11 July 2007

Branding Conservative Justices as Racists

It is hard to tell whether those who have decried the US Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.really believe the nonsense they spout or whether they are just playing a disgusting political game. There can be no doubt that the conservative majority restored sanity and justice when they ruled that racial quotas in school admission policies were unconstitutional. After all, if these quotas were written to make sure black students were kept out of high-performing schools, the ACLU would be mounting lawsuits in every court of the land. School segregation, which was racism plain and simple, was ended by the landmark ruling Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Black students were no longer barred (at least officially) from attending the ‘elite’ schools that racist school boards had manufactured for white kids only.

But all the liberal human rights groups, in particular the NAACP, are now crying foul because the Supreme Court did exactly the same thing as in that 1954 case: declaring that using race as the main factor in assigning students to schools is racism plain and simple. But this time, the conservative majority is made up of racists, who want to turn back the clock to before Brown. Eh, come again? Apparently, there is good racism and bad racism. The ‘bad’ racism is when non-whites are disadvantaged, ‘good’ racism is when whites are disadvantaged. Call me crazy, but I fail to understand this reasoning. Racism is racism is racism, no matter who is being disadvantaged.

The NAACP and other liberal groups are desperately trying to hold on to official, state-sanctioned racism. It would be one thing if it could be demonstrated that the constituency they represent—or purport to represent—benefited from these racist quotas, by improving school performance for African American students. I have yet to see evidence for that proposition. Thus, the love-affair with racist quotas seems to be perpetuated by these liberal groups simply for its own sake. Or is it because propounding the theory that non-whites need to be awarded unreasonable, illogical and unconstitutional advantages over white people is a valuable chip in the high-stakes poker game of liberal politics? Perhaps it is because playing the race card in this way gives them the money, influence, and self-importance they crave.

The idea that inequality for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and other minorities—the existence of which must be acknowledged—can only be remedied by making the white man pay (read: punish) for this state of affairs, is a favorite theory among liberal academics and their followers. The projection of hatred onto those who are not suffering like yourself is a common psychological device. However, in the mumbo-jumbo of liberal, post-rational, pseudo-scientific sociology and economics the same policy of granting special legal rights to the underprivileged becomes endowed with a special grandeur that makes it appear that to deny these rights would be unnatural, racist, and barbaric. This theory can even make it sound logical that white people alive now are morally culpable for the slavery and racism of their long-dead ancestors and should be made to pay for it.

These sentiments are certainly found in the NAACP’s reaction to the Parents Involved ruling. So, have they fallen for this liberal phantasm of reality or are they in on the act? Whatever the answer to this question, they and their ilk can hardly be taken seriously by grown-ups.

12 June 2007

Genarlow Wilson and the Law

Few people could argue, I believe, that Genarlow Wilson, the Georgia teen who was sent to prison for 10 years for having consensual sex with a 15-year old girl, has had justice. Shortly after he was convicted of a felony and thus branded a sexual predator for the rest of his life, Georgia changed the law that convicted him, turning his sort of crime into a misdemeanor. And rightly so. There is a world of difference between a 17-year old having sex with a girl only two years his junior and an adult who preys on immature teens and children.

Genarlow Wilson is not a model citizen. Drugs, alcohol, a party, and a camera were involved in the evening that got him into hot water. And even at seventeen, Genarlow Wilson needed to be punished for his misbehavior. As a Christian, I do not think premarital sex is ever a good idea, and this sort of lascivious willy-nilly loose “hooking up” is frankly immoral and revolting. I do not believe that God will thunder down and punish you to hell for it, but there is a much deeper moral and philosophical reason why God forbids it. It’s because it’s part of a lifestyle that leads away from wisdom and into foolishness. I can hardly find a better illustration for the kind of foolish life described in Proverbs chapters 1-9 than the Genarlow Wilson story.

But one thing that he is not is a sexual predator. At least not yet. He has spent two years in prison and somehow, I can believe that keeping him in the big house for another 8 years and then compelling him to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life might just crush his soul enough to actually turn him into one. The sooner he is out of prison, the better.

However, the Georgia attorney general is correct in his contention that judge Thomas Wilson does not have the jurisdiction to change the sentence. Some might think that this is a triviality—after all, justice is being restored. But do not forget that in America’s legal system, which is a common law system, every decision creates precedent. Next month or next year, another case might come up where things are similar, though slightly different, and then the Genarlow Wilson case will be invoked to justify release. Before you know it, you can drive a truck through the loophole of judicial jurisdiction.

The judiciary does not have the authority to let Genarlow Wilson go. He was properly convicted for a felony by a jury of his peers. The sentence cannot be modified by the courts in this way. The only ways out are: appeals of the original sentence (if any are still available), another legislative change by the Georgia legislature to include Genarlow Wilson’s situation (making him eligible for treatment under the new law, which he currently is not), or an official pardon by the governor. We must do things properly, or the consequences will be worse than the original problem. We cannot be too careful when it comes to sex crimes. No-one wants to give real sex offenders a way out of jail because of our blind compassion for one innocent kid.

03 May 2007

Rice talks to Syria

That elections have consequences is sadly illustrated by the meeting between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Syrian Foreign Minister Wallid al-Moallem. If the Democrats had not taken Congress, this meeting would never have happened. Instead, the Bush administration would have pursued the only logical course of action: isolating Syria more and more, applying diplomatic pressure to force the Syrians to quit supporting terrorists, convincing the UN and other international powers to support the isolation of Syria, and, finally, provide clear and robust military warnings.

What do Liberals think the US will gain from a meeting with a criminal regime? Did they send Rice merely to pick up the ransom note from Mr al-Moallem? Make no mistake, Syria is holding the US hostage and the demands are very clear: Get out of Iraq or we will send more foreign terrorists into Iraq to harm innocent women and children and the US will get the blame for all the bloodshed. Syria has nothing to offer, only demands to make. Ultimately, there will have to be regime change in Syria and I think it not unlikely that the US will invade Syria in the end, with or without international help.
But such gloomy thoughts should be left off for now. Just because Bush buckled under Congressional pressure and allowed Rice to talk to Syria does not mean that the White House is hanging out the white flag just yet. Shame on you, Mr Bush.

11 April 2007

Is Pelosi's Syria Trip a Felony?

Just a few brief comments about Nancy Pelosi’s ill-conceived trip to Syria. First, the trip was ill-conceived. Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and I cannot imagine what Nancy Pelosi thought to accomplish there. One cannot negotiate with terrorists and the Syrian regime is certainly made up of terrorists. There is nothing the US can offer Syria. Syria wants the US wiped of the map.

Second, since the president has declared it official policy to isolate Syria, Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to negotiate with the Syrian dictator Assad is a violation of the 200-year old Logan Act, which declares interference with the executive authority in foreign relations a felony. There can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi committed a felony with her trip to Syria (see this article in the Wall Street Journal).

Third, I agree with Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online that Nancy Pelosi should not be prosecuted for this crime. His assessment that a criminal investigation of the House Speaker would be counterproductive is correct, I believe. Much better to turn the blatant violation of a criminal statute into a public relations triumph. Let’s hope the administration can keep itself to a higher standard than the Democrats who are playing every childish game they know to sabotage the president—regardless the consequences. That’s the kind of destructive policies America does not need.

20 March 2007

Back at Blogger

After a brief stint over at townhall.com, I have decided to return to Blogger for my blog. Townhall, while an impressive gathering place for conservative thought, simply didn't offer the user-friendliness of Blogger. So, find my postings here again (soon).