Squaring the Culture

"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

08/07/2012 (12:03 pm)

Monkey Bars

A minor flap arose after gymnast Gabby Douglas won her gold medal in the Women’s All-Around Gymnastics competition last Thursday. Bob Costas, announcer for NBC, observed that Ms. Douglas was the first African-American to win that particular event. And then immediately afterward, NBC ran a commercial for a new sitcom called “Animal Practice,” which is about a veterinarian. The ad, unfortunately, showed a monkey competing in an Olympic gymnastic event.


NBC apologized for the ad, although frankly, it may have been better if they’d simply not mentioned it, and let it pass. Seriously, the only people I’ve heard connect “monkey” and “black human being” in the last decade or two have been leftist activists, usually pretending to be offended in order to create a racial incident where none was warranted.

It has been more than a hundred years since the first dark-skinned American athlete won a gold medal at an Olympic event. John Baxter Taylor ran the third leg for the American men’s winning 400 meter relay team in the London Olympics in 1908. There are certain events in which it is practically unheard of for dark-skinned participants not to win; when American distance runner Galen Rupp took second in the men’s 10,000 meter race on Saturday, he was the first Caucasian of any nationality to win a medal in that event since 1984 (and Bob Costas said not a word about it.) Seriously, folks, race is not a big deal anymore at the Olympics, and has not been for a long, long, long time.

Ms. Douglas herself even felt it was insignificant. Her own words upon winning the event were excitement and thanks to God. She had to be reminded of the racial connection, according to USA Today:

“Someone mentioned that I was the first black American (to win the all-around gold), and I said, ‘Oh yeah, I forgot about that!’ I feel so honored,” she said with a laugh.

Ms. Douglas represents the real solution to race issues: pay them no mind. We are excited about her achievement, and indifferent to the color of her skin.

But if you are a leftist in America, you’re still fighting the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s. And so, because NBC is a reliable shill for the American left, we got to hear about the unremarkable racial significance of Gabby Douglas’ win in women’s gymnastics — and NBC exposed themselves to embarrassment where none was necessary.

Leftists live in the 1960s. They are stuck in time. To find an explanation, you need to look no further than one of those pathetic PBS specials where some 60s one-hit wonder is still, in his 70s, performing his one hit for aging, overweight hippies who can’t leave the past behind. The civil rights movement of the 60s was the only time in their lives that they felt relevant, so they have to keep re-creating it, over and over… The alternative is to face one’s mortality, and that takes courage and maturity.

And that, folks, is why they invent Republican “code words” to explain why the raging, 60s-style racists in the Republican party don’t ever, ever say even a single word that sounds racist. It does not seem possible to them that Republicans are not 60s-style racists (even though the actual, 60s-style racists were nearly all Democrats!) To allow that thought would be to face the possibility that they are simply not so very relevant anymore. How terribly strange to be 70…

10/05/2010 (5:18 pm)

Stop Talking About It

I’m not the greatest fan of Morgan Freeman, nor do I think that skill and success at representing people other than yourself in front of a camera should automatically confer on somebody the right to be taken seriously, but in this instance the man has something useful to say.

This is actually old; the earliest date I saw on this clip, at the CBS News web site, was June 14, 2006. This is Freeman’s take on Black History Month from an interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. It’s just under 1 minute long.


Mike Wallace made an ass of himself with “I’m Jewish,” as though that let him off the hook for “White History Month.” Freeman’s impatience with the irrelevancy was obvious, but he recovered nicely: “Ok, then, do you want Jewish history month?”

The most telling exchange was after Wallace exposed his leftist cluelessness: “How are we going to get rid of racism…” Notice that Wallace is asserting that racism occurs outside of himself. Freeman’s answer, “Stop talking about it,” posits racism in Wallace’s own house. “You are the source of racism, Mike Wallace,” is what he’s saying.

I do see racism in practice from time to time, but not often. Mostly I see it in the following places: (1) I hear it from blacks, directed at white people; (2) I hear it from progressives, directed at black conservatives; and (3) occasionally, I hear subtle racism in Democratic party campaign ads directed at their own voters. Take note of #3, because what it says is that not only is most of the racism in America to be found in the Democratic party, but it says that the Democrats know it’s there.

Virtually all talk about racism comes from progressives, thinking they’re describing conservatives. This is a race problem that exists only in progressives’ heads. They have no facts supporting their claim, so facts cannot stop them from making it. The correct solution is Andrew Breitbart’s: draw attention to the tactic itself, and call it “despicable character assassination,” which it is. If they’re embarrassed badly enough, perhaps they’ll stop doing what they’re doing.

04/08/2010 (7:46 am)

Another Dishonest Democrat Wages Dishonest Race War

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner contained an article from Associated Press reporter Valerie Bauman discussing the presence of blacks among Tea Party groups. The fact of their existence, of course, rebuts one of the favorite memes floated by certain, demented leftist personalities (Olbermann and Garofalo come to mind.) But read through this fascinating report from the AP and see if you can discover that the insults hurled at black Tea Partiers are hurled by Democrats.

They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement — and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said.

Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they’re black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.

“You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?” asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger.

Oops. The reporter just gave us a our first clue — after five paragraphs — where the insults are coming from. Blacks are popular if their tout the Democratic party line. They are unpopular if they tout the Republican line. Who’s calling them “Oreos?” Who’s calling them “traitors?” Did you see the word “Democrats” anywhere?

Bauman continues:

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month’s heated health care vote give them ammunition.

But these black conservatives don’t consider racism representative of the movement as a whole — or race a reason to support it.

Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists. But the racist epithets are being flung by the tea party’s opponents — the same opponents who are calling other people “racist.” Does Valerie venture to mention why the people who are actually calling black people names are not “racists?”

More to the point, does she place this pair of paragraphs where she does deliberately to assist careless readers toward drawing the conclusion that it’s the tea partiers themselves who are calling blacks names? After all, she just spent five paragraphs describing how poorly they’re being treated by somebody unnamed. Then she tells us that somebody has been branded racist. Doesn’t it follow that it must be the people being called “racist” who are calling blacks names? Actually, it doesn’t follow at all, and it isn’t true; but Ms. Bauman (I assume “Valerie” is a female, although the name has been used for males on occasion) is playing the common media game of avoiding any mention of her favored party when their behavior is reprehensible, and is in fact manipulating the reader into thinking it’s the tea partiers who are committing the racial fouls. This is deliberate deception, carefully constructed to permit the defense “We never said tea partiers were calling anybody names.” Valerie Bauman is a clever liar.

