What year is this?

| June 29, 2007 | 0 Comments

I made the mistake of reading the Washington Post this morning before I read anything else. I read about the Democrat presidential candidates debate last night here in DC (excuse me for not knowing there was a debate scheduled last night in my hometown). Anyway, I read about about some Supreme Court decision that somehow portends the end of civilization (something else I missed yesterday, apparently – probably because of the chattering class’ preoccupation with the immmigration bill);

The forum at Howard University seemed to be a guaranteed fit for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the only black candidate in the race. He repeatedly discussed racial disparity, education and AIDS and used his unique status to call for greater responsibility from African Americans, one of his frequent themes. But the audience largely embraced the other seven Democrats on stage as well, applauding Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when she called for a greater focus on AIDS research and cheering Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio) when he called for an end to the Iraq war.

By the end of the 90-minute forum — attended by numerous prominent black leaders, including Al Sharpton and Princeton scholar Cornel West — the group had covered an array of issues, such as the genocide in Darfur and disparities in education.

“You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,” Clinton said. “But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.”

Obama, when it was his turn, said, “We have made enormous progress, but the progress that we have made is not good enough.”

Just hours after the Supreme Court handed down a decision restricting public school districts’ use of race in most school-acceptance decisions, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) described the ruling as “a major step backwards.” He added: “And as president of the United States, I would use whatever tools available to me to see to it that we reverse this decision today.”

Referring to the Bush administration, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) said: “They have turned the court upside down, and the next president of the United States will be able to determine whether or not we go forward or continue this slide.”

So, I’m thinking “Holy Crap!, the Supreme Court has refused to allow Black people into schools across the country based on their skin pigment”. But then I find out that’s not exactly true from the Wall Street Journal;

In one of its most bitterly divided rulings of recent years, the Supreme Court sharply restricted how school districts can racially integrate their student bodies, reflecting deep disagreements over the meaning of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Yesterday’s ruling could bring sweeping change to hundreds of public-school districts, many of which must rethink the use of various race-based policies they have voluntarily adopted, including the busing of students from minority urban areas to predominantly white suburbs. Except for districts ordered by courts to remedy the ills of prior official segregation, the decision effectively outlaws assigning students to a school because of their race.

That means more districts are likely to seek diversity based on students’ socioeconomic status. Some, such as Pinellas County, Fla., have already dropped any consideration of race.

So basicly, the Supreme Court just ruled what it’s always ruled – no preference based on skin color, no restrictions based on skin color. So what’s earth shaking about this? Well, the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of everyone equally, not giving any preferences to anyone. They said a lack of skin pigment is equal to some skin pigment and a lot of skin pigment – that in the Great Scheme of Things, all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

Someone said once;

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Honestly, I thought we’d arrived at Martin Luther King, Junior’s dream. So what are the Democrat candidates talking about?

“You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,” Clinton said. “But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.”

Race is only a problem because Democrats see it as a problem. What, pray tell, is left to be done? Legislate away thoughts? Legislate some grandiose give-away program – based on skin pigment? The court said we’re all equal – regardless of skin pigment. I think we’ve come thousands of miles from where we were when I began my life.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) described the ruling as “a major step backwards.” He added: “And as president of the United States, I would use whatever tools available to me to see to it that we reverse this decision today.”

A step backwards from where? How? Just mouthing these empty words certainly don’t help, Mr. Pudgy. Words that promise to overturn the colorblind Constitution. Empty BS from the Empty BS Party.

This is just another campaign issue they plan to wave like a bloody shirt – but nothing they can do anything about because there’s nothing that can be done. Remember the blue ribbon commission on Race that Bill Clinton empaneled? What did they do about race besides yammer? What could they do? Just talk – because the problem is only in some people’s minds. Usually weak-minded people at that.

Like the guys at the Daily Kos – this guy in particular; Adam Bonin who wrote a lengthy essay on the decision today on AlterNet wherein he concluded;

It is difficult to deny the importance of teaching children, during their formative years, how to deal respectfully and collegially with peers of different races. Whether one would call this a compelling interest or merely a highly rational one strikes me as little more than semantics. The reality is that attitudes and patterns of interaction are developed early in life and, in a multicultural and diverse society such as ours, there is great value in developing the ability to interact successfully with individuals who are very different from oneself.

I thought we were all equal – that we’re all the same. And who gives a tiny rat’s ass whether or not we “interact successfully”, and where in the Constitution does mandate that the government has to insure that we “interact successfully”? Since when is a court required to engineer our social strata? Who are these goofballs and what law school teaches this goofball stuff?  

And anyone who thinks Renquist and O’Connor would’ve voted differently, they’re fooling themselves – you can’t blame this on Bush. Blame it on the Constitution.

Category: Historical, Legal, Media, Politics, Society

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *