Roger, your second point ignores the existence of *United Steelworkers v. Weber* (1979) and the entire history of disparate-impact affirmative action law. You are of course welcome to advocate a conservative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, but media outlets should provide an evenhanded discussion of these issues—not put forth a Fox News revisionist history in which civil rights law has only ever applied to questions of discriminatory intent. *That* would be "dishonest."

On a policy level, there's certainly some justification. Whitwell <a href="http://www.wbtv.com/story/13327543/ole-…">got his start</a>, after all, by defending the use of Confederate emblems at Ole Miss, which is something Theodore Bilbo would have appreciated. But whether you agree with the comparison or not, you are mischaracterizing Lumumba's views—just as you have mischaracterized mine—by suggesting that his issue with Whitwell is based on racial prejudice. Whitwell has already done more than enough, in his young political career, to remind people of the Dixiecrats.

Right—I completely agree that the JFP should not have been ejected, and that this was not handled well. My objection was to Robbie's statement that "Tom doesn't mind regulating press access."

I'm not condoning the specific ejection of the JFP; I'm saying that a private citizen's decision to eject press that s/he perceives (even incorrectly) as hostile at the beginning of a private event is not the same thing as "regulating press access." You have now misrepresented my position twice in this thread, Robbie, which is a pretty remarkable achievement.

This has probably already crossed your mind, but you might contact the folks at MIRA. He has been a very visible and helpful ally to the immigrants' rights movement—the racial profiling ordinance he proposed several years ago was, I believe, written primarily to protect Latinos in the event that the state legislature passed a racist Arizona-style package.

Bill writes: <i>"Mr. Lumumbas'[sic] attitude regarding whites in Jackson is well established. He did compare Whitwell to Theodore Bilbo, afterall."</i><br><br>Yes, and there's some justification for the comparison, given the state of the Mississippi Republican Party. It's not one I would personally make—Whitwell is relatively moderate; Phil Bryant more visibly embodies Bilbo's values—but if you really think Lumumba's only issue with Whitwell is that he's white, I think you're saying more about your own prejudices than you are about his.

Robbie writes: <i>"It's a 2 way street, and Tom doesn't mind regulating press access."</i><br><br>In 2002, Lumumba was not a public official. He certainly has every right to ask press to leave a private event, as we all do. I wouldn't want hostile media at a private event, personally, and I doubt you would, either. Government functions are, of course, a different story.

It sounds like some of the folks in attendance had lumped y'all together with the Northside Sun. Understandable but unfortunate. Glad it didn't stick.<br><br>FWIW, I have never been treated badly at a Lumumba-related or MXGM-related event. Given the number of white allies who have felt similarly welcome, I don't think this was a white thing; I think this was a whoops-thought-you-were-hostile-conservative-media thing.

For me, Gloria Williamson's $250 donation is the cool story-within-a-story here. Good to see one of the leading progressive women in the state support a new female candidate, and Williamson's support speaks well of Quinn, too. If she's received an endorsement to go with that donation, I hope she publicizes it.

This thread is about campaign funding, stateright, but there's nothing objectionable in the Jackson Plan. It saddens me that so many white folks are so accustomed to being pandered to in the vocabulary of Old Dixie that phrases like "black self-determination" frighten them. Self-determination is a basic democratic principle, and whites should not hold a monopoly on it.