“I’ve gotten the statement, ‘How can you not support the brother?'” said David Webb, an organizer of New York City’s Tea Party 365, Inc. movement and a conservative radio personality.

Since Obama’s election, Webb said some black conservatives have even resorted to hiding their political views.

“I know of people who would play the (liberal) role publicly, but have their private opinions,” he said. “They don’t agree with the policy but they have to work, live and exist in the community … Why can’t we speak openly and honestly if we disagree?”

From whom did the statement come? Hiding their views from whom? Why did Ms. Bauman’s editor permit these horribly passive constructions to remain in the piece? Apparently the unnamed editor is guilty along with Ms. Bauman of the deception and the game; never call a Democrat a Democrat when one has done wrong. And by all means, don’t admit that it’s Democrats who are forcing blacks to “pass” these days, ’cause that might lead people to think that racism is alive and well in the Democratic party — where it has always thrived, throughout American political history.

No, we can’t have people telling the truth about Democrats, and saying out loud that the Democratic party is, to this day, the only party in America where racism is common. We can’t acknowledge that Democratics’ love for entitlement programs that deliberately and disproportionately favor blacks is about assuaging their guilt, and not really about actually helping anybody (because, in fact, few things hurt the black community as badly as those hell-inspired entitlement programs).

Because if Democrats don’t continue indefinitely to dupe 85% or more of the black community in to voting Democrat year in and year out, no Democrat will ever be elected to any office, anywhere. And wouldn’t that be just awful?

The Associated Press is not a news reporting organization, it is a propaganda adjunct to the Democratic party. Valerie Bauman and her editor are not reporters, they are propagandists, and they should not have jobs in the news business.

03/21/2010 (9:56 pm)

Democrats Eager to Distract, Manufacture Racial Incident

On the eve of managing to bully, buy, or bluster their way into passing a bill so odious that they have not told the truth about it for an entire year, Democrats launched a stink bomb in the form of a manufactured racial incident.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus walked through a crowd of Tea Party demonstrators outside the US Capitol Building Saturday, and shortly thereafter lied to reporters about being spit on and called “Nigger” by members of the crowd. Reporters from AP, Washington Post, and McClatchy swallowed it whole, and then regurgitated it uncritically. Here’s AP’s version:

House Democrats heard it all Saturday—words of inspiration from President Barack Obama and raucous chants of protests from demonstrators. And at times it was flat-out ugly, including some racial epithets aimed at black members of Congress…

Rallies outside the Capitol are typically orderly, with speeches and well-behaved crowds. Saturday’s was different, with anger-fueled demonstrators surrounding members of Congress who walked by, yelling at them.

“Kill the bill,” the largely middle-aged crowd shouted, surging toward lawmakers who crossed the street between their office buildings and the Capitol…

Rep. Andre Carson, D-Ind., told a reporter that as he left the Cannon House Office Building with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a leader of the civil rights era, some among the crowd chanted “the N-word, the N-word, 15 times.” Both Carson and Lewis are black, and Lewis spokeswoman Brenda Jones also said that it occurred.

The short walk was captured on video by members of the crowd. No spitting. Not a single N-word, nor any chanting that might have been taken for it. Listen for yourselves:

Here’s a longer video, obviously taken by somebody who did not know how to keep a camera steady, so you might get a bit seasick watching. Still, you can see for yourselves just how “ugly” this crowd was — which is to say, not even a little. They booed Congressmen supporting the bill, and cheered those opposing it. It was a well-behaved crowd.

The false charges are really no surprise. “October Surprise” has been part of the Democratic party play book for decades, and their consistent tactic regarding Tea Parties has been false accusation. Moreover, no part of the Democrats’ run-up to the health care reform bill has been honest; every single statistic quoted, every deal made, every tactic considered, has been an affront to honest governance. So it was par for the course when the Black Caucus members made their accusations.

Moreover, it is clear that the Black Caucus members planned to make the charges in advance of the incident. The stories of multiple members match, even though recordings of the event reveal that their charges are false. This was a coordinated lie.

PowerLine and some other conservative blogs are saying that if the Black Caucus members cannot produce proof of their charges, they should apologize. I disagree. People’s lives are ruined by false charges of racism. The viciousness of the charge and the premeditation make this an impeachable offense; these Congressmen are a disgrace and should be thrown out of Congress. Furthermore, I plan to write to the editors of the newspapers that reported this false charge and demand that the reporters who uncritically repeated these falsehoods be fired. Manufacturing false charges that can ruin lives is a serious breach of journalistic ethics, and the reporters who participated should never work in the news business again.

This is just another instance of the “October Suprise,” which has become a Democratic party habit. In 2006, it was the release on Sept. 28 of damning evidence that Rep. Mark Foley had made passes at under-age interns — a fact Democrats had known since April of that year. In 2004, it was the release of a story that George W. Bush had received favors from his commanding officer in the National Guard in 1973, and did not serve his full term. In 2000, it was a news story stating that George W. Bush had been arrested for drunk driving in 1976, released 4 days before the election. In 1992, Special Prosecutor indicted Caspar Weinberger just days before the Clinton-Bush election, for an offense that was quickly dismissed — after the election — as being beyond the statute of limitations. Meanwhile, every election season delivers charges by Democrats of the impending “October Suprise” the Republicans are cooking up. Somehow, these never materialize.

The New Republic is attempting to extend the farce, noting that a handful of Congressmen in the House cheered a disruptive on-looker who started shouting “Kill the Bill” as he was being escorted from the chamber. Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA) is bloviating about the incident, trying to make political hay and drive a wedge between Republicans and Tea Party activists. Frank is the only person who might reasonably have a complaint, apparently having heard some epithets recalling his sexual deviancy. If I had been there, I would not have have mentioned his sexual issues, which are beside the point; I would have called him one of the worst humans on the planet, personally responsible for $2.5 trillion worth of the national debt, and deserving of a prison term. When he apologizes for his corruption and willingly delivers himself to prison, I will apologize for the handful of idiots who called him the wrong names.

