"Your first post to which I replied said "But apparently, you don't know the difference between public places (e.g. the street) and places that serve the public (e.g. a bar)." And in mentioning the IRVIS decision, I was pointing out that there is not the hard and fast distinction you suggest. A place that is open to the public is open to the whole public. I am quite familiar with this concept, but you seem to need a lesson."

I'm not suggesting a hard and fast distinction. I used the street vs. bar example to illustrate that there are certain places open to the public, during the normal course of business/life, that usually don't limit the whole public (street) and there are others, that usually do (a bar), and absent certain issues (race, sex), while you might not like it, it's perfectly legal. If you think not, feel free to file a discrimination claim. Oh wait, you do realize you wouldn't have an actionable claim. Darn. I was really looking forward to reading about how not allowing 5 year olds in bars is a violation of their civil rights and illegal discrimination. Damnit they are part of the whole public and bars are open to the public, right?! How dare you deprived me of the pleasure of reading such a pristine argument!

Btw, thanks for telling me again that I'm on edge about the mere presence of kids. You know how it wounds me so. I never knew or thought I was, but, I guess you know better...lol

"A new generation of black politicians are striving to put racial patronage and civic corruption behind them, and unite an increasingly diverse nation."

Often, the problem with articles like this one is that they lack crucial context. While the complaints of "racism" as a defense against charges of cronyism and incompetence is overwrought, it's not all that misplaced as a perception.

In practically every city of any size in this country, blacks have historically watched generation after generation of white politicians and union leaders engage in rampant racial patronage, cronyism and civic corruption, and absent flagrantly obvious behavior, hardly a peep was said about it. It's amazing how everybody in those administrations "just happened" to be white and all the plum appointments and city contracts "just happened" to go whites who either contirbuted to their campaigns or did political favors for them. How all the union bosses and power brokers "just happened" to be white and how the majority of people who got union jobs not only "just happened" to be white but usually "just happened" to be part of a particular white ethnic group. Funny how that all "just happened" and, again absent a major blow up, was just "business as usual".

Lo and behold when blacks started to gain some of those positions and more importantly, started to wield some of the power that came with them, all of a sudden "good government" issues like "racial patronage and civic corruption" were oh so important. Gee, I wonder what the difference was? I mean, Daivd Dinkins got lambasted for how much he spent on a headboard for his bed while Rudy Guiliani, among other things, appointed shady folks like Ray Harding's son and Bernard Kerik to key positions and nobody really said squat until the later two blew up.

Anyway, this isn't really a black politician issue because such issues are not, nor have they ever been, unique to black politicians. So, why must they be especially called upon to "put racial patronage and civic corruption behind them and unite a diverse nation"?

I don't have a problem with Obama, but to use him a "Perfect Son" and as a rehtorical club to beat others (e.g. Maxine Waters) is silly and insulting.

A couple of other things I found particularly odd about the article. One was the continued strain of growing "middle class values" among the Black professional class. As if anti-croynism and corruption are uniquely "middle class values". I guess the theory is that poor blacks are more tolerant of cronyism and corruption than their betters. It's amazing how you can acquire "values" simply by being better educated, moving out of the 'hood and buying a house.

Also, the author talks about coalition politics as if it's something new. Where has he been for the past 40 yrs or so? Oh well...