# President Bush and Civil Rights. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW! (Super long) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 22, 2004, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686 "2004-10-22T21:59:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/21 "2004-10-24T23:50:38Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Fuck you, **Blackacre.** If you missed the first part of my thread where I said that this was an independent **bipartisan** committee, maybe you should try reading the OP again. How can a committee be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? I think you confused bipartisan with nonpartisan. The Commission on Presidential Debates, for example, is bipartisan, which is why independents and third parties have such a bitch of a time being included in the debates. Congress is bipartisan, which is why independents and third parties have to jump through hoops of fire just to get on ballots. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/22 "2004-10-24T23:56:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > How can a committee be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? I think you confused bipartisan with nonpartisan. The Commission on Presidential Debates, for example, is bipartisan, which is why independents and third parties have such a bitch of a time being included in the debates. Congress is bipartisan, which is why independents and third parties have to jump through hoops of fire just to get on ballots. This is from the report itself: "independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957”. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/23 "2004-10-25T00:08:23Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > Wow, you must have some **facts** that aren’t available in your link. Or online. Or in the realworld. Please do share those **facts** with us that the draft report wasn’t bipartisan. Ya know, besides the republican’s hatred for civil rights. You mean besides the fact that this ‘report’ was prepared by the commission staff (as it says at the top of every page in the damned thing)? How the hell is this a ‘bipartisan’ screed if the ‘bipartisan’ committee didn’t vote or provide input on it? You need to unfuck your twisted view of ‘bipartisanship’. It does not mean ‘every single document the gov’t puts out’. I provided the definition above, and the ‘report’ that you so desperately felt the need to type out in no way fits that definition. It would be like me quoting a press release from Sen.Santorum as gospel truth and claiming it was ‘bipartisan’ just because their are lots of Dems and Republicans in the Senate. Ludicrous, just like your insistance that this was a ‘bipartisan’ matter. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/24 "2004-10-25T00:11:44Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > You mean besides the fact that this ‘report’ was prepared by the commission staff (as it says at the top of every page in the damned thing)? How the hell is this a ‘bipartisan’ screed if the ‘bipartisan’ committee didn’t vote or provide input on it? You need to unfuck your twisted view of ‘bipartisanship’. It does not mean ‘every single document the gov’t puts out’. I provided the definition above, and the ‘report’ that you so desperately felt the need to type out in no way fits that definition. It would be like me quoting a press release from Sen.Santorum as gospel truth and claiming it was ‘bipartisan’ just because their are lots of Dems and Republicans in the Senate. Ludicrous, just like your insistance that this was a ‘bipartisan’ matter. So in other words, your comment is not backed up by facts. You have zero proof who produced this report. 'Nuff said there. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/25 "2004-10-25T00:24:44Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > So in other words, your comment is not backed up by facts. You have zero proof who produced this report. 'Nuff said there. No, you smarmy little shit that tried to pass off a staff draft as a bipartisan ‘report’, I _have_ backed my claims with cites and facts. It is you that based your OP on BS. The honorable thing to do would have been to admit the fault with the document, but I doubt you know the meaning of that word as well. Besides, you’re just all hurt and insulted because like some nujob, you typed out so much of the thing, right? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/26 "2004-10-25T00:40:37Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > No, you smarmy little shit that tried to pass off a staff draft as a bipartisan ‘report’, I _have_ backed my claims with cites and facts. It is you that based your OP on BS. The honorable thing to do would have been to admit the fault with the document, but I doubt you know the meaning of that word as well. Besides, you’re just all hurt and insulted because like some nujob, you typed out so much of the thing, right? When a committee composed of Republicans and Democrats (count them, that’s two parties represented) hires a staff and adopts policies authorizing that staff to circulate a draft of a report for public review, and the draft report conforms to the criteria under which the committee was established, **that makes it a report for, and potentially of, a bipartisan