03/02/2010 (3:37 pm)

The Elephant In the Room


I’m feeling a little bit sorry for Fox Sports writer Jason Whitlock, so I’m going to talk about race. I don’t often talk about race because it’s a dangerous topic; careers are ruined and jobs are lost because somebody said the wrong thing regarding something regarded as racial. Sometimes it’s not even about race at all, as in the various cases where somebody took heat for using the perfectly lucid but arcane adjective “niggardly” (meaning “stingy”, based on the Old Norse verb nigla, “to fuss about small matters”.) But race is a subject about which I know a little, being a white Christian/Jew who has served and worshiped under several black pastors, in mostly-black congregations and mostly-black home meetings for several decades, and engaged in evangelism in the black community many times.

Whitlock earns my sentiment because he made a fool of himself over race, and was duly but a little unfairly taken down by Peter Heck at OneNewsNow.com. The subject of the take-down was Whitlock’s long-after-the-fact riff on the Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning’s less-than-stellar performance in Superbowl XLIV. It’s a pretty decent riff, actually, in which Whitlock explains that though he likes Manning personally, and considers him one of the 10 Greatest QBs of All Time (which was the title of the article,) people were making lame excuses for him after the game. The simple fact that nobody seemed to want to admit, opines Whitlock, was that Manning was outsmarted by defensive back Tracy Porter. It was Porter who intercepted that crucial pass and scored a touchdown that put the Saints irretrievably ahead, ending Manning’s late-4th-quarter attempt to salvage the close game.

Here’s the spot where Whitlock goes completely loopy:

By Wednesday morning, I was so upset I grabbed my laptop and reached for The Card. I was going to make this column all about the elephant in the room:

In the biggest sporting event in the world, with a record number of people watching and on the game’s most important play, a black defensive back outsmarted a beloved white quarterback.

I know. That’s a truth many of you can’t handle. It makes you uncomfortable. You don’t even get what I’m really saying. All of us — white, black and brown — get so caught up in our stereotypes that we oftentimes miss what is right in front of us.

Tracy Porter outsmarted Peyton Manning and won the Super Bowl for New Orleans. End of story.

For all I know, Whitlock is right about the outsmarting part; what I understand about football would fit on one side of a single sheet of paper. I have to tell you, though, that the respective skin colors of the players never occurred to me until I read Heck’s take-down. I imagine that’s true for nearly everybody. It’s been a long, long time since the first black player broke the race barrier in the NFL. It’s been a long time since the first black quarterback, and the first black coach. It’s not an issue anymore. We simply don’t notice.

It’s obviously an issue to Whitlock, though. Why?

It’s tempting to take Heck’s line, and rag on the race-baiters of the left that use such incidents as political and social fodder. That’s a very real problem. Mostly white progressives have taken hold of race as a means of validating themselves. They buttress their own feelings of superiority by declaring themselves the champions of race, and their adversaries, the villains of race. They have to perpetuate the perception that racism continues as a serious social problem, because they continue to need validation. Solving the problem is the last thing in the world they want. The admission that their view of the problem is imaginary comes when they accuse their opponents of “talking in code;” that’s an admission that their adversaries never, ever say anything racist. So what makes them think they are? simply the need to be able to say it, and the political advantage that comes from that. It’s all the better if it can be said without any supporting evidence; that way, they’ll never have to stop.

But I don’t believe that Jason Whitlock is one of those, and I think Peter Heck is being a little unfair to call him one. Here’s why:

I was extremely socially awkward as a child, physically puny, weak, and wimpy. I took a lot of abuse for being weak, cowardly, and different, and I did a lot of things that were socially wrong and about which I still cringe when I think about them. You’d think I’d have gotten over that by now, and mostly I have, but it still has its subtle effects on my behavior. Because of accumulated childhood trauma, I never really feel entirely welcome in any group, even among friends. I’ve been known to avoid certain people for months over some insignificant thing I took as a slight, usually incorrectly. Also, I can’t watch certain films that remind me of painful things. Meet the Parents is a piece of comic genius, but every time Ben Stiller lies to make himself seem acceptable to Robert DeNiro, which is pretty much the entire film, I cringe and feel pain. It’s just not funny to me. It reminds me of things I did when I was a kid. People whose childhoods were less traumatic than mine can’t possibly understand my feelings, but they still affect me.

whitlockI imagine that in Jason Whitlock’s life, as in the lives of most blacks in America, he has faced dozens of incidents in which he saw fear in some stranger’s eyes who knew nothing about him aside from the fact that he was black, male, big, and nearby. He was probably suspected more than once of stealing, loitering, or planning mischief on the basis of no better evidence than that he was male and his skin was black. There are still plenty of places, one being Havertown, PA where my children live, where blacks get pulled over disproportionately, committing the crime they call “driving while black.” To say that I know how this feels would be patronizing and wrong; we can’t completely understand what we have not experienced. But I’m sure it hurts. Lots.

Does that excuse Whitlock’s just-plain-silly analysis of the support for Peyton Manning being motivated by race? No. But it does explain it somewhat. You see, Mr. Whitlock feels pain about which he can do nothing — as do we all. He’s mostly gotten over it, but it still affects his adult behavior in subtle ways — as do all our childhood traumas. And on this instance, it affected his analysis in a way that is simply unmistakable; it made him see race where no racial component was present.

Lynching blacks is vile; it does not happen anymore, and has not since the 1930s. Laws that ban blacks from certain public places, or relegate them to second-class status, are wrong; they don’t exist anymore, and have not since the 1960s. The personal pain that comes with being unfairly perceived as different is real, and still occurs; but that’s not generally the result of a crime, and cannot be made the subject of laws.

Human beings are naturally more comfortable among people who are like them. That’s not wrong, and social progressivism has done great damage to the culture by pretending that it is. Attempting to repress that as though it were evil is identical, in behavior terms, to attempting to repress sexual feelings as though they were evil; it does not work, and the attempt produces damaging distortions. We are who we are. And just like with sexual feelings, we can learn to control what we do with our very real feelings about different cultures, but we can only do it after we understand what they are. This cannot happen in an environment like ours, where merely mentioning that one has such ordinary feelings can result in financial and social ruin. Racial McCarthyism is evil, and must stop.

