Abortion Ruling

  

                                       

 

Roe v. Wade was not a law but a Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws restricting or banning abortion. Now the Court has overturned its ruling of almost 50 years ago, and claimed that Roe vs. Wade and subsequent rulings were mistakenly decided. It appears that the Court’s decision was based on three foundations. First, following the opinion of most legal scholars, it found no right to abortion in the Federal Constitution, and therefore,  no legal basis for the overturning of long-standing laws prohibiting or restricting it. Second, the science of fetology was in its infancy 50 years ago, but now the scientific ground  has shifted. We just have to note Chief Justice Robert’s discussion of “viability.” Finally, Justice Alioto argued in his majority opinion that the earlier Court decisions had failed in their intended purpose to quell the Nation’s deep division on the subject of abortion. 

Now, it will be up to the individual states to pass laws permitting, banning or restricting abortion in their jurisdictions. Since the Court has decided that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, the Federal government is now out of the business of abortion.  The governor and legislators of my home state of Connecticut jumped into action immediately with new laws facilitating abortion for even out of state residents. For example, the procedure will no longer require a doctor to be present. It is not hard to imagine that they will soon be practiced at CVS or Walgreens. The legislators are concerned about minority women, or are they?

No matter what you think about abortion or Roe v. Wade, it should be clear to any fair-minded person that a very large percentage of the abortions performed since the original ruling have involved black women. White women have accounted for about half of the approximately 50 Million abortions performed since 1973 but black women, who make up a much smaller share of the total population, have accounted for about 20 Million abortions or 40% of the total. It is clear that Roe v. Wade has played a significant role in limiting the increase of the black population in this country.

Some sociologists think that this phenomenon is a good thing, and that abortion has worked to keep down the crime rate and poverty rate in the country, especially among the “lower classes.” That was certainly the objective of Margaret Sanger, the famed birth-control pioneer on the 1920s. 

Back then, Sanger would not have been called a racist. She was a “eugenicist” a word derived from the so-called science of eugenics that claimed that some races and ethnic groups were inherently inferior to others. She argued that immigration from some poor countries like Italy where poverty, ignorance, superstition, immorality, and crime prevailed should be restricted. She also believed that blacks were inherently inferior, and that they should be discouraged from “breeding,” or reproducing themselves.

Eugenics provided a kind of scientific basis for laws in the South prohibiting “miscegenation”, or marriage between members of different races. They said it led to “mongrelization.” In the 1930s the Nazis in Germany became the greatest advocates of eugenics. It provided a scientific basis for policies to eliminate not only the Jews, but also any inferior racial or ethnic types. Their idea of a master race was a creation of eugenics. Of course, eugenics went out of favor after World War II and the Holocaust.

Many years ago, I went to a conference where a female, black doctor predicted that abortion would eventually lead to the disappearance of the black race in America. I don’t think her prediction will come true, but it is clear that abortion has kept down the population of blacks in this country.

I recall that at the confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh, a conservative white male,  critical questioners sought to demonstrate that the judge would make decisions harmful to women, blacks, and other minorities. But why would a white racist be opposed to abortion when it is clear that it has been so successful in keeping down the black and Hispanic population in this country? Almost 60% of the abortions performed in my home state of Connecticut have been performed on Black and Hispanic women even though they make up only 19% of the female population. You would think that racists would be all in favor of abortion. Or would it be better to say that, despite their words and intentions, the supporters of abortion today are the real racists.

During the Vice-Presidential debate before the 2016 election, Republican candidate Mike Pence, another conservative white male, made an unabashedly Pro-Life statement, and argued that the State has an inherent interest in supporting the right to life of the most vulnerable of its citizens. He noted that as Governor he had worked hard to make Indiana a pro-adoption state. 

His opponent Tim Kaine did note that he was Catholic and proud of his Catholic heritage and education. But he argued that despite his personal opposition to abortion, he had done nothing to oppose it as Governor of Virginia, and would certainly support Hillary Clinton’s intention, if elected President, to provide federal funding for abortion.

The Democrat strategy is very cunning. They can appear to be the champions of women, especially the poor and underprivileged, but at the same time, they support measures that have kept the population of Blacks and Hispanics down. Despite contemporary left-wing rhetoric on behalf of the under-privileged, it is still outcomes or results that count. 

The young Progressives of today have been brought up viewing popular TV shows like Law and Order where the great majority of criminals are successful white males. Only rarely are the villains women, black, Hispanic or members of the LGBTQ minority. Nevertheless, the liberal creators and producers of these shows are now the ones being charged with sexual abuse. Despite professed good intentions, could the media support for abortion be regarded as racist and sexist? ### 

Success Sequence

 

Wendy Wang

The obvious success of Asian immigrants to this country is hard to square with a systemic racism narrative. If there is systemic racism in America, why do the children of Asian immigrants do so well that American universities have to take measures to prevent too many Asian students from being admitted?  Below is a post written three years ago that tried to answer the question.

It’s college admissions time in the USA again, and letters of acceptance and rejection are being mailed out. Inevitably, elite colleges and universities will find themselves overwhelmed with extremely qualified applicants with Asian backgrounds. It has long been suspected that admissions offices impose quotas to keep the number of Asian students down. On the other hand, affirmative action administrators  will bend over backwards to find qualified black applicants. 

Why do Asian students do so well in school while black students do so badly? It is easy to blame prejudice and racism but my own experience has led me to believe that the reason is cultural. A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Wendy Wang, the Director of Research at the Institute for Family Studies, bore out my suspicions. 

