That's handy.
"This article is not about those cases."
No, but this conversation has been about them from the start and how they clearly demonstrate the SPLC's publicity stunts, but now that they've become inconvenient I can see how they might get in the way.
I stated that the SPLC is just using these show trials for publicity, you asked me to prove it, there's my proof.
As for the 14th Amendment charge, that's all it is at the moment. Until a court reviews it and agrees or disagrees on it it's just one side's opinion. Technically, the same applies to the malpractice suit at this point, but there is certainly overwhelming evidence that the operation took place. There's very little doubt there and really the malpractice suit is the heart of this matter.
Again, you've neglected to mention what the SPLC brings to either case that Attorney Sugg is not capable of expressing himself.
"What's your stake in this?" I gotta apologize for that one. It was late and I was tired, and yeah, I stooped.
As it turns out, you and I have a lot in common in that we both love to examine the arguments of various groups and expose them for what we believe to be inherently inaccurate. And you're absolutely right, it IS a lot of fun. I do it for the SPLC and you do it for "people like me." The only difference is I try to avoid the needless name-calling and ad hominem jabs. As far as I'm concerned, if one can't make a case without them then one really doesn't have much of a case.
"You aren't defending your points with any sort of backing."
Actually, I defend everything I say with extensive facts, almost entirely gleaned from the SPLC web site and the writings of its staff. I cite all of my sources. I keep all of that information on my blog, (which seems to upset you for some reason...) where anyone can see it, agree with it or challenge it. All viewpoints are welcome. As long as people can keep the conversation civil I have no desire to stifle anyone just because I don't agree with their opinions.
One of the main reasons I bother with this is because of something very disturbing on the legend of the SPLC's extremely lucrative "Hate Map" fundraising tool.
"Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing."
Admittedly, I am NOT a Constitutional lawyer, but something just doesn't seem quite right when an alleged "civil rights organization" deliberately conflates six of the most fundamental First Amendment rights with "criminal acts" and " hate group activities."
I don't agree with it and I say so at every opportunity. You and anyone else are more than welcome to disagree. Shouting people down because you disagree with them is little more than vigilantism.
Okay, you claim there are civil rights issues involved in these three civil suits. What are they?
And if there are civil rights issues here, which are the ones that are too big for Ken Suggs and the two New York law firms to handle?
If you actually go to the "Case Docket" section of the SPLC web site you'll see that even they don't make any civil rights claims in the earlier two cases and their 14th Amendment charge in this case assumes that the state of South Carolina acted deliberately against this child because of his race and financial status, which is up to the courts to decide, but it's hardly a case that is too big for Lawyer of the Year Suggs to handle.
In fact, it's not too big for Suggs as he is the actual attorney filing both suits in this case and the fraud and copyright cases are being brought by two of the top law firms in those fields. The "experts" at the SPLC bring nothing to these cases but publicity.
The plaintiffs in these cases have very legitimate legal issues in these suits and they all have retained some of the finest lawyers in their fields. These are cut and dried civil suits and NOT civil rights suits. I have no doubt that the civil lawyers will prevail in each case.
I also have no doubt that the SPLC will take full credit in each case in their fundraising letters. "Woohoo! Look what WE did! Send us money! We're down to our last quarter-BILLION dollars!" These are show trials for the SPLC and little more than ham-fisted publicity stunts. They do this kind of thing all the time.
Seriously though, what's your stake in this? Why are you so upset because someone raises some legitimate criticism of the SPLC's fundraising practices? Can't they take it? How much are they paying you?
When you think of all of the genuinely poor and disenfranchised people in the country who could actually use the help of a multimillion dollar law firm like the SPLC you have to ask if that $4,500 dollars an hour in donor dollars is being well spent. Wouldn't that money do more good fighting for a Death Row inmate in Mississippi than a fraud case in NYC?
The Innocence Project has gotten 300 wrongly accused people out of prison, many off Death Row, on a budget that is only a few percent of the SPLC's, and yet "the nation's leading civil rights organization" is fighting a copyright infringement case over an engagement photo? Well, they're your donor dollars not mine. If you call that bang for the buck I won't gainsay it.
The question is why is an Alabama "civil rights" law firm involved in a South Carolina malpractice suit, or a New York fraud suit or a New Jersey copyright infringement suit when a) there are NO civil rights issues involved, b) NONE of the plaintiffs are indigent and have already engaged the services of some of the top LOCAL law firms and c), the SPLC has is NOT licensed to practice law in ANY of those states?
Call me irrational, if that floats your boat, but just address even ONE of those questions with an answer that doesn't rhyme with "publicity stunt." How hard can it be?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper