From PA:

The Lehigh Valley IronPigs minor league baseball team this afternoon announced it is replacing the winning entry in its “Name the Mascot” contest from PorkChop to Ferrous.

The team said it switched the name when it was brought to its attention that the name PorkChop could potentially be offensive to members of the community.

IronPigs General Manager Kurt Landes said he received a handful of e-mails and phone calls last night from people in the Latino community who called the name derogatory.

I happened to be living just north of Aberdeen, MD when Cal Ripkin, Jr. (the Iron Man) started a single A Oriole’s affiliate there aptly named the IronBirds.  They named their mascot Ferrous, which, being a mechanical engineer and loosely familiar with metallurgy, I found strangely amusing.  I don’t know if the IronBirds were the first team with a mascot named Ferrous, but I do know that the IronPigs are wholly unoriginal for copying them.  Plus they have noodles for spines for changing their mascot name because it o-f-f-e-n-d-e-d someone.  I’ve had enough of people being offended.  Get over it.

Anytime Alabama makes it to the Drudge Report you know it can’t be for a good reason.  And with that I give you Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner, a would be Barack Obama supporter who is tossing his support behind the former first lady for the basest of reasons.

“The question you have to put forth to yourself is that whether or not in this racist country a black man named Obama — when we are shooting at Osama — can win the presidency of the United States?” Turner said.

Turner said Clinton is the Democrat most likely to win in November “because of her husband and because of some other things, mainly because she’s white.”

Mr. Turner represents what is wrong with race relations in this country.  At one time blacks were put at a disadvantage with the government’s blessing.  Men and women fought terrible, occasionally bloody battles to gain equal treatment in our country.  And for what?  So that one of the beneficiaries of those struggles can himself attempt to hold back a man due to the color of his skin - not out of hatred of the man, but out of concern that others might view race through the same prism as he does.  A generation of leaders took risks to try to attain positions and recognition once forcibly reserved for whites.  Turner prefers to assume the battle (which has already been won) is unwinnable and that he should instead discriminate against a black man because of his skin tone.  Shameful.

As one might imagine this is not Turner’s first such outburst.  From a Birmingham News article in 2002:

“They,” Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner Jr. says of Perry County whites, “don’t want progress. They don’t believe that black people have sense enough to run government … In their world, they wish it was back in the 1940s or 1950s when, if a white man was walking down the street, you had to get off the sidewalk.

“They don’t believe we can walk together.”

Actually, it looks like it is Turner who doesn’t believe we can walk together.

From the NY Times:

Between 2000 and 2006, a specter haunted the community of fundamentalist Democrats. Members of this community looked around and observed their moral and intellectual superiority. They observed that their policies were better for the middle classes. And yet the middle classes did not support Democrats. They tended to vote, in large numbers, for the morally and intellectually inferior party, the one, moreover, that catered to the interests of the rich.

How could this be?

Serious thinkers set to work, and produced a long shelf of books answering this question. Their answers tended to rely on similar themes. First, Democrats lose because they are too intelligent. Their arguments are too complicated for American voters. Second, Democrats lose because they are too tolerant. They refuse to cater to racism and hatred. Finally, Democrats lose because they are not good at the dark art of politics. Republicans, though they are knuckle-dragging simpletons when it comes to policy, are devilishly clever when it comes to electioneering.

No, this isn’t the official position of the Times’ Editorial Board (though I wouldn’t be surprised).  This is a review of a book written by Emory University professor Drew Westen.

His claim is one I’ve heard often.  I think the good doctor is a bit off base.  Democrats think they are smarter than Republicans because they are more adept at crafting complex, bureaucratic legislation than their GOP peers.  Democrats arrogantly believe that government can and should actively manage people, whereas Republicans are generally less inclined to do so.  Really, it takes a great deal of intelligence to understand free market economics on a macro level and to realize why it is the ideal model for allocating scarce resources.  In other words, knowing when government should do less often displays greater intelligence than reflexively trying to force an unnecessarily complicated government driven solution.  Any moron can design detailed, wonky legislation.

I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen too many plans proffered by politicians that I don’t understand.  I understand the policies proposed by Democrats and I understand when they are bad and when they are good.  A large share of them are ultimately income or wealth redistribution schemes smothered in feel good themes like “helping children” and “protecting the working man.”  I understand how their proposals, both collectively and individually, seek to depress initiative and retard the growth potential of our economy.

Ironically, it is the too-smart-for-themselves Democrats who craft legislation that they probably know is economically unsound in order to play on the economic ignorance and wealth envy of their constituents.  They are perplexed by “Wal-Mart Republicans” who don’t sign up for the socialist gravy train.  They are so invested in socialism that they can’t even comprehend that there are hard working, proud people who are not ashamed that they might not make as much money as their neighbor.

Westen’s claim that Democrats are the party of tolerance is mostly true and I believe will become a big problem for the GOP in the coming years as their older, less tolerant base dies off.  However, I believe that Democrats also harm themselves because they no longer aspire for equal opportunity regardless of race.  Now their mantle seems to be equal distribution on the basis of race.  They always seek out was to engineer society in order to achieve some kind of faux racial harmony.  The problem is that race is a trait that has no bearing on innate personal performance.  It’s akin to eye color or the amount of body hair one has.  Meaningless.  I imagine we would all scoff at a Democrat plan to bus people to different schools in order to achieve a perfect balance of eye colors.  Why do we tolerate such actions based on race?  The truth is that Democrats use race as their own wedge issue.  It would be in everyone’s best interest to live in a “color blind” society.  The best way to work towards that utopian state would be for the government to drop all racial preferences and all acknowledgement of race, but the Democrats need to keep the minority vote to themselves so they instead make race a central factor in their programs and effectively prolong racial strife.

Personally, I think the smarter you are them more likely you are to be a libertarian.  If you’re a smart, uncompromising libertarian who doesn’t care about political success you are likely a Libertarian.

That must be the mantra of folks like Brian Gilmore who is affiliated with the “Progressive Media Project” and wrote this little editorial lamenting the state of racial diversity in our schools.

As school began in Little Rock, Ark., 50 years ago, the bravery of nine young black students changed U.S. history. Sadly, the current state of racial diversity in public education is again under attack, making it even more important to celebrate the courage of the Little Rock Nine.

…

Today, some school districts in the United States are experiencing resegregation as a result of white flight to the suburbs and segregated housing patterns.

Making matters worse, a U.S. Supreme Court decision this summer ended voluntary racial diversity programs in the public schools in Louisville and Seattle. With its controversial decision, the high court essentially sided with Gov. Faubus - not the Little Rock Nine. That’s how backward the decision was.

Feel free to read the rest, but that is just about all you need to know to see where Gilmore is going.

The first thing to note is that the “voluntary racial diversity programs” - can you imagine a goofier phrase than that - were anything but what he leads the reader to think.  As I pointed out a while back, the court case in question centered on two school districts that were denying children access to certain schools based on their race.  In one instance, one of the “voluntary” programs denied admission to a white girl to a school near her house because of her race and forced her to endure a three hour bus ride.  Even black parents voiced similar concerns over their treatment.

Gilmore completely mischaracterized the purpose of Brown v. Board and subsequent rulings from the highest court in the land.  Brown v. Board ruled that “separate but equal” schools were unconstitutional.  In other words, school districts could not forcibly divide students based on race.  There were certainly some painful steps towards compliance with the ruling, no doubt.  But the ultimate goal was to not allow the government to discriminate based on race.

Unfortunately, what were borne from the noble, just rulings were ridiculous “diversity” and forced integration programs.  A reasonable person might say that as long as the government is not barring access to any service based on something as insignificant as skin color then all is well.  But, no.  There are do-gooders who think it is necessary to force “diversity” upon people.  These are the people who sleep better at night knowing that some kids have to unnecessarily ride buses for hours for the sake of diversity - to hell with the impact on their education, social life, or home life.  If free people happen to voluntarily settle in racially or economically segregated neighborhoods these nanny government types sweep in to show us how we should be living our lives.

The thing I take away is that our government education system is little more than a laboratory for social engineering.  Policy makers often seem to be secondarily concerned about actually teaching kids how to be knowledgeable, productive members of society.  Instead they worry themselves about how they can best assure a perfect racial composition or subvert parental desires through sex-ed for children as young as kindergarten.

Well, if this ordinance passes they will.

Baggy pants that show boxer shorts or thongs would be illegal under a proposed amendment to Atlanta’s indecency laws.

The amendment, sponsored by city councilman C.T. Martin, states that sagging pants are an “epidemic” that is becoming a “major concern” around the country.

“Little children see it and want to adopt it, thinking it’s the in thing,” Martin said Wednesday. “I don’t want young people thinking that half-dressing is the way to go. I want them to think about their future.”

I can’t say I have a huge problem with that.

The proposed ordinance would also bar women from showing the strap of a thong beneath their pants. They would also be prohibited from wearing jogging bras in public or show a bra strap, said Debbie Seagraves, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

Well, now the proposal is losing its luster!

But Seagraves said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said the law could not be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.

“This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling,” Seagraves said.

I didn’t see this coming!  The irony?  The sponsor of the proposed law is black.  Maybe they’ll call him an Uncle Tom.

Who would have guessed that Alabama Sen. Hank Sanders’ wife would be a race baiter just like her lesser half?

Prominent Selma attorney Faya Rose Toure, the wife of state Sen. Hank Sanders, was convicted Wednesday in Selma Municipal Court of disorderly conduct and failure to obey an order from a police officer.

Municipal Judge Cliff Price ruled she disrupted municipal court in January and willfully refused orders to leave the courtroom. He fined her $250 plus court costs on each charge.

Toure, who is black, said she was disappointed that Selma’s black mayor, James Perkins, appointed a white judge and white prosecutor to handle her case after local officials stepped aside.

Price, a municipal judge in Leeds, said he was troubled by the case, but the testimony showed Toure became overzealous in defending a client in Municipal Court and told the spectators, “This white judge is going to run over this young man. What are you going to do about it?”

“That was inflammatory enough,” Price said.

Toure was arrested Jan. 9 after Municipal Court Judge Valerie Chittom found Toure’s client guilty of public intoxication without the defendant testifying. Toure protested, resulting in a verbal exchange with the judge and police officer Jimmy Crow arresting Toure after she refused the judge’s directions to be quiet and leave the courtroom.

If a white man started crowing about how a black judge was treating whites unfairly it would probably be a major news story and the man would be quickly labeled a racist.

Toure’s “disappointment” about having a white prosecutor and judge hear her case is invidious.  How can this country get beyond race while people like Toure automatically assume that they will receive unfair treatment from others based solely on skin color?

AEA goon Joe Reed sent a scathing letter to the new chancellor of the two year college system, Bradley Byrne, condemning his treatment of disgraced and dismissed Bishop State president Yvonne Kennedy.  Reed even likened Byrne to Hitler in the letter and essentially accused him of being racist.  Quite honestly, considering the source I don’t think Byrne should lose any sleep.  Maybe he should frame the letter and mount it on his wall.

Among the noteworthy quotes in Reed’s letter was this one:

Dr. Kennedy is the best example of the good that can come from Postsecondary employees serving in the Legislature.

A quick review of how well her tenure at the head of Bishop State went might lead one to think either Reed is a total moron or Dr. Kennedy is the benefactor of a terribly low bar.

August 24, 2006 - Bishop State Community College President Yvonne Kennedy hired former Chancellor Roy Johnson’s son-in-law, paid a friend of Johnson’s as a consultant and gave a contract to a Jasper consulting firm that hired Johnson’s daughter, records show.

Kennedy’s hiring of Johnson’s relative and companies with ties to the fired chancellor came before officials learned about allegations of fraud in Bishop State’s financial aid program. Johnson agreed earlier this year to allow Kennedy to investigate the allegations internally.

Johnson was fired by the state Board of Education in July after earlier revelations about jobs and contracts that his friends and family received in the system.

Kennedy has directed more than $94,000 of her legislative discretionary grant money into a private foundation that she runs. She told a legislative committee when she requested the state money in 2003 that it was needed for a culinary laboratory at Bishop State. But tax records for the foundation don’t report that expense, instead identifying $123,851 in payments for scholarships that year.

September 15, 2006 - [Interim Chancellor Thomas] Corts told the state Board of Education that he sent Attorney General Troy King a report drafted by his staff on problems discovered at Bishop State, including employees mishandling scholarship funds, dispensing cash to relatives and taking financial aid after dropping classes.

Bishop State has been cited numerous times in the past with possible fraud in its financial aid office, including awarding aid payments to people who do not attend the school.

Federal officials demanded last month that Bishop State repay more than $155,000 in misspent aid funds and interest.

September 23, 2006 - A state investigation found that dozens more people than previously known received financial aid payments from Bishop State Community College without attending classes, including employees who claimed they were attending classes during their scheduled work hours.

A team sent to the Mobile school by interim Chancellor Thomas Corts also found that Bishop State President Yvonne Kennedy controlled a private foundation and told her staff how to spend its money, despite Kennedy’s public claims that she served only in an ex officio capacity with the nonprofit.

The foundation, which receives much of its money from school employees, also allows employees who contribute to take the money back for their personal use, Corts’ staff found.

Corts started the investigation after receiving allegations that several school employees helped relatives obtain financial aid payments without attending classes, including a disabled 67-year-old grandmother who was signed up for three sports.

October 23, 2006 - Bishop State Community College officials gave bookstore employees $261,800 in cash in recent years to buy books back from students, but cannot provide records showing how the employees used the school’s money.

February 15, 2007 - State auditors identified $438,496 in student aid abuses, including athletic scholarships to employees’ relatives who didn’t play sports; free courses for employees and their relatives; and 48 people who received federal aid payments but were not eligible. The state’s Examiners of Public Accounts reviewed student aid payments at the school after disclosures last year that employees were arranging aid payments for relatives and others who did not attend the college.

July 28, 2007 - The Best Grill is closed permanently, the chancellor of Alabama’s two-year college system said this week, and $1.8 million slated for the Bishop State Community College culinary program will go to technical programs at the Mobile school.

Chancellor Bradley Byrne said he decided to close the Best Grill, which is linked to financial and academic woes at the 3,600-student school, based on the advice of a college transition team and a system investigation that showed the culinary laboratory lost more than $1.7 million over the last four years.

Keep in mind - I’m just scratching the surface.  There was so much wrong at Bishop State while Dr. Kennedy was at the helm that it is quite difficult to compile all the scandals.

The Democrats’ reaction to the widespread corruption taking place right under Kennedy’s nose has been mixed.  The far left claims that it is all “vague innuendo” with no “evidence of wrongdoing presented.”  Other, more reasonable, Democrats publicly stopped short of heaping condemnation on Kennedy, but admit that Reed’s letter makes him look like an idiot.  David Prather of the Huntsville Times has a little more insight into the Democrats’ more private thoughts.

Recalling the premise that family members can often be more severely critical than outsiders, I wasn’t particularly shocked by the e-mail I recently read from a longtime Democratic activist. He was giving his party down-the-country for a number of substantial shortcomings, and I was on his e-mail list.

High on that list was his disappointment with the continuing defiance of forcibly retired community college president Dr. Yvonne Kennedy in Mobile. The educator/legislator has run Bishop State Community College into the ground. It’s academically in bad shape and has seen 27 staff members charged with theft. The Soprano family hasn’t faced that many indictments, has it?

Back to Reed.  His assertion that Byrne is racist because he had the good sense to dismiss an employee who was either complicit in the corruption or unbelievably incompetent as a manager is beyond the pale.  It is people like Reed who defer to racism whenever things don’t go his way who help prolong whatever racial strife remains today.

Another money quote from Reed’s letter:

The academics at [Bishop State] are second to none and the nursing program is the envy of the state.

I’m sure that folks from Cambridge and Berkeley would take issue with Reed’s “second to none” statement.  I seriously doubt that Bishop State is even the best post secondary institution in Mobile - and I would probably rank it as one of the worst.  I don’t know enough about nursing schools to justify a comment about the latter part of Reed’s claim, but I will point you to a list of nursing programs in Alabama and let you decide if Bishop State is the envy of all of the other schools on the list.

This story on NPR this morning really got under my skin, as many NPR stories tend to do.  It is one of those stories that just makes you think, “Man if white people were making these statements we wouldn’t stop hearing about it for…”  Well, just think about Imus.

The story is partially about the racial pandering that some presidential candidates were engaged in with the NAACP at their annual convention.  An Obama sound bite caught my attention and then an interview with some delegates in the crowd stoked the embers.

Here is Obama’s quote:

When so many children, when millions of children, start off in the race of life so far behind only because of race, only because of class, that’s a betrayal of our ideals.  That’s not just an African American problem.  That is an American problem that we have to solve.

It is simply foolish to state matter-of-factly that “millions” of children start off at a disadvantage “only because of race.”  Every person in this country deals with the exact same laws and opportunities.  That wasn’t so a half century or so ago, but it is today.  Not every person is born into the same circumstances, but the circumstances that most greatly affect success are things like wealth and, as Obama also mentioned, class - not race.

Fortunately, the U.S. is still a society that enables upward mobility, unlike India with its rigid caste system.  Our upward mobility has been possible by a culture of self reliance and opportunity - both of which are at odds with the social programs that most do-gooders advocate as a way of “helping” the poor.  Government welfare only makes it easier to be poor and discourages the entrepreneurial instincts that have made America the international symbol of rags to riches.  In the aforementioned India citizens in the lower classes actually fight and kill each other over who is officially the worst in a morbid struggle for lucrative government welfare.  It is not a system we should emulate, but many let justifiable compassion cloud their policy decisions.  It is hard to believe that incentive and opportunity - and all the uncertainty associated with it - will do more to enable merit based success than government entitlements, but it has and it will.

If Obama simply stated that some Americans start off behind because of class and circumstances then he would at least be believable even if his ultimate policy decisions were wrongheaded.  Unfortunately he chose to play to the racial element in the crowd.  I’ll give him and his speech writers credit; he gets his point across with his race statement, but then concludes with the “it’s not just an African American problem” shtick in order to defuse the racial bombast in his initial statement.

Next the NPR correspondent, Don Gonyea, led off with this statement before interviewing some youth in attendance.

Afterword the event was getting positive reviews from delegates for its focus on African American issues…

Could you imagine a convention that was attended by multiple presidential candidates that focused on “white” issues?  Organizations like the NAACP were once necessary.  They have accomplished their goal of attaining equal treatment.  There are no more Jim Crow laws.  No separate facilities for blacks and whites.  Their usefulness is long since gone and now they exist merely because they are established and they fight for increasingly meager, often counter productive, goals.  Think about the law of diminishing returns.

Here are some comments from a couple of eighteen year old girls from the Des Moines NAACP chapter.

Kiah Aikoriegie: I like Hillary.  I like her ideas.  I feel like out of all the candidates she seems to be more interested in our people and helping our people.

Aikoriegie: [Obama] has more to offer than just being black.

Well I should hope so. 

Aikoriegie: I’m proud of my people.  I’m proud he’s representing my people very well.

Again, imagine a white guy (or girl) lavishing praise on a politician for representing “my people” on the national news.

Keryna Thompson-Banks: The thing is we don’t want to be known as, oh, we’re the first black person to do this or we’re the first black person to do that.  It’s just like when we do something amazing, when we go out there and accomplish something, it’s like why can’t we just be known as, you know, that we’re the amazing person who did this not the amazing black person who did this.

I agree 100% with young Keryna, but I wish her comments could be detached from those of her friend, Kiah who can be heard agreeing in the background.  You can’t have it both ways.  You can’t brag about “my people” and constantly distinguish yourselves solely on the basis of race and then wish others wouldn’t do the same.

One thing to notice in the report is how Gonyea calls blacks both African Americans and blacks in the same story - a staple of NPR coverage.  Some people use the term African American out of some kind of foolish fear that calling black people blacks is disrespectful, never mind that no such consideration is given to calling white people whites.  They know full well that the vast majority of the “African Americans” they are referring to have never set foot in Africa, nor did any of their living relatives.

I don’t think there is any credible person in this country who thinks that the difference between a black man and a white man goes any deeper than the epidermis.  Why, then, do so many betray that understanding by conferring the cause of so many problems to race?  It is high time that this country realizes that race is no longer a determinant of success in our society and it shouldn’t be used as an excuse for failure.

That is the only way to sensibly interpret their landmark ruling this week.

The case in question essentially boils down to children in two school districts being denied access to particular government run schools on the basis of their race.  Any rational person might see a problem with that, but the school districts thought that discrimination was the best way to promote diversity, which itself is a goal that serves no useful purpose other than to make racial bean counters happy.

Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, summarized my idealistic view on race relations.  He wrote, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”  It’s kind of hard to argue with that one.

Roberts continued to spew even more of his vile common sense.

“Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons.”