Ms. Wang argued that there is a “sequence” that must be followed to achieve success in rising out of poverty. The sequence begins with education, at least a high school diploma, followed by a job, and only then marriage and children. There will be exceptions but her research shows that failure to follow this sequence results in a high probability of a life of poverty or worse. In other words, if children come before marriage, work, and education the results are disastrous.

Wang cited statistics concerning so-called millennials from a study that tracked young adults from their teenage years to early adulthood. Of those who failed to follow the “sequence”, 53% were in poverty. The rate dropped to 31% for those who had at least a high school diploma, and 16% for those with a full-time job. Finally, the poverty rate dropped to 3% for those who held off having children until married.

Interestingly, the success sequence worked extremely well for young adults from low income backgrounds. “Eighty percent of those with lower income backgrounds made it into middle or upper income brackets when they followed all three steps.” Missing one of the steps or putting them out of sequence, like having children before marriage, led to a very high probability of failure.

Ms. Wang cited her own Asian background. In the small Chinese city in which she grew up there were practically no childbirths before marriage. It was unthinkable. Today in China, Japan, and South Korea the out of wedlock birthrate is only 4%. Compare that rate to America’s urban centers where the out of wedlock births often exceed children born to married couples.

I know a young white woman with a degree in elementary education from a fine college who started her teaching career as a first grade teacher in a Bridgeport school made up largely of black and hispanic children. Her college degree could not have prepared her for the chaos she encountered on her first day. Every day presented new pathological personal and social behaviors, and these were only first graders. In many ways, first grade is pivotal for it is then that the mind is ready to learn how to read. If the opportunity is missed, students will inevitably fall behind and never catch up.

Sadly and significantly, the teacher told me that on Parent’s Night, only four parents showed up to hear about their child’s progress. Maybe parent is the wrong word because most of these Bridgeport first graders didn’t have parents. They were being raised by grandparents some of whom were not even in their forties. Sometimes even great-grandparents were the caregivers for these children. Moreover, in most cases there were no men involved in the raising of these children. 

No amount of money will rectify the tremendous social disaster that has taken place in American cities in the past few generations. Unwed teenage pregnancies create an almost impossible educational problem. To get an education certificate today, teachers have to take courses that would almost qualify them as master psychologists. 

Even the best teachers will not be able to overcome this cultural disaster.  There is a high probability that the parentless first grader will come to regard school as a prison and even before he or she gets to eight grade they will likely be attacking classmates and teachers, and destroying school property. Next, the probability is also very high that they will join a street gang, become a drug addict or dealer, and eventually wind up in jail or dead on the street.

Some will argue that Ms. Wang’s “sequence” success formula of education, work, marriage, and children is old fashioned. Actually, the success formula she finds in Asia was once the norm in the USA, especially among that generation that we now fondly recall as the “greatest generation.” Some may also argue that just getting an education and a job is sufficient for success, and that marriage and children are no longer necessary. However, another recent news article indicated that there is an epidemic of loneliness and depression sweeping over the country today that seems to indicate that love and marriage are still part of the success sequence.

###

Systemic Democratic Racism

Democrats from President Joe Biden on down claim that America is suffering from systematic racism. Systemic means that racism pervades the whole of American society, except for Blacks who by definition cannot be racists despite the fact that they lead the nation in assaults on Asians. Racism is all pervasive only among Whites even though many of them don’t realize it. Progressives call it "unconscious racism."

 

If that is the case, then racism must also pervade White Democratic politicians like the ones who govern most of America’s blue states and cities. Old White Joe, despite his pronouncements, must be an unconscious white supremacist at heart. 

Here are three examples of systemic racism among Democrats.

 

Georgia Election Reform:

 

The reaction to the election reform bill recently passed by the Georgia Legislature  is a good case in point. President Biden led the charge by calling the election reforms a revival of the old Jim Crow laws that effectively kept blacks from the polls over 50 years ago. However, even the liberal Washington Post admitted that the President lied about the provisions of the bill.

 

 CEOs from Atlanta based Delta Airlines, and Coca Cola were quick to jump on the bandwagon and denounce the reform legislation. Also, the Commissioner of Major League baseball decided to move the All-Star game from Atlanta to Colorado apparently unaware that Colorado’s election laws were more restrictive than Georgia’s reform measures. 

 

Why are these responses not just foolish but racist? Democrats object strenuously to any attempt to require identification cards at polling places. Why is opposition to ID cards racist?

 

In effect, Democrats are buying into the old racial stereotypes. They must think that blacks are too ignorant to apply for ID cards. Or do they think they are too lazy, or shiftless? Do they think Blacks have no sense of civic pride and duty? Practically everyone in the country already has some kind of government issued identity card. You can’t even get on a Delta plane without one.

 

Gun Control:

Some recent shootings have led President Joe Biden to propose more gun control regulations. I won’t say laws because he is just planning to do it by executive orders. 

 

Everyone knows that Democratic controlled states and cities already have the most stringent gun control laws in the country. However, these laws have never prevented criminal gang members from possessing and using all sorts of firearms. Shootings in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit have always been high, and have only increased with the lawlessness tolerated by Democratic politicians last year.

 

Democrat controlled cities lead the nation in shooting deaths and the great majority of the shooters and victims have been young black men. In the past year more that 500 young black men have been gunned down in Chicago. Shootings have increased during the protests and violence of the past summer, but the death toll has been high for decades.

 

Why can’t the Democratic politicians in those cities stop it? Are they just ignorant, or unconcerned, or are they racists who believe those black lives don’t matter? Where there is a will, there’s a way. But it appears that there is no will or desire to stop it. Maybe the lives of these black victims only matter when they are killed by a white policeman and fit a racist narrative. 

 

Actually, Democratic politicians have led the campaign to abolish the “stop and frisk” policy that has kept guns off the streets, saved thousands of lives, and made crime infested neighborhoods safe. Even former Mayor Mike Bloomberg of New York City admitted as much before his political ambitions led him to abjectly apologize last year.

 

Disparate Abortion Results:

 

As part of his sweeping new economic proposals, President Biden plans to insist on Federal funding of abortions. No matter how you feel about abortion, you have to admit that for years the abortion rate among Blacks has been significantly higher than among Whites. Blacks make up less than 15% of the population but statistics show that the number of abortions among Blacks equals that among Whites.

 

Protestors complain of a disparate proportion of Blacks in prison, but never point to the disparate proportion of Blacks aborted. Given the figures you would think that White Supremacists are the strongest advocates of Federal abortion funding. But no, it is the Democratic party.

 

Some day in the future historians or sociologists might look back and conclude that the USA during our time was involved in genocide given the number  of Black abortions since Roe v. Wade. After all, the stated intention of Margaret Sanger, the founder and patron saint of Planned Parenthood was to keep down the population of what she considered to be inferior and undesirable  races.

 

###

Black History Matters

As part of its program for Black History month, Turner Classic Movies (TCM) recently showed “Stars in My Crown,” a 1950 film that dealt with a small Southern town right after the Civil War. The film was based on a  1947 novel of the same name by Joe David Brown, a writer from Alabama who is best known for “Paper Moon,” another novel that became an even more successful film. 

In viewing this  film, it seemed obvious that its creators, back in 1950, included an indictment of racial prejudice and violence. Nevertheless, in an interview after the showing on TCM, a black critic claimed that the film was itself racist, a claim that the host did not dispute. Why is it racist?

 “Stars in My Crown” is the story of an ex-Confederate soldier who becomes a preacher after the war and takes up duties in a small Southern town that resembles a movie Western frontier town in its lawlessness and lack of religion. Joe David Brown claimed that the preacher was based on the life of his Alabama grandfather. 

Initially, the preacher, played imposingly by Joel McCrae, uses his guns and physical presence to gain the attention and respect of the townspeople, but then puts away his guns and relies on his spiritual strength to gain a respected place. He marries one of the townswomen, and even adopts her orphaned nephew. Much of the film is seen through the eyes of this boy. Together they establish a congregation and build a church. 

TCM presented the film as part of Black History month because one of its core conflicts concerns the one black man in the town. He is an elderly ex-slave, Uncle Famous, played by Juano Hernandez, who had apparently been given his freedom as well as a small farmstead by his former white master. 

Actually, he lives outside of town and supports himself with the produce of his garden, animals, and fish from a nearby stream. His skill as a fisherman is legendary and he has instructed  most of the white boys in the town in the fine art of fishing. He is revered and respected by all. All is well until a local businessman tries to buy his property in order to continue a mica mining project that employs many of the townsmen.

The old man rejects the offer. He explains that he  is self-sufficient and doesn’t need the money, and that he would have nowhere to go if he left his small farm. The businessman then launches a campaign of harassment against the old black man, and has thugs destroy his crops. When that fails to move him, the businessman forms a gang, complete with Klan costumes, that rides out to lynch the old man. Only the intervention of the white preacher saves the old man.  He reminds the members of the lynch mob of all that Uncle Famous has done for them and their children over the years, and the shamed mob disperses.

Why is the film racist? If I can remember correctly, there were two reasons. First, the critic did not like the portrayal of the old man as friendly, fatherly, kindly, wise, and generous. He was not angry or bitter. He was even thankful that his old master had emancipated him. He was even grateful for his small farm and never considered it a kind of reparation for his years in slavery. In other words, he was not a modern Black Lives Matter protestor.

I am not an expert on American Reconstruction history, but I have read “Up from Slavery,” the autobiography of Booker T. Washington, a former slave who went on to become one of the most famous and esteemed figures in America during his lifetime. His life no longer matters today, and I did not see one mention of him during this Black History month.

Like Uncle Famous, Booker T. Washington is the wrong kind of Black man. He was only a child when the Civil war ended. Even though emancipated, most slaves were uneducated, illiterate, and knew no other world than the plantation on which they had served. Although they were free to leave, most former slaves chose to remain on the plantations that still needed their labor. I doubt if they are covered in black history classes. 

Booker T. Washington was among the first to leave when members of his family sought work in the mines of West Virginia. He was a child laborer but passionately anxious to learn how to read and write. His first tutor was an older black boy and once he learned to read there was no stopping him. On his way he  continued his education in schools founded by white Northerners to educate the emancipated slaves. He became a famous educator himself and founded the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. In his autobiography, I recall no bitterness or anger. Rather, there was thankfulness for the help he had received on the way, and for the great opportunity that America had given him. 

The film is also considered racist today because its sympathetic portrayal  of the white preacher and other white people in town does not fit a modern systemic racist narrative. The film was based on a real-life story. To make everyone a stereotype, in fiction or in real life, is to do a disservice to individuals, white or black, and to falsify history.  

### 

Martin Luther King Day

  

                                           

 

Today is Martin Luther King Day, a National Holiday. All government offices will be closed in honor of Dr. King and his pioneering role in the civil rights movement back in the 1960s. This is a unique holiday since he is the only man or woman to be honored with his own day anymore. Great Presidents like Washington and Lincoln have lost their individual holiday status and are now lumped together next month on President’s day. Poor Christopher Columbus has also slipped into virtual oblivion in deference to political correctness.

If Dr. King were alive today, I believe that he would be shocked to see how his famous dream has been turned into a nightmare. Statistics show that over 70% of black births now occur out of wedlock. This alarming figure has been rising every year since the time of Dr. King. The disintegration of the black family in America is perhaps the major reason for the fact that about 40% of the prison population today is black despite the fact that blacks make up only 13% of the population. Of that number the great majority would appear to be young black males. Most of these will have grown up without a father.

Critics can cry racism, but I believe that the failure of the dream lies elsewhere. The integration of America’s public schools was one of the key elements in the civil rights movement, but integration has turned out to be a disaster for most of the blacks in this country. Studies have shown, for example, that practically every attempt to integrate Connecticut’s schools has not only failed but has actually made things worse.

Magnet schools have only drawn the best students with the most involved parents away from the other schools. Attempts to bus inner-city students into nearby suburban schools have also failed to meet expectations. Even though they admit failure, politicians and commentators can only suggest more of the same. 

A favorite catch phrase of the civil rights movement was “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”  Today, it would appear that after years of failed experiments like the ones above, and the outlay of billions of dollars, that it would be better to say that the solution was the problem. Integration was the supposed solution offered by well-intentioned civil rights advocates, but it has actually turned out to be the problem. How did this happen?

I am old enough to have been educated before the civil rights movement and I will use the nearby city of Bridgeport, Connecticut as an example. Integration in Bridgeport abolished neighborhood schools, and as a result it destroyed existing neighborhoods and communities.  Integration accelerated the already begun exodus of the white middle classes from Bridgeport into the nearby suburbs. At the same time, these people did not leave their jobs. They moved outside the city but continued to hold their jobs as teachers, policemen, firemen, sanitation men, and other civil servants. Their unions even lobbied successfully to abolish laws that prohibited them from living outside the city.

As a result, the jobs that other groups had used to advance into the middle class were not available to blacks in Bridgeport. More than two generations would pass before they began to be teachers, policemen, fireman, and civil servants in any significant number. Even if a student managed to finish high school what could they do to earn a living? Many still turn to a life of crime, especially the drug trade. This is one of the factors in the high percentage of blacks in American prisons.

 Others try athletics but we know that despite heavy college recruitment, most will not graduate. Only a small minority manage to hit the pro jackpot. A few years ago, a friend sent me an article from USA Today about a scandal at the prestigious University of North Carolina. At UNC football players were able to take classes in the African American studies program that required no class attendance, only the submission of a paper at the end of class. These were pretty obviously phony courses created especially for black football players. Heads have rolled and the head of the program came under investigation. Other studies have shown that black athletes are reading at below eighth grade levels at many colleges across the country. 

So, it turns out that the integration of American schools did not usher in an educational utopia. After sixty years advocates admit that despite all their efforts and reforms, segregation has not been eliminated. Moreover, it is clear that integration has done little to improve education itself. In fact, it appears as if integration had more to do with social engineering than with education. Can it be that integration was the “problem” and not the “solution”?

The last sixty years have seen the disintegration of the black family; an incredibly high out of wedlock birth rate, jails filed with young black criminals, and an educational system whose reforms have gone sour despite good intentions. Martin Luther King could never have imagined that his dream would have turned out this way.*

*This post first appeared on The Weekly Bystander six years ago, Sadly, not much has changed.

###

Quote of the Day. There is only one race, the Human race.

Educational Failure: Racism or Misogyny

Progressives bemoan the fact that black students perform way below average on educational tests, and offer these results as evidence of “systemic racism” in American society. Nevertheless, could low educational failure be the result of black culture rather than racism? If you search online for "rap music misogyny," you will find that misogyny, an extreme form of sexism, is a major element in the music that reflects the cultural ideal of many young black men.

The article in Wikipedia states that "Misogny in rap music refers to lyrics, videos or other aspects of rap music that support, glorify, justify, or normalize the objectification, exploitation, or victimization of women." According to the article women are routinely referred to as "bitches" and "hos" who can be used and discarded. Is it racism or culture that makes many black men ignore or even abandon their children? Black commentators routinely deplore the fact that so many black children are born out of wedlock, and grow up without fathers.   

Biologists tell us that  there is only one race: the human race. Historians tell us that the good, the bad and the ugly can be found in all of us. No matter what the color of our skin we all have brains that are more powerful than the most advanced computers. Why do some fail and others succeed in education and in life. Why, for example, do children of Asian immigrants do so well in school while black students fall behind from day one. A young Asian scholar has described a "success sequence" of education, a job, marriage, and children that if not followed usually leads to failure in life. 

Wendy Wang

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal two years ago, Wendy Wang, the Director of Research at the Institute for Family Studies, argued that there is a “sequence” that must be followed to achieve success in rising out of poverty. The sequence begins with education, at least a high school diploma, followed by a job, and only then marriage and children. There will be exceptions but her research shows that failure to follow this sequence results in a high probability of a life of poverty or worse. In other words, if children come before marriage, work, and education the results are disastrous.

Wang cited statistics concerning so-called millennials from a study that tracked young adults from their teenage years to early adulthood. Of those who failed to follow the “sequence”, 53% were in poverty. The rate dropped to 31% for those who had at least a high school diploma, and 16% for those with a full-time job. Finally, the poverty rate dropped to 3% for those who held off having children until married.