Moreover, some of the reactions black men grow up facing are perfectly rational reactions. Most people, white or black, see plenty of rowdy groups of young black men causing trouble in public or committing crimes on film. Most people see far too many news reels reporting violence by gangs of young black men. Consequently, when most people see a group of rowdy, young black men approaching them in public, they naturally feel fear. Jesse Jackson has admitted to this same feeling, himself. The cure for it is not to repress reasonable feelings, or to feel shame for feeling them; the cure for it is for young black men to clean up their act and behave in a civil and sensible manner. People fear them because in realty, a lot of them are fearsome. If they were not, the fear of unknown blacks would vanish.

I’ll say this, too, though it’s not strictly necessary for the topic: a lot of poor, young black men are angry. A lot of that anger gets expressed as anger against whites, but it’s not really that. The young, black men I knew when I was in the ghetto were angry at the parents that abandoned them or mistreated them — and they had good reason to be. Eventually, that anger got redirected toward the white society that they blamed for holding them down, but in truth, it was the lack of sound parental influence that was holding them down; the ones who had good parents were easily headed for the middle class. The solution to their anger does not lie in changing white society, it lies in getting black fathers and mothers to stop abandoning or mistreating their children.

Jason Whitlock is not guilty of race-baiting for political advantage, as Peter Heck says he is. However, it’s clear that the only person in the room who has a race problem is Jason Whitlock. As a culture, we need to recognize what that is, and we need to treat it with some understanding, but we don’t need to poison the political atmosphere with it. We can feel compassion, but it’s Jason Whitlock who needs to address his racial feelings, not anybody else.

Ironically, Whitlock himself explains why everybody is defending Peyton Manning, rather than acknowledging that he was outplayed. Look:

Some of you who read my column regularly think I have a major problem with Peyton Manning. I don’t. I enjoy watching him play. I admire the values he and his family project. I respect his work ethic. Even with an incomplete resume that will only improve, he is already one of the 10 best quarterbacks of all time.

Jason, everybody else sees exactly what you see in Peyton Manning, and that’s why they’re defending him: everybody wants to think well of the guy. He’s a good guy. We like guys like him in America. He validates the things we believe.

It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. I feel exactly the same way about Jimmy Rollins, shortstop for the Philadelphia Phillies. Rollins’ prayers and positive mental attitude are probably more responsible for the success that team has experienced over the last four years than any other single factor, including Ryan Howard’s 58-home-run season and Chase Utley’s astonishing hyper-competence. That makes Rollins a hero to me, and yes, it makes it that much more difficult for me to admit it when Jimmy’s being an idiot about some boast he made in public. None of us like to admit the faults of our heroes. Rollins, in case anybody does not know, is black, but honestly, I don’t notice that except when somebody else brings up race.

Race is still an issue because a lot of people need it to be, but it’s also an issue for some because they feel very real pain that’s related to how they were viewed. The only way these people will ever be healed is if we can talk plainly about why we react the way we do to certain cultural stimuli. That is not possible in the poisonous environment created by the opportunism of white liberals, but… we shall overcome, someday.

10/30/2009 (10:20 pm)

Is Abortion Genocide?

Research published by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) a few weeks ago notes that abortions killed more African-Americans than the 7 next highest causes of death combined. (You can read the actual report here; the link points directly to Table 9, which shows the relevant statistics.)

Abortion kills more black Americans than the seven leading causes of death combined, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2005, the latest year for which the abortion numbers are available.

Abortion killed at least 203,991 blacks in the 36 states and two cities (New York City and the District of Columbia) that reported abortions by race in 2005, according to the CDC. During that same year, according to the CDC, a total of 198,385 blacks nationwide died from heart disease, cancer, strokes, accidents, diabetes, homicide, and chronic lower respiratory diseases combined. These were the seven leading causes of death for black Americans that year.

States are not required to report abortion statistics by race (not required to report them at all, in fact.) Abortion statistics by race were only available for 36 states; among those missing were California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, and New York outside of New York City. Also, abortions performed by private physicians were not reported to the CDC. Consequently, the 203,991 abortions reported among blacks by the CDC was far lower than the actual number. And still, it was enough to swamp all other causes of death among African-Americans.

Abortion is arguably the most favored “right” among social liberals in America, for reasons about which one can only guess because they’re never candid about it. When Al Gore attempted a rousing speech at the 2000 Democratic convention, the only sound bite that earned him more than meager applause was his full-throated defense of legal abortions. And President Obama, whose measures to nationalize and over-regulate American industry have come at a breath-taking pace, and who has several times directed federal favors in the direction of his union buddies and contributors, took some of his earliest Presidential steps to expand the number of legal abortions — a direction that those of us who actually did our homework about Obama fully expected. Democrats claim that they really don’t like abortions, that nobody really wants them, that steps should be taken to keep abortions rare, but that they must be kept legal to protect women. None of these statements are believable, particularly the last, since recent surveys reveal that women feel pressured to have an abortion in almost 2/3 of actual abortions, and that violence by spouses, boyfriends, and significant others against women rises dramatically when the women are pregnant. But most Democrats scrabble frantically for reasons to reject facts that make abortion seem like a bad bet for women; they’ve been unwilling even to consider the now-voluminous evidence demonstrating serious health effects from abortions. Something other than the safety of women motivates them. They won’t say what it is.

Whatever the motivation, abortion in America seems fiendishly targeted at blacks. Black women have abortions between 3 and 5 times more frequently than white women, depending on which study you’re reading, and nearly half of all black pregnancies end in abortion. Alveda King, niece of the Rev. Martin Luther King, reports that fully 1/4 of the blacks in America have been eliminated by way of abortion. Speaking at the unveiling of a monument to her uncle, King noted:

…that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionists, “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.

“The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Planned Parenthood, furthermore, apparently targets black neighborhoods and schools as locations for its offices. The black-created anti-abortion group LEARN, the Life Education and Resource Network, reports that nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are located in or near minority neighborhoods. Author George Grant, quoted in LEARN’s article about Margaret Sanger’s Negro project, observes that PP’s school-based clinics show an even stronger emphasis on the lower classes:

Grant observed the same game plan 20 years ago. “During the 1980s when Planned Parenthood shifted its focus from community-based clinics to school-based clinics, it again targeted inner-city minority neighborhoods,” he writes. “Of the more than 100 school-based clinics that have opened nationwide in the last decade [1980s], none has been at substantially all-white schools,” he adds. “None has been at suburban middle-class schools. All have been at black, minority or ethnic schools.”

One might take this to be a macabre manifestation of profit motive — they’ll make more money by placing clinics where the people seek abortions the most — if it were not the case that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, voiced her intent to introduce legal abortion specifically to reduce the black population. Sanger, an early 20th century adherent of Malthusian eugenics, felt that the solution to the poverty and suppression of Negroes was to reduce their numbers by means of birth control. While the quotations from her works suggesting a racist motive could be interpreted other ways, it is simply a fact that Sanger favored the reduction of the Negro population, and initiated in 1939 what she called The Negro Project, aimed at reducing the birth rate among poorer, less educated blacks as a means of reducing poverty and “improving human stock.” In the best tradition of American liberalism, there is ample evidence that Sanger felt the reduction of the black population was necessary for their own good, as well as for the good of the nation. So blacks should thank her, you see. [/sarc]

It is hard to imagine that modern staff at Planned Parenthood still share the opinions of its founder. However, it is equally hard to imagine that an organization specifically founded 80 years ago to reduce the black population, is doing exactly that today entirely by accident. There’s something in the abortion agenda that seems distinctly targeted toward blacks. American liberals claim to be eager to extract every hint of institutional racism from American culture; for them to ignore the racism embedded in legalized abortion proves that they’ve got some bigger agenda that supersedes their concern about racism.

We see the same inverted priorities in the arena of education. Vouchered education programs consistently help inner-city parents find decent education for their children. Democrats routinely defeat vouchered education programs, though; it was even reported earlier this year that President Obama’s Education Dept. deliberately obscured the results of research proving the value of a DC voucher program until after Congress had voted not to continue the program. Political common sense attributes this to the Democrats’ reliance on teacher’s unions to win elections.

It’s not that Democrats hate blacks; it’s simply that they don’t care nearly as much about them as they do about some other things. Whenever they have bigger fish to fry, they’ll fry them first. In the case of abortion, it appears to be something as banal and infantile as the desire to have unrestrained sex: none of the reasons they actually offer hold water, and the real reason has to be something a) very personal that b) they would prefer not to admit. Sex fits the bill. In the case of education, it’s simply a matter of political reality; Democrats need political power to do all the wonderful things they plan to do, so they have to cozy up to the groups that will produce votes. If that means millions of black kids have to attend horrible schools where they’ll be bullied, shot at, and kept ignorant and poor… oh, well, it’s nothing personal, folks, it’s just politics. Blacks have shown that they will vote for Democrats regardless of what the Democrats do, so Democrats never feel the need to serve their interests.

This would explain, also, why Democrats have been so utterly vicious towards black conservatives. There are truly only two places in modern America where one can still hear hard-core racist talk. One is in the black community, where some blacks routinely hurl racist epithets at white folks. The other is among liberal writers writing about black conservatives. They do it, apparently, because if blacks ever figure out how damaging Democratic policies are for the black community, the Democrats will never be able to win another election… ever. So, they have to bully them to stay in line. Not because they hate blacks, you see, but because they can’t afford to have them leave the planta… uh, the reservation.

Did I say that? Oops.

The Democratic party’s disdain for the black community is one of the most disturbing elements of the modern political scene, and also one of the most frequently ignored. I do not know how they get away with it. If the Republican party had a clue, they’d be sending organizers into every black district in America reciting the facts I’ve included in this article. And those facts would tell a frightening tale: that whether deliberately or accidentally, liberal abortion policies are producing a holocaust among black Americans. It may not be specifically racist, but it certainly appears to be effective genocide.

09/08/2009 (10:10 am)

As the Race Meme Rises…


Back in April when President Obama’s “likeability” rating touched 80%, I predicted, agreeing with Jonah Goldberg, that when that rating fell as it inevitably would, the fall would be blamed on racism. It was an easy prediction, and now it’s happening.

The LA Times today notes a precipitous fall in the President’s support among whites, over a photo of the First Family sporting the caption, “The Obama family returns from Camp David. It’s unclear whether President Obama’s ratings slip is based on policy or personal issues.”

Among white Democrats, Obama’s job approval rating has dropped 11 points since his 100-days mark in April, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It has dropped by 9 points among white independents and whites over 50, and by 12 points among white women — all groups that will be targeted by both parties in next year’s midterm elections.

“While Obama has a lock on African Americans, his support among white voters seems to be almost in a free fall,” said veteran Republican pollster Neil Newhouse.

The writer goes on to list all the controversies stoked by conservatives that he thinks have nothing to do with policy: the inflammatory comments of Van Jones, the invitation of a terrorist-defending attorney to a White House Ramadan celebration, Obama’s plan to address the nation’s schoolchildren, concern over whether Obama was eligible to run for President. He ties these to pre-election controversies over Obama’s association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright… and then subtly slips a Race Bomb under the sofa. He does not actually say “race” — plausible deniability, I suppose — but there it is, in black and wh… oops, I mean in full colo… wait, no, I mean as plain as day.

One black congressman, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), was quoted last week alleging that opposition to Obama’s healthcare policies was “a bias, a prejudice, an emotional feeling.”

“Some Americans have not gotten over the fact that Obama is president of the United States. They go to sleep wondering, ‘How did this happen?’ ” Rangel said, according to the New York Post.

Of course, it’s not unclear at all why his popularity has fallen. Even the so-called “personal” issues are not about race, they’re about radicalism. The public is beginning to recognize that we elected a full-blown radical, and that what he intends is a radical shift that they did not, and do not, approve. At the core, the public hates his policies.

This actually gets explained in the LA Times article — neatly split between pages 1 and 2 on the web display (the added emphasis is mine.)

Democratic pollster David Beattie conducted a survey last month in one competitive congressional district that found that more than a quarter of independents believed Obama had not proven his natural-born status. The same sentiment was expressed by nearly 6 in 10 Republican women — a group that Beattie said would be important for a Democratic victory.

He declined to name the district because the polling was private, but said that such questions about Obama’s background seemed to be a “proxy” for voters’ growing unease with Obama’s ambitious agenda, which has included a potential push to create a government-sponsored health insurance plan.