committee**. The fact that it might just criticize and injure somebody you approve of – well, that’s too damn bad. Now get your head out of your ass and apologize to **stpauler**. Oh and by the way, while they may be useful information, a news story from the New York Times, a news story from Fox News, and Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word “bipartisan” strike me as very slender ground on which to start calling names. Although your record here proves that you need very little motivation to start acting like a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/27 "2004-10-25T00:49:23Z")
**Liberal:** \*How can a committee be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? I think you confused bipartisan with nonpartisan. \* No, I think you may be confusing “independent” with “nongovernmental”. But “independent bipartisan” is a technical term referring to a certain type of government entity. An “independent” commission is one that is “created by an act of Congress and is independent of the executive departments”. [Cite:](http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/schwalbe.html) > [@](#): > > Independent commissions are established by Congress and executed by the President, hence, not independent of the Government. Commissioners are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so there is a check-and-balance mechanism in place. As designed, independent commissions give private citizens an opportunity to assist government with significant problems without being beholden to the current administration. According to Colton Campbell, commissions are “formal groups established by statute or decree for the general purpose of obtaining advice, developing common sense recommendations on complex policy issues, and finding broadly acceptable solutions to contentious problems.” […] > > There are basically three types of commissions based on the nature of their creation and function. The most common type today is the presidential independent (synonymous with advisory) commission created at the request of the President. […] Independent commissions appointed by the President carry more prestige than the other types of commissions, and Congress normally grants them the power to subpoena witnesses to testify at their hearings, which is where the majority of the data collection is done. > > Congressional commissions are established by Congress to make policy recommendations to Congress mainly because they provide inexpensive labor and quality information, and can serve as scapegoats as necessary. […] > > Regulatory commissions, on the other hand, are established for long periods of time to oversee an industry on behalf of the government. These commissions have been granted judicial, administrative, and even policy-making powers by Congress. [The USCCR is of this third type, AFAICT.] So “independent” in this context just means “not merely handpicked tools of whatever administration currently happens to be running things.” “Bipartisan” is a constraint spelled out in the legislation establishing the commission: requiring equal numbers of members representing the majority and minority parties, for example. (The membership of a “bipartisan” commission may also be specified to include a number of people from **nonpartisan** organizations, who are jointly selected by majority- and minority-party Congresscritters, for example.) The composition of the [USCCR](http://www.usccr.gov/index.html) mandates that > [@](#): > > The United States Commission on Civil Rights is composed of eight Commissioners: four appointed by the President and four by Congress. Not more than four members shall at any one time be of the same political party. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/28 "2004-10-25T02:07:52Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > When a committee composed of Republicans and Democrats (count them, that’s two parties represented) hires a staff and adopts policies authorizing that staff to circulate a draft of a report for public review, and the draft report conforms to the criteria under which the committee was established, **that makes it a report for, and potentially of, a bipartisan committee**. Ah, so the report was prepared _for_ the ‘bipartisan’ committee, not _by_ said committee. You are making progress! Of course, the report will not be ‘_of_’ the committee until they meet to discuss and go over it. Then we will see how much ‘bipartisan’ support the report gets; as of right now, it has none, despite attempts by some to claim otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/29 "2004-10-25T06:22:11Z")
Oh, for Christ’s sake! Who gives a shit who wrote it? The assertions therein are the important part, and if they are incorrect, let’s talk about that rather than attack the authors. ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/30 "2004-10-25T07:15:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I oppose any criteria that is other than race-neutral. I have no problem with companies that aggresively advertise and recruit in areas that may attract minority candidates, or universities that do the same. But when the admission offers and the job offers are made, they should be utterly race neutral. Gawd-damn! I must have had too much wine. I actually agree with Bricker. :eek: I have always felt that affirmative action was the exact opposite of creating a level playing field. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 said discrimination on the basis of race was wrong. AA came along and insisted that it was mandatory. It’s impossible to follow both. As much as I detest this president for other reasons, to the extent he hampers Affermative Action I think he’s doing the right thing. My answer has always been to enforce the Civil Rights Act aggresively. Making non-abusing workers/students pay for abuses that happened before their time is just wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/31 "2004-10-25T09:11:47Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > **Liberal:** \*How can a committee be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? I think you confused bipartisan with nonpartisan. \* > > No, I think you may be confusing “independent” with “nongovernmental”. But “independent bipartisan” is a technical term referring to a certain type of government entity. An “independent” commission is one that is “created by an act of Congress and is independent of the executive departments”. [Cite:](http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/schwalbe.html) It struck me as odd that the first paragraph you quoted from your cite had no topic sentence, and so I checked it out. What you deleted was this: > [@](#): > > The U.S. Constitution does not address independent commissions anywhere, including its amendments. Congress \*\*claims \*\* that commissions are independent agencies not under any U.S. Government branch. Emphasis mine. Having a commission comprised of Democrats and Republicans and calling it independent as though it represented nonpartisan views is like having a commission of straights and gays, and saying it represents the views of everyone — including bisexuals and celibates. Or having a commission comprised of people from New York and California and saying that it represents the views of America from coast to coast. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/32 "2004-10-25T12:17:15Z")
**Liberal:** \* What you deleted was this: “The U.S. Constitution does not address independent commissions anywhere, including its amendments. Congress **claims** that commissions are independent agencies not under any U.S. Government branch.” Emphasis mine. Having a commission comprised of Democrats and Republicans and calling it independent as though it represented nonpartisan views is like having a commission of straights and gays, and saying it represents the views of everyone — including bisexuals and celibates.\* :rolleyes: **Lib** , my point was simply that the OP was correctly using a recognized technical term for a certain type of government entity. **stpauler** used the term “independent bipartisan agency” in its accepted sense as it applies to commissions such as the USCCR. Not due to any confusion between the words “bipartisan” and “nonpartisan”, as you erroneously suggested. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/33 "2004-10-25T13:19:50Z")
> [@Kim](#): > > Lib, my point was simply that the OP was correctly using a recognized technical term for a certain type of government entity. Yes, I understand your point. I can read. And my point is that the term is a stupid one. Hence: how can something be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? Did you think that a term coined by Congress cannot be stupid? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/34 "2004-10-25T13:46:26Z")
Reasonable, **Lib**. But what I am getting from your posting here is that the **only** thing worth fighting for is your vision of what the ideal Libertaria might be, and that it’s not worthwhile to take a stance for the lesser of two evils with which one can live while feeling the greater of the two is destructive to all one’s ideals, because the only thing worth standing for is the complete whole-hog package of the ideal society. There’s an old line about “politics is the art of the possible.” Kerry has flaws; I’ll be the first to admit it. But I still find him a whole lot more palatable than Bush. “Independent” means “not controlled by” – with reference, in this context, to the current Administration. It may in other contexts reference a number of other ideas – like “separated from the British Empire” in the Declaration, or “not affiliated with a political party” in terms of voter registration. “Independent bipartisan commission” has a specific meaning in this context – the fact that it does not include representatives of the Bundesrepublik Social Democrats or the Australian Labour Party is almost as on-point as the objections you are raising. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/35 "2004-10-25T13:54:31Z")