Interestingly, the success sequence worked extremely well for young adults from low income backgrounds. “Eighty percent of those with lower income backgrounds made it into middle or upper income brackets when they followed all three steps.” Missing one of the steps or putting them out of sequence, like having children before marriage, led to a very high probability of failure.

Ms. Wang cited her own Asian background. In the small Chinese city in which she grew up there were practically no childbirths before marriage. It was unthinkable. Today in China, Japan, and South Korea the out of wedlock birthrate is only 4%. Compare that rate to America’s urban centers where the out of wedlock births often exceed children born to married couples.

I know a young white woman with a degree in elementary education from a fine college who started her teaching career as a first grade teacher in a Bridgeport school made up largely of black and hispanic children. Her college degree could not have prepared her for the chaos she encountered on her first day. Every day presented new pathological personal and social behaviors, and these were only first graders. In many ways, first grade is pivotal for it is then that the mind is ready to learn how to read. If the opportunity is missed, students will inevitably fall behind and never catch up.

Sadly and significantly, the teacher told me that on Parent’s Night, only four parents showed up to hear about their child’s progress. Maybe parent is the wrong word because most of these Bridgeport first graders didn’t have parents. They were being raised by grandparents some of whom were not even in their forties. Sometimes even great-grandparents were the caregivers for these children. Moreover, in most cases there were no men involved in the raising of these children. 

No amount of money will rectify the tremendous social disaster that has taken place in American cities in the past few generations. Unwed teenage pregnancies create an almost impossible educational problem. To get an education certificate today, teachers have to take courses that would almost qualify them as master psychologists. 

Even the best teachers will not be able to overcome this cultural disaster. There is a high probability that the parentless first grader will come to regard school as a prison and even before he or she gets to eight grade they will likely be attacking classmates and teachers, and destroying school property. Next, the probability is also very high that they will join a street gang, become a drug addict or dealer, and eventually wind up in jail or dead on the street.

Some will argue that Ms. Wang’s “sequence” success formula of education, work, marriage, and children is old fashioned. Actually, the success formula she finds in Asia was once the norm in the USA, especially among that generation that we now fondly recall as the “greatest generation.” Some may also argue that just getting an education and a job is sufficient for success, and that marriage and children are no longer necessary. However, another news article indicated that there is an epidemic of loneliness and depression sweeping over the country today that seems to indicate that love and marriage are still part of the success sequence.

###

Systemic Racism or Black Culture?

Last week a couple of letters in the Wall Street Journal argued that high rates of incarceration of black men in American prisons, and low test scores of black children in American schools were evidence of "systemic racism" in American society. I will deal with the education issue in a subsequent post but for now would just like to address the prison issue by reproducing a post from 2017 that seems just as relevant today.

***

Recently I was invited to speak on Renaissance art at the monthly meeting of a local MENSA chapter. The organization is made up of very smart people whose IQs place them in the top 2% when it comes to intelligence. The intelligence of the self-admitted “geeks” was certainly in evidence at the dinner that proceeded my talk. Discussion at the table was spirited and lively and ranged over a variety of subjects. 

These were interesting people and it was a pleasure to just sit back and listen. Politics was generally avoided but one man at the table brought up a book on racial injustice that sparked a little argument.  Although only halfway through the book, he was apparently already convinced of its validity. The book was “The New Jim Crow” by Michelle Alexander. Its subtitle, “Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” is more indicative of its subject. 

Published in 2012 the book soon made the NY Times bestseller list and was even required reading for the incoming class at Ivy League Brown University. Indeed, the San Francisco Chronicle called the book the “bible of a social movement.” Apparently the book claims that the incarceration of millions of black men in America is proof that racism is alive and well despite any claims to the contrary.

Fortunately, one of the other members at the table turned out to be well-read on the subject and brought up some very good objections based on his own reading. Later, he sent me a link to a very critical review article, entitled, “Revisiting ‘The New Jim Crow,’ written by John P. Walters and David W. Murray.  Here is a link to the review article that appeared on the Hudson Institute website. The reviewers quoted from the book’s dust jacket:

By targeting black men through the War on Drugs, and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to permanent second-class status.” 

Walters and Murray refute this thesis, and take issue with the statistics offered to support what amounts to a conspiracy theory. They dispute the author’s assertion that “arrests and convictions for drug offenses—not violent crime—have propelled mass incarceration” by first noting the data for state prisons.

In state prisons, holding the largest number of incarcerated inmates, only 16 percent are drug offenders—54 percent of those incarcerated are violent offenders. 

They also explain that racism is not the reason why drug offenders make up almost 50 percent of the federal prison population. They note that the substantially smaller federal system “focuses on major domestic and international traffickers—34 percent of the federal prison population is Hispanic and 23 percent are not U.S. citizens.”

In short the authors of the review show that “The New Jim Crow” misuses statistics and even leaves out important evidence that does not support its thesis. Instead they argue that conduct and culture have more to do with rates of incarceration than racism. They point to the case of a black man from Mississippi who the book claims “cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon, and is currently on parole.”