Surveys show that the vast majority of Americans like Obama personally, but that they are increasingly skeptical of policies that seem to expand the scope of government.

“We’re having an economic culture war,” Beattie said.

“The criticisms of Obama are about the fundamental role of government in our economy.”

The decline was inevitable because his policies are starkly socialist, and America is far from a socialist nation. Sooner or later the dislike of his policies would morph into a dislike of the man, and the numbers would show up in the polling.

The resort to racism was inevitable because leftists in America generally believe their relevance lies in their defeat of racism, sexism, homophobia, and militarism. These are the “Liberals Lost in Time” (LLITs, I call them), who continue to talk, write, and argue as though they were battling 1960s attitudes and laws. It’s pitiable in a way, that some adults can only sustain a sense of purpose by continuing to pretend that they live in an embattled past, glorying in the camaraderie of an entirely imaginary struggle against a long-dead foe.

It seems to be the case that primarily whites are responding to the appearance of radicalism in Obama’s back yard, but the LA Times is (again, predictably) raising the wrong question. The question is not, “Why are the whites leaving,” it’s “Why are the blacks not affected?”

There is no “white bloc” vote, but there most certainly is a black one, and it’s at the same time the most potent predictor of political leaning in American politics, and the least sensible one. Democratic policies have ripped the black community to shreds, enslaving multiple generations to the dole, encouraging the breakups of families, planting genocidally-minded clinics among them to reduce their numbers, blocking students from escaping failing inner-city schools, ensuring massive dropout rates from colleges. One would think that black voters would tire of being condescended to by self-righteous activists they know to be motivated by white guilt, and would recognize the routinely devastating consequences of the policies arising from this pathetic, twisted zeitgeist. However, so long as power in the black community flows from church leaders in bed with Democratic city ward masters, inner city blacks will continue to vote for those politicians most thoroughly committed to their continued poverty. The enslavement of the blacks continues unabated in the Democratic party.

07/17/2009 (11:34 am)

Barbara Boxer, Racist?

I simply could not believe my eyes when I watched this.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D, CA) has before her Harry Alford, the Chairman and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, apparently testifying concerning the potential economic impact of cap-and-trade on member businesses, based on years of study by that organization. Boxer’s response, incredibly, was to read into the record a superficial resolution from the NAACP favoring legislation to combat climate change. It occurs at 1:23 into the clip, which is just over 6 minutes long. Listen:

Did the woman actually think she could mollify a black man by reading him a resolution by other black men? “Here, good Negro, we really do take your type seriously?” Or is she hoping that the people listening to the hearing will be persuaded to ignore one black man because other black men disagree? Is this her way of rebutting a research-supported opinion by a professional — show that somebody of the same race has a different opinion, using an organization that has nothing to do with neither energy, nor business, nor climate change, but is connected only by the fact that the skin of the individuals have similar amounts of melanin?

Somebody, please, offer me an explanation of this that does not make Barbara Boxer either the typical, white, racist socialite of the 1950s (“You’re a credit to your race”) or the most shamelessly cynical player of racial politics. Either way, I completely concur with Mr. Alford’s objection to her racist condescension.

Barbara Boxer is a disgrace.

In case anybody cares, the correct reply to her utterly flaccid statistic from the Pew study at minute 1, that “green” jobs grew faster than the general economy in California from 1998 to 2007, is “Of course they did; the government pumped billions of dollars worth of subsidies into green trades. How much did it cost the state to create each of those, and how many jobs were lost from conventional fuel-related business?” You can increase the number of jobs that paint the roses red, if you throw enough dollars at painting the roses red; that doesn’t mean it makes any sense to do it, nor does it mean it was good for the economy.

07/03/2009 (10:56 am)

Ricci and the Stench of Racial Politics

In my arcanely-worded and overly-long post yesterday regarding the Ricci case and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, I left out any mention of the real heart of the case: the Mayor who, seeking the support of a race-hustling cleric, rigged the hearings of the Civil Service Board to produce the result he wanted.

Reading Michael Barone’s editorial from Wednesday and Justice Samuel Alito’s concurring opinion (you have to scroll down to find it) corrected the error for me, so I’m passing it on to you all today.

kimberMayor John DeStephano of New Haven apparently relies on the political support of the Rev. Boise Kimber, a headline-grabbing and corrupt African-American pastor who routinely threatens opponents with racial demonstrations, a la Al Sharpton. Kimber showed his stripes when appointed chairman of the New Haven Board of Fire Commissioners by announcing to the firefighters that certain recruits would not be hired “because they just have too many vowels in their name.” When that statement was made public, Kimber had to step down as chairman, but he remains on the board of commissioners — and apparently, his intent still colors that of the board.

Justice Alito’s opinion describes a seamy, cozy collaboration between DeStephano, Kimber, and managers within city government to manipulate the hearings of the Civil Service Board (CSB) to ensure that the results of the testing be thrown out, while making it appear that real hearings were going on. Read:

Taking into account all the evidence in the summary judgment record, a reasonable jury could find the following. Almost as soon as the City disclosed the racial makeup of the list of firefighters who scored the highest on the exam, the City administration was lobbied by an influential community leader to scrap the test results, and the City administration decided on that course of action before making any real assessment of the possibility of a disparate-impact violation. To achieve that end, the City administration concealed its internal decision but worked — as things turned out, successfully — to persuade the CSB that acceptance of the test results would be illegal and would expose the City to disparate-impact liability. But in the event that the CSB was not persuaded, the Mayor, wielding ultimate decisionmaking authority, was prepared to overrule the CSB immediately. Taking this view of the evidence, a reasonable jury could easily find that the City’s real reason for scrapping the test results was not a concern about violating the disparate-impact provision of Title VII but a simple desire to please a politically important racial constituency.

Short version: New Haven did not discriminate against white firefighters out of fear of violating the Civil Rights Act; they did it to satisfy a race hustler, so he would support the Mayor politically.

