Civil Rights

How Clinton-era ‘diversity’ hobbled black progress in the South

Thirty years ago I had an essay in the Philadelphia Inquirer making the point that racial integration in the South had become a project primarily to satisfy the white liberal imagination of Northern people rather than to advance the economic progress of black people in the South. While the South had effectively integrated in the 1960s, the North and Philadelphia, where I lived, had not.


Miranda panders

Here's a badly needed Miranda Advisory for all the political and pundit blowhards: "You have the right to remain silent. Use it.”

It would be particularly worthwhile right now if it was taken to heart by all the opportunists who are trying to exploit fear by wildly criticizing officials who Mirandize suspected terrorists in their custody, even U.S. citizens.

They know such simple-mindedness gets voters riled up, which is the way they play the game. Never mind that constitutional rights are not games.


The unintended consequences of diversity

We must stop seeing diversity through the lens of race and ethnicity. Diversity in gender, age, religion, culture, geography and even our professions needs more critical thought and self-examination. As has often been shown throughout our nation’s history, diversity can undoubtedly be a positive force. However, there are too many shocking and absurd examples of how diversity can be quite malicious and divisive.


Racism under the radar screen

Congress has set the stage for institutionalizing racism in America. In a relatively underreported act of Congress, the House passed the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which authorizes our government to give about one-third of Hawaii’s land to a sovereign entity representing Native Hawaiians. It set up a sovereign state within the state of Hawaii similar to reservations granted to Native Americans on the mainland. This act would also exempt Native Hawaiians from selected taxation and laws. This egregious act is based strictly on race and President Barack Obama promised to swiftly sign it if the Senate supports this bill.


Beware of your friends

I read an interesting front-page story in The New York Times about efforts by the pro-life movement to gain converts in the African-American community. As the story related, “Across the country, the anti-abortion movement, long viewed as almost exclusively white and Republican, is turning its attention to African-Americans and encouraging black abortion opponents across the country to become more active.

A new documentary, written and directed by Mark Crutcher, a white abortion opponent in Denton, Texas, meticulously traces what it says are connections among slavery, Nazi-style eugenics, birth control and abortion, and is being regularly screened by black organizations.”


Critics face sanctions

Three news stories in today’s New York Times report the continuing battle over criticism and the policies of governments to suppress it.


Nihilistic and repulsive comments by NOW President Terry O'Neil

Why are the relativists always the first to cast judgment on the religious, while the religious reserve judgment not so that their own beliefs will remain unchallenged, but because they either fear the reaction of those they’re judging or are trying to “judge not, lest [they] be judged” themselves?

Take a comment recently made by National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terry O’Neil upon learning that CBS will run a commercial during the Super Bowl paid for by Focus on the Family about Heisman winner Tim Tebow’s mother’s decision to oppose her doctor’s recommendation to abort Tim for medical reasons.


Remnants of old racism

Experience is all too often given short shrift. All too often, the ones who don't have it belittle the value of life’s and work's hard lessons.

But sometimes those who have accumulated those lessons haven't learned as much as they should. The comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2008, that Barack Obama would succeed because he was "light-skinned" with "no Negro dialect," are a case in point.


‘System’? What ‘system’?

So let's get this straight: Federal officials say they had responded to modesty concerns by blurring out the images of those airport security devices that see beneath a traveler's clothing.

But doesn't that also defeat the purpose of these "Body Scanners," which is to detect what danger might be hidden under the layers?

Don't you just hate it that those troublesome privacy advocates raise a ruckus about the obvious potential for abuse and embarrassment? They get in the way of those who only want to protect us from dangerous terrorist lunatics.

Well here's another idea that might enhance that effort. Let's work on the ridiculous incompetence that pervades the ranks of those who have mismanaged their billions of dollars and near-authoritarian powers.


The Constitution’s dark side

The original intent of the Founding Fathers who drafted United States Constitution was to minimize the impact of government tyranny on the people. There was a clear bias toward small government and local governance. Thomas Jefferson was clear that governments that govern the best govern the least. As a result, the Constitution imposed significant constraints on ability of the federal government to govern.

It is difficult to have a strong, principled leader in the U.S because there are so many checks and balances among the three branches of government (legislature, judiciary and executive) and federalist system. In order to pass legislation it takes much compromise, even among members of the same party. It's much easier to govern in a European-style parliamentarian system where these checks and balances do not exist. The parliamentary party in control doesn't have to pass muster with an independent executive who has veto power. Nor a Supreme Court that can over rule the constitutionality of any law. Nor a Constitution that says that all power not explicitly delegated to the federal government belongs to local government or the people.