It is true that Mississippi does deny voting to those who have been convicted of serious crimes from murder and rape to forgery and embezzlement. The man in question was indicted for the shooting of a 17-year-old boy; escaped from prison while awaiting trial; and was subsequently arrested and labeled a fugitive wanted for a capital crime. He was extradited and then convicted of murder. Somehow, he was later released on parole but cannot vote “not because he is black, but because he killed someone…”

The reviewers cite New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton who pointed out that blacks and Hispanics “represent half of our city’s population, but 96.9 percent of those who are shot, and 97.6 percent of those who commit the shootings.” I suspect that the same figures hold in other major cities including my own neighboring city of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Recently I read an article in the Wall Street Journal by Jason Reilly, a black writer who is one of the Journal’s regular columnists. He also argued that conduct and culture have more to do with the problems of black Americans today than racism. In particular, he dismissed those who persistently bemoan the effects of slavery 150 years after its abolition. He pointed to the tremendous strides that blacks made in America in the 100 years after the Civil War. During those years statistics and experience show, for example, that black incomes rose at the same rates as whites and that black family formation was comparable to white. Despite persistent racist attitudes especially in Hollywood, blacks made substantial progress. Interestingly, two of last year’s top movies, “Hidden Figures” and “Fences”, illustrate that black families had made it into the middle class. 

If racism is to blame for a disproportion number of black inmates in American prisons, does it also explain the explain the racial imbalance in American sports today? Why is the preponderance of black athletes on professional basketball and football teams not racist? Isn’t it ironic that the black professional athletes who protest during the playing of the national anthem will all make millions during their playing careers? Despite their own success these athletes want to believe or need to believe in a very revealing myth of victimization.

###

Democratic Party Racist Heritage

FDR Statue

I do not believe that "systemic racism" exists in the United States today but no one can doubt that racism has existed in the past. The following guest post by Rudy Costello, a friend and long time student of American history, demonstrates that it has long been associated with the Democratic party.

***

Democratic Party Racist Heritage
by Rudy Costello

In the hysteria of defacing and tearing town historic monuments, name changes, charges of systemic racism; and the mob violence associated with the movement, certain historical facts are conveniently obscured. Trying to revise and rewrite history by going back centuries to Columbus, or to the arrival of the first slave ships to colonial America; then to the rise of the slavocracy and the Confederacy does not relate the whole story.

A tragic Civil War and 600,000 lost lives later, the scourge of slavery and those who perpetuated it were defeated. What ensued during the years afterward became the real causes of racism and its lingering effects which can still raise its ugly head. As the reconstructed former Confederate states were brought back into the Union and as their leaders gradually returned to political power, the freed former slaves found themselves at the mercy of their former masters. Thus would begin the history of the type of racism which can still be felt in our society.

Despite winning civil and political rights through the passage of the 13th,14th and15th amendments to the Constitution, African-Americans in the South soon found themselves in a new form of bondage. Now under the rule of the Southern wing of the Democratic party, these state governments chipped away at the newly won constitutional rights of the former slaves and their descendants. The infamous "black codes" and Jim Crow laws, which included restricting the right to vote, created stereotypes of blacks and established an institutionalized racism. The Democratic Party, devastated by the Civil War, needed to regain power which was threatened by "Black Republicans". Much of the hope the freedmen had was taken away from them. Segregation, discrimination, intimidation, and violence became the norm for African-Americans.

The most notorious example of the treatment of blacks in the South was the practice of lynching. According to the Tuskegee Institute there were 4,700 lynchings between 1882-1951, two-thirds of which were black victims. This became the favorite tool of the KKK. Numerous anti-lynching bills during this same period were introduced in Congress only to be defeated by the filibusters of Southern Democratic senators. In 1920 the Republican Party platform called for anti-lynching legislation. President Harding supported a bill which passed the House in 1922 but was blocked again by Southern Democrats in the Senate. Even as late as 1934 the liberal icon, FDR, refused to push for such a bill for fear of losing the crucial support of Southern Democrats for his New Deal legislation. No civil rights legislation came out of the New Deal.

Finally, in 1957 President Eisenhower worked with both parties to get a civil rights act passed, the first in over eighty years. Though it did not go far enough, it laid the foundation for the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964. President Eisenhower also defied the Democratic governor in Arkansas and sent in federal troops to enforce school integration mandated by the Supreme Court.

So the history of the two political parties on race has been distorted. The history of the Democratic party shows a de facto racism by its southern base and a political compliance by the national party. While the political landscape has changed, the present Democrats can't deny that they are heirs to this once racist party. They can't deny that their success throughout most of the twentieth century depended upon a strategy that prolonged de jure racism in our country. Kamela Harris even hinted at this in a challenge to Joe Biden during one of the debates this year.

In addition, over the same period of time, the Democratic Party has controlled the governments of our largest cities where a de facto racism has long existed. Irresponsible fiscal, economic and social policies have resulted in high rates of crime, violence, broken communities and poor schools. These situations have weighed heavily on African-American communities.

Removing or tearing down statues of defeated Confederate soldiers, or an explorer who happened to come upon the shores of the New World, or of Presidents Washington and Theodore Roosevelt can be disingenuous at the least and quite hypocritical at the worst. A Senate office building is named after Richard Russell, one of the most racist members ever to serve in that body, and his statue graces the entrance. Are there any plans for its removal and a name change?

Witnessing our present civil disorder and the politicians caving into it for political advantage, I am reminded of a quote from JFK's inaugural that may be quite appropriate : " ... those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."

###

Some Lives Don't Matter

Recently a black writer whose column appears every Sunday in my local newspaper gave a very narrow definition to the term, Black Lives Matter (BLM). I guess readers had been asking why so many black on black crimes don’t seem to matter. He wrote,

That includes the slogan Black Lives Matter, which confuses many people when they witness black on black crime. But one has nothing to do with the other. BLM is about police brutality against blacks. Period.

In other words, some lives don’t matter (SLDM). In Chicago in the last 12 months about 300 black men were murdered in the streets. Why don’t they matter? Is it because their lives were of little consequence? 