**Liberal:** \* And my point is that the term is a stupid one. Hence: how can something be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? Did you think that a term coined by Congress cannot be stupid?\* Of course not. But I do think that if Congress coined a stupid term several decades ago which has become a generally accepted technical term for a particular type of governmental entity, you shouldn’t be picking on **stpauler** about it now: > [@Liberal](#): > > How can a committee be BOTH independent AND bipartisan? I think you confused bipartisan with nonpartisan. Your objection that the term is stupid should be addressed to the people who coined it, not to **stpauler** who is using it correctly in its generally recognized sense. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/36 "2004-10-25T14:20:28Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > There’s an old line about “politics is the art of the possible.” Kerry has flaws; I’ll be the first to admit it. But I still find him a whole lot more palatable than Bush. Which is why I’m voting for Kerry. Some other time, perhaps when you and I are together again, we can discuss the difference between metaphysical and epistemic possibility, and why I cling to the ideal not yet implemented and oppose the one that is. Politics is the art of the powerful. Political clout always wins. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/37 "2004-10-25T14:25:48Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Your objection that the term is stupid should be addressed to the people who coined it, not to **stpauler** who is using it correctly in its generally recognized sense. You are no doubt equally distraught that your cite did not lodge with Congress its complaint that the “U.S. Constitution does not address independent commissions anywhere, including its amendments”. Perhaps it is the case that we may all state our opinions to whomever we please. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/38 "2004-10-25T16:25:00Z")
**Liberal:** _Perhaps it is the case that we may all state our opinions to whomever we please._ Certainly. Just try to be a little less unclear about what the opinion is that you’re stating. You certainly gave the impression—to **stpauler** as well as myself, judging from his/her response to you—that you were correcting **stpauler** ’s use of the term “independent bipartisan”, believing that s/he was using it in ignorance of the distinction between “bipartisan” and “nonpartisan”. You now seem to be saying that you were just indulging in a minor terminological hijack to voice a general complaint about the misleadingness of the technical term “independent bipartisan”. Fine, but it wasn’t clear that that’s what you were doing. It came across as though you just didn’t understand what the recognized meaning of “independent bipartisan” was. Which is why **stpauler** wasted our time pointing out to you that the term appears in the linked report, and I wasted our time explaining to you what its standard meaning is, as well as taking three subsequent posts to clear up the misunderstanding. If you would please try in the future to be a little more clear about just what it is you’re criticizing, you’ll be less likely to be misunderstood. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/39 "2004-10-25T16:58:32Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > You now seem to be saying that you were just indulging in a minor terminological hijack to voice a general complaint about the misleadingness of the technical term “independent bipartisan”. Oh, that’s rich. You are still climbing this molehill, and you accuse me of hijacking. 😃 > [@](#): > > Fine, but it wasn’t clear that that’s what you were doing. It came across as though you just didn’t understand what the recognized meaning of “independent bipartisan” was. I _still_ don’t understand that there is any “recognized meaning” beyond the sheer sense of the general formulation, not unlike any other, such as “instant classic”. I’m certainly not the only person [to recognize](http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/2004/02/independent_bip.html) the inherent abuse of such a term. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686/40 "2004-10-25T17:31:03Z")
**Liberal:** _Oh, that’s rich. You are still climbing this molehill, and you accuse me of hijacking._ Well, **Lib** , if your complaint about “independent bipartisan” being a stupid term **wasn’t** a hijack, then what was it? If you’d made it clear that was a hijack, and that you were just griping that it was a stupid term instead of telling **stpauler** that s/he was using it wrong, I wouldn’t have followed you up this molehill. Now you seem to be arguing that I shouldn’t say you were hijacking. Why not? **Liberal:** _I still don’t understand that there is any “recognized meaning” beyond the sheer sense of the general formulation_ Well, the “independent” part, as my linked article explains, means that the entity is created by Congressional legislation delegating to it some part of legislative responsibility or charging it with some advisory or regulatory functions—as opposed to the entities that the President is empowered to create by executive order, for example. The “bipartisan” part means that the legislation creating the entity includes mandates about bipartisan representation in the entity’s membership. I can understand why you might think that either or both of these words would be to some extent inadequate, misleading, contradictory, or stupid in the context of the term “independent bipartisan agencies”. But I don’t understand why you’d think that the term has no “recognized meaning”, nor do I understand why you seemed to think that **stpauler** was using the term incorrectly [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/president-bush-and-civil-rights-what-you-need-to-know-super-long/270686.md?page=3)