The Left has reflexively proclaimed this decision to be the “upending” of Brown v. Board, which is a shaky argument at best.  The court ruled that schools couldn’t discriminate on the basis of race.  The Brown court ruled that schools couldn’t discriminate on the basis of race.  Seems pretty consistent to me.

What is lost in the argument is the absurdity of how much our society focuses on race rather than characteristics more meritous of such governmental meddling (if ever warranted).  Money and social circumstances (i.e. good parents) have a substantive impact on the odds of a child being able to obtain a good education.  In our government run, districted school system poor schools (fiscally speaking) follow poor people and the parents are powerless to seek out better opportunities due to their financial situation.  Supportive parents who instill the importance of education and adherence to the law are of incalculable value.  The problem is that the government cannot easily or accurately quantify who is “rich enough” or which parents are “good enough.”  Instead we carry with us the legacy of using a terrible proxy, skin tone, for those (and other) very real factors that affect educational success.

Governmental social engineering is not the key to improving race relations.  Constantly telling people that we’re all equal, but some deserve special privileges simply due to skin color defeats the intended goal.

My personal experience tells me that the free market (as we know it) is the best means to achieve racial harmony.  In a truly free market companies that choose not to hire the best talent available are ultimately punished by the market when competitors hire the spurned individuals.  Individuals and businesses who choose to discriminate against anyone for any reason (skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) will lose to those who do not.  In the end bigots are marginalized or converted to tolerant people as they interact with others they might have previously chosen not to associate with.

As I mentioned a few days back, a resolution was proposed in the Alabama legislature that would have the state apologize for its role in slavery.  Dan (here and here) and Wheeler have written some good pieces on the debate and I thought I would inject my own two cents.

First the particulars.  The resolution (text below) was proposed in the Senate by Hank Sanders of Selma.  Sen. Charles Bishop of Arley blocked the resolution and in the process called Sanders, a rotund black man, “Big Boy” on the Senate floor.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA, BOTH HOUSES THEREOF CONCURRING, That we express our profound regret as a state which participated in the process of slavery, that we further atone for the involuntary servitude of Africans, and that we call for reconciliation among all Alabamians.

Slavery in America and Alabama was terribly wrong.  The people involved did a bad thing and the governments who permitted, endorsed, or participated in that practice also wronged many people.  From that point of view alone I don’t have a problem with the state of Alabama admitting remorse for its role in the trade of human flesh.

My initial reaction to the announcement of the resolution was that some legislators were trying to set the stage for reparations.  That is what I’ve heard previously when similar measures were proposed in other parts of the country and, with me not being a lawyer, the charge seemed plausible.  Wheeler (resident Alabama blogosphere lawyer) strongly asserts that this resolution would not set up the state for reparations litigation.  Given that I say why not pass the resolution.

According to Dan, Sen. Bishop is going to propose his own resolution - with different wording of course - that would be put before the Alabama voters.  That can only be a bad idea.  I can envision the national headlines if (when?) the voters of this great state refuse to apologize for enslaving people.

For the sake of argument, though, let’s play out the notion that this resolution or others would enable the pursuit of reparations.  I oppose reparations simply because I have not owned slaves and the people who would receive payments were never slaves themselves.  Having the government pay reparations is essentially taking the money out of my pocket since my taxes (not the taxes of the slave owners) would fund the payments.  There is of course the little issue of determining who deserves payment and what is the fair amount.

I will say that I think one would be foolish to argue that the institution of slavery does not have lingering effects.  Even decades after emancipation black citizens were not afforded basic rights enjoyed by whites.  I sincerely feel, though, that every person born in my lifetime has the same opportunity to succeed in this country even if their circumstances differ.  That reality is quickly eroding the inheritance of disadvantage.

And what if reparations are paid to descendants of slaves?  Does that mean that the Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s of the world will no longer be able to use race and the legacy of slavery as racial weapons?  To put it bluntly, would we all be even?  I think that many black “leaders” (who don’t speak for all blacks) have blamed current cultural ills on past wrongs for so long that I don’t know if they’ll be able to give that up.  They might have to start pointing their fingers at themselves rather than at a generation of white people that played no role in the current plight of minorities.  Do you think it would cheapen the legacy of suffering to have it absolved with a check for just a few hundred or few thousand dollars?

Bottom line - slavery cannot be justified and our government did great harm to many people.  An apology is in order.  Reparations are not.