Despite all the tributes to George Floyd, I suspect that most of those protesting in the streets after his death would not have even given Floyd the time of day while he was alive. They often live in exclusive, even gated, communities usually off limits to black strip club bouncers.

Or is it the fact that black on black gang murders in cities like Chicago are so common, that they no longer are newsworthy? In comparison, a statistically rare killing of a black man by a white police officer is big news especially after the video goes viral. 

Ultimately, I believe the real reason the deaths of 300 black young men in Chicago did not matter is because their deaths do not fit a convenient racist narrative? Political correctness does not admit that blacks can be racists. Only whites can be racists. Why is the systemic racist narrative so important?

Despite the protests and the outpouring of articles lamenting racism and police brutality, systemic racism has nothing to do with reality. When I was born in 1939 racism was so much more prevalent in the USA than it is today. Any fair minded person should be able to see this obvious fact. 

The lamentable recent removal of “Gone with the Wind,” a 1939 film classic, from the HBO line up harks back to an era when blacks could only portray maids or porters in main line American films. Actually, in 1939 there were separate black theaters showing all black films made by black producers and directors. A similar situation existed in baseball, the American pastime. Only after world War II did the situation begin to change with the result that today blacks play important and lucrative roles in all areas of American life.

In reality neither George Floyd nor Derek Chauvin, the policeman who killed him, matter. The narrative cannot just be about them. It cannot just be about indicting the police officer and bringing him to justice. The whole Minneapolis police force must be indicted as riddled with racism. But it can’t stop there. Police departments all over the country must be seen as permeated with racism and prone to brutality. But more than that, the very idea and need for police must be called into question.

But it must go even further. All blacks must be seen as victims or at least assume the mantle of victimhood. Even privileged whites like Nancy Pelosi must pose as victims. The police are just a sign of systemic racism that has marked America from the beginning and that 70 years of civil rights legislation has failed to eradicate despite the success of the many black Americans who feel the need to complain of racism despite their success.

At dinner the other night a friend of mine who emigrated to this country 25 years ago complained of an incident where she had been bullied by a policeman. When I asked how many times that had happened to her, she admitted that it was the only incident. She had lived in this country for 25 years and 99.9% of the time, she, like most law-abiding citizens, black or white, had not been bothered by the police. 

Today, the papers are full of people offering such anecdotes but these anecdotes do not come close to systemic racism. Nevertheless, protestors call for structural reforms not only in the police but throughout society. Some are even demanded de-funding or even eliminating police. 

The recent riots and looting in Minneapolis and elsewhere demonstrate vividly what happens when that occurs. When police stand down, the looters and the burners turn out to pillage and destroy. 

They say one picture is worth a thousand words but this short video from the end of the 1950 film classic, the Asphalt Jungle, is worth a million. It is as relevant today as it was then. Like many of the films of that era it is a story of a crime by a gang that eventually goes deadly wrong. A corrupt police lieutenant was involved in the crime, and in this scene reporters ask the Commissioner what will happen to the bad cop. It is as good a summary of the role and importance of the police as I have ever seen. Click on this link or view the clip below.

###

Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

                                          

The Senate hearings for the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court made it clear that the opposition was more than about the obvious issues. The idea that Kavanaugh’s appointment will somehow protect President Trump from impeachment is absurd. A President is charged or impeached in the House of Representatives and then tried in the Senate, not the Supreme Court.

Democrat politicians do fear that Kavanaugh would tip the balance of the court on abortion and lead to the overturn of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Roe v. Wade is not a law but a Supreme Court ruling that overturned state laws restricting or banning abortion. If the Supreme Court were to overturn that ruling, it would be up to the individual states to pass new laws banning or restricting abortion in their jurisdictions. Otherwise, women would still be free to choose abortion.

No matter what you think about abortion or Roe v. Wade, it should be clear to any fair minded person that a very large percentage of the abortions performed since the original ruling have involved black women. White women have accounted for about half of the approximately 50 Million abortions performed since 1973 but black women who make up a much smaller share of the total population have accounted for about 20 Million abortions or 40% of the total. It is clear that Roe v. Wade has played a significant role in limiting the increase of the black population in this country.

Some sociologists think that this phenomenon is a good thing and that abortion has worked to keep down the crime rate and poverty rate in the country, especially among the “lower classes.” That was certainly the objective of Margaret Sanger, the famed birth-control pioneer on the 1920s. 

Back then Sanger would not have been called a racist. She was a “eugenicist” a word derived from the so-called science of eugenics that claimed that some races and ethnic groups were inherently inferior to others. She argued that immigration from some poor countries like Italy where poverty, ignorance, superstition, immorality, and crime prevailed should be restricted. She also believed that blacks were inherently inferior, and that they should be discouraged from “breeding,” or reproducing themselves.

Eugenics provided a kind of scientific basis for laws in the South prohibiting “miscegenation”, or marriage between members of different races. They said it led to “mongrelization.” In the 1930s the Nazis in Germany became the greatest advocates of eugenics. It provided a scientific basis for policies to eliminate not only the Jews, but also any inferior racial or ethnic types. Their idea of a master race was a creation of eugenics. Of course, eugenics went out of favor after World War II and the Holocaust.

Many years ago I went to a conference where a female, black doctor predicted that abortion would eventually lead to the disappearance of the black race in America. I don’t think her prediction will come true but it is clear that abortion has kept down the population of blacks in this country.