Alito points out that the District Court that upheld New Haven’s decision to discard the test results knew all about these machinations — and ignored them. They were present in the District Court records, so the 2nd Circuit also knew about them — and ignored them. This Circuit Court decision was signed and concurred with by President Obama’s putative nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

What we’re looking at is the machinery of leftist racial politics in a leftist-controlled, college town. They have a goal of numerical racial parity or superiority. Parity itself is not a bad thing, except that they do not take merit into account, and they also do not take the law into account. They are willing to ignore the law, ignore clear violations of the law, and ignore the starkest racism, in fact to do anything within their power, legal or illegal, fair or foul, to achieve this parity. And in the process, they will trample on the hard work and discard the deserved promotions of men whose expertise may determine the life or death of their customers.

Their victims are guys who still believe they can get ahead by hard work. Listen to Alito’s description:

Petitioners are firefighters who seek only a fair chance to move up the ranks in their chosen profession…Petitioner Frank Ricci, who is dyslexic, found it necessary to “hir[e] someone, at considerable expense, to read onto audiotape the content of the books and study materials.” App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 07–1428, at 169a. He “studied an average of eight to thirteen hours a day . . . , even listening to audio tapes while driving his car.” Ibid. Petitioner Benjamin Vargas, who is Hispanic, had to “give up a part-time job,” and his wife had to “take leave from her own job in order to take care of their three young children while Vargas studied.” Id., at 176a. “Vargas devoted countless hours to study . . . , missed two of his children’s birthdays and over two weeks of vacation time,” and “incurred significant financial expense” during the three-month study period. Id., at 176a–177a.

Let’s be clear, racism is racism, regardless of the skin color of the person committing it, and racism in judgment discourages the excellence that we need in crucial civil services — really, that we need in everything. Ultimately, though, racism of this sort hurts those it intends to help. Barone finishes:

We ought to reserve some of our sympathy for the purported beneficiaries of this wretched discrimination, the black firefighters. Their champions — Kimber and DeStefano, Bazelon and Judge Sotomayor — are telling them that their way up in life should not be determined by the content of their character or by mastery of their worthy craft, but by the color of their skin. Not by a fair and unbiased test, but by dishonest wire pulling and threats of political retaliation.

This is what Barack Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court — one of the engines of this machine. Welcome to Barack Justice.

07/02/2009 (6:45 pm)

Ricci's Baby Step Toward Real Progress

Earlier this week blog chatter focused briefly on the US Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ricci v DeStefano, in which the Court upheld the complaint of white and Hispanic firemen whose promotions had been deferred because not enough minority candidates had performed well enough on exams to earn promotion. What made the case news was the lower court opinion of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee-apparent to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter. What made it interesting to me was the looming and welcome threat to Title VII.

The New Haven, CT Fire Department spend oodles of bucks devising a battery of tests for promoting candidates to Lieutenant and Captain that would both fulfill their requirements under their union contract, and meet their legal requirements under the Civil Rights Act. After paying consultants, screening the questions through a minority-heavy sample of officers, screening them again through independent, outside fire safety professionals, the fire department was dismayed to learn that the pass rate on the Captain exam was 64% for whites, but only 38% for both blacks and Hispanics. The Lieutenant exam was only slightly better: the pass rate was 58% for white candidates, 32% for black candidates, and 20% for Hispanic candidates.

A series of meetings ensued while the department tried its best to find a way of avoiding all appearance of discrimination without offending the officers who had studied hard and performed well, earning promotion according to the standing rules of the department. In the end, they decided to simply discard the results of the tests and find another way to evaluate candidates. The officers who had earned immediate promotion, 17 whites and 2 Hispanics, sued for relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming they had been discriminated against solely on the basis of their skin color.

The case was mostly interesting to newsies because the District Court’s decision to allow New Haven to toss out their own job testing over affirmative action concerns had been upheld at the 2nd Circuit by Judge Sotomayor. Sotomayor (and others) let stand uncontested a District Court ruling that permitted the city of New Haven to discard the test results for no reason other than that it had produced disparate results, adding the fascinating and frankly amusing claim that the city’s dismissal of the results was race-neutral (more on this below). The controversy in law raised by their dismissal was that under existing Title VII law, the employer can only violate Title VII and deliberately throw out the tests if it can be shown that their tests do not rest on business necessity, or that other, satisfactory tests would produce more racially balanced results. Neither the District Court nor the Circuit Court raised this point.

Everyone wondered what the Court would say about Sotomayor’s reasoning. The consensus on that score was that her candidacy for the Supreme Court seat took some flak. Not only did the majority, represented in the opinion by moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy, vote to overturn the District Court’s decision, but the dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and signed by leftist Justices Souter, Stephens, and Breyer, also explicitly rejected Sotomayor’s reasoning, insisting that they should have held hearings to evaluate the issues of business necessity and alternative testing procedures. This probably will not stop her confirmation (unfortunately), but it will certainly not improve her standing in the eyes of Senators whom she needs for her confirmation.

The more interesting question, to me, was the review of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII bans employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, either deliberate and direct or by way of indirect criteria designed to exclude certain groups. Direct discrimination is called “disparate treatment,” whereas indirect discrimination is called “disparate impact.” An example of the former is “We don’t hire blacks.” An example of the latter might be extra weight given to recommendations from current employees, if none of the current employees are members of a minority group; this would tend to exclude minority candidates.

Nobody reading the description of the machinations the New Haven, CT Fire Department went through while considering how to decide whom to promote would have the slightest doubt that they very badly wanted to avoid both real discrimination, and any appearance of discrimination. In fact, I was appalled at the amount of trouble they went to specifically to avoid any problem with Title VII. They spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on evaluating the testing regimen both before the test, and afterward, when they learned that all ten of the candidates approved for immediate promotion to Lieutenant and 7 of the 9 candidates approved for immediate promotion to Captain were white. The entire process took months, not counting the court battle that has followed. The extensive, painful process was described in detail in the majority opinion, expanded upon in the dissenting opinion, and expanded upon even further in Justice Alito’s separate concurring opinion. Even without the Court challenge, the entire process was a nightmare. If Title VII were repealed tomorrow (from my keyboard to God’s eyes,) GDP would instantly rise 2 percentage points, just by eliminating burdens like these. Now, that’s stimulation.

Unfortunately, the majority opinion was a Kafkaesque maze of rationalizations, trying desperately to make Title VII work. Justice Kennedy ducked the main question of whether reverse discrimination is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, by focusing his attention first on the statutory question of whether the dismissed candidates had received disparate treatment under Title VII. After spinning profusely, he concluded that they had, in fact, been discriminated against under TItle VII — so the Court didn’t have to cover the Equal Protection question after all.

Only Justice Scalia’s separate, concurring opinion, brought this up. Kennedy’s meanderings through the arcane tunnels of Title VII made it crystal clear, though, that the disparate impact requirements of Title VII cannot be enforced without instituting racial quotas — something the Title VII law specifically says cannot be done. It’s a self-refuting law. It cannot possibly be enforced without breaking itself.

Think about it. How is it possible to say “There are not enough from group X in this result” without a clear idea of what “enough” would be? And if one comes up with a definition of “enough” to satisfy Title VII, how is that not a quota?

Title VII law is apparently full of quandaries like this, as we see in the mishmash that Kennedy works himself into here:

Applying the strong-basis-in-evidence standard to Title VII gives effect to both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions, allowing violations of one in the name of compliance with the other only in certain, narrow circumstances. The standard leaves ample room for employers’voluntary compliance efforts, which are essential to the statutory scheme and to Congress’s efforts to eradicate workplace discrimination… And the standard appropriately constrains employers’ discretion in making race-based decisions: It limits that discretion to cases in which there is a strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability, but it is not so restrictive that it allows employers to act only when there is a provable, actual violation.

He’s trying to balance case law that says “an employer can break the law (e.g. discriminate in reverse) when it looks like otherwise he’ll be breaking the law in the other direction,” with other case law saying “you can’t be so restrictive as to only allow a remedy when the employer will be breaking a law otherwise.” So, somebody explain to me the difference between “a strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability” and “a provable, actual violation.” Isn’t there a violation when there’s a strong basis in evidence that a violation has occurred? Basically, Kennedy is reduced to saying “You can, only you can’t,” and calling that a clear rule of law.

Fortunately for Kennedy, he’s being less laughable than the dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg relies on the “The dog ate my homework” defense. I’m not kidding. Listen:

At least two candidates opposed to certification noted unequal access to study materials. Some individuals, they asserted, had the necessary books even before the syllabus was issued. Others had to invest substantial sums to purchase the materials and “wait a month and a half for some of the books because they were on back-order.” Id., at A858. These disparities, it was suggested, fell at least in part along racial lines. While many Caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the over whelming majority of minority applicants were “first generation firefighters” without such support networks.

Wow. This is what affirmative action enforcement has come to: the highest court in the land feels it must remove the liberty of the people in order to settle a disparity between people who have to buy the books, and people who can borrow them from a relative. She also got into “Objective tests don’t really show what you know, anyway.” For real. And the minority candidates couldn’t study because their grandmothers died (ok, now I’m exaggerating). Maybe the Court will order the minority officers to spend less time at cheerleading practice, or assign them more homework. Good grief, did Ginsburg actually expect to be taken seriously when she wrote this? My kids knew better than to raise such lame excuses by the time they were 10.

To Ginsburg also fell the task of explaining how discriminating against the white candidates did not constitute a racial quota, forbidden by Title VII. Good luck with that, sez I. Here she explains the District Court’s reasoning:

Respondents were no doubt conscious of race during their decision making process, the court acknowledged, but this did not mean they had engaged in racially disparate treatment. The conclusion they had reached and the action thereupon taken were race-neutral in this sense: “[A]ll the test results were discarded, no one was promoted, and firefighters of every race will have to participate in another selection process to be considered for promotion.” Id., at 158. New Haven’s action, which gave no individual a preference, “was ‘simply not analogous to a quota system or a minority set-aside where candidates, on the basis of their race, are not treated uniformly.’ ” Id., at 157 (quoting Hayden, 180 F. 3d, at 50). For these and other reasons, the court also rejected petitioners’ equal protection claim.

Right. “We’re going to discard the results if it produces too many white faces. Then we’ll discard them again if the new procedure also produces too many white faces. And we’ll keep discarding them until we see enough black faces. But because every time we discard the results, we discard them for everybody (which we’ll continue doing until we see enough black faces), we’re being racially neutral.” Got that?

Scalia, meanwhile, is sitting off to the site, casually humming, and just waiting for the case that will finally allow him to point out that Title VII is completely unenforceable. You can’t remedy discrimination by forcing discrimination. He knows it. The rest probably know it, too; they can’t be impervious the onerous burden that’s been laid on all employers by this monstrosity. Not to mention that the entire Civil Rights Act constitutes a massive assault on limited federalism, forcing the national government to invade the minute decision-making of every business in the nation. This explains the angst exhibited by leftists like this one, who can’t understand why the Supreme Court is engaging in judicial activism by interfering in a strictly local matter. I had to remind him — they’re doing it because the Congress passed a law making every employer’s decisions a federal issue if it might involve discrimination. If he wants to protect limited federalism, the right way to do it is to repeal the Civil Rights Act.

Oh, my goodness, that felt good. Let me say that again: if we want to protect limited federalism, we have to repeal the Civil Rights Act, and allow state and local governments to pass their own anti-discrimination legislation — or to pass none at all, if that’s their preference. The price of genuine liberty is that social engineers have to keep their grubby hands off when a local government doesn’t do things exactly the way they’d like. Liberty, being the ability of the human soul to breathe, is actually worth that. Now, if we could just convince some “progressives” that that’s so…

I’m engaging in a mortal sin, I know. None of us are permitted to question the unassailable moral purity of the Civil Rights Act, the Most Moral Legislation in the History of the Universe. To even suggest that it might not have been necessary, or might not have been wise, is immediately to mark oneself a secret member of the Ku Klux Klan. Only, I’m not one of those. I just think self-government is a good idea, and that liberty is such a precious commodity that it’s worth enduring the temporary errors of some states in order to protect it. I don’t think there’s any question that racial parity would have arisen on its own, without Congress demolishing federalism; it might even have arisen faster. And don’t get me started on the War on Poverty…

It may be a footrace: can we get a true Title VII case in front of the Court before Obama packs the Court with radicals and changes the rules? I can’t say. My crystal ball is broken. But it would be worth the effort, with the Court conservatives alert to the possibility that TItle VII might inherently violate the 14th Amendment.

Older Posts »