I think the real objection to Judge Kavenaugh is that he is a white male who is also intelligent and successful. Moreover, he is also a Catholic who seems to take his faith seriously unlike many Catholics in high places today. His record as a judge is so outstanding that Democrats had to largely ignore it and ask for millions of documents in order to try to dig up some dirt. At the hearings it was obvious that critical questioners sought to demonstrate that the judge would make decisions harmful to women, blacks, and other minorities.

But why would a white racist be opposed to abortion when it is clear that it has been so successful in keeping down the black and Hispanic population in this country? You would think that racists would be all in favor of abortion. Or would it be better to say that, despite their words and intentions, the supporters of abortion today are the real racists.

During the Vice-Presidential debate before the last election, Republican candidate Mike Pence, another conservative white male, made an unabashedly Pro-Life statement, and argued that the State has an inherent interest in supporting the right to life of the most vulnerable of its citizens. He noted that as Governor he had worked hard to make Indiana a pro-adoption state. 

His opponent Tim Kaine did note that he was Catholic and proud of his Catholic heritage and education. But he argued that despite his personal opposition to abortion, he had done nothing to oppose it as Governor of Virginia, and would certainly support Hillary Clinton’s intention, if elected President, to provide federal funding for abortion.

The Democrat strategy is very cunning. They can appear to be the champions of women, especially the poor and underprivileged, but at the same time, they support measures that have kept the population of Blacks and Hispanics down. Despite contemporary left-wing rhetoric on behalf of the under-privileged, it is still outcomes or results that count. 

The young Progressives of today have been brought up viewing popular TV shows like Law and Order where the great majority of criminals are successful white males. Only rarely are the villains women, black, Hispanic or members of the LGBTQ minority. Nevertheless, the liberal creators and producers of these shows, like Harvey Weinstein of the famed Miramax studio, or Leslie Moonves of ultra-politically correct CBS, are now the ones being charged with sexual abuse of women. Despite professed good intentions, could the media support for abortion be regarded as racist? 

### 

Homophobia, Racism, Sexism (HRS)

Homophobia, Racism, and Sexism were all in the news this past week. The Connecticut Post, for example, never tires of bemoaning the existence of these three terrible scourges in our society. Recently, it ran a large banner editorial complaining that someone had dared to criticize the nomination by Dannell Malloy, the lame-duck Democrat Governor, of Andrew McDonald, a State Supreme Court justice, to the position of Chief Justice.

In its editorial the Post characterized McDonald as “openly gay” and sharply blamed a politician who dared to object to the nomination. The politician had claimed that Mc Donald’s past indicated that he would be a highly partisan Chief Justice. After all, Mc Donald has been mired in Democrat politics all of his political life. His career began in the city of Stamford where he was a close associate of then Mayor Malloy. When Malloy was subsequently elected Governor, practically his first political act was to take Mc Donald out of the State Legislature and appoint him as his chief attorney with a nice six-figure salary. Not long after, Malloy raised Mc Donald to his current position on the State Supreme court.

Nevertheless, the Post was shocked that anyone would question Mc Donald’s impartiality, and raised the dreaded issue of homophobia. Apparently, any criticism of an “openly gay” person had to be motivated by homophobia. Moreover, implicit in the Post editorial was the belief that anyone who is “openly gay” may not be criticized for anything or for any reason.

In fact, anyone with their eyes and ears open these days must be aware that “openly gay” has become a badge of honor and that members of the LGBT community are not just equal to everyone else, but superior. I am not a follower of popular TV programs, but I suspect that gays are rarely portrayed in a bad light. How many criminals or offenders on Law and Order are gay? How many villains on Masterpiece theater are gay?

Racism is a much a weapon as homophobia in the hands of progressives. In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, black scholar Shelby Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute, wrote that complaints about racism in America have grown despite the substantial progress blacks have made in the past few decades.

“The oppression of black people is over with. This is politically incorrect news, but it is true nonetheless. We blacks are, today, a free people. It is as if freedom sneaked up on us and caught us by surprise.”

He argued that this freedom has difficult consequences. Freedom “meant we had to look at ourselves without the excuse of oppression.” The fact that “more than 4000 people were shot in Chicago in 2016 embarrasses us because this level of largely black-on-black crime cannot be blamed simply on white racism.” Those who cannot bear the responsibility of freedom, he argued, fall back on charges of structural or systemic racism.

Steele also noticed a potential backlash to NFL and Black Lives Matter protests:

“We blacks have lived in a bubble since the 1960s because whites have been deferential for fear of being seen as racist. The NFL protests reveal the fundamental obsolescence—for blacks and whites—of a victim-focused approach to racial equality. It causes whites to retreat into deference and blacks to become nothing more than victims. It makes engaging as human beings and as citizens impermissible, a betrayal of the sacred group identity.”

What Steele wrote about Racism could also apply to Sexism especially with all the charges emanating from the entertainment world. Women have also arrived and found unprecedented freedom and opportunity in American society, but now it is impossible to criticize any woman without being branded a sexist. Even liberal darling Matt Damon was practically tarred and feathered for daring to suggest that there might be different levels of sexual abuse.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey has been virtually canonized as an American saint. Would anyone dare question her qualifications for the office of President in the same way that Donald Trump was lambasted during and after his run for the Presidency? Where are the insulting cartoons or blog posts?

During my lifetime homosexuals have come out of the closet, blacks have come out of the ghetto, and women have come out of the kitchen. They all sought equality but now activists among them cannot stop at equality but must gain superiority. In George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, a classic study of revolution, the animals overthrew the oppressive farmer and raised the flag proclaiming that “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL.” It didn’t take long for the crafty and strong among them to become leaders and proclaim that “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”