Brought To My Census – Part 1

Article 1, Section 2 of The United States Constitution allows for the enumeration of our citizens every ten years. Specifically, this section says, “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” This clause is specifically called out in the section devoted to the House of Representatives – it doesn’t appear in the adjacent section on the Senate. The reason for this is clear – the 435 representatives decreed by the Constitution are apportioned by population within each state. So, the purpose behind the census is that we may apportion the correct number of representatives in the House, and the adjustment is made every ten years. This seems like a fair deal.

So, I was a bit surprised when I received my census form in the mail and read the questions which appeared. Of course, there were the standard questions – “What is your name?”, or “How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?” Those seem perfectly acceptable and within the bounds of what our Constitution requires.

But can someone please tell me why the government thinks it has the right to ask:

· Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?
· What is Person 1's race?
· Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

In my estimation, those questions are none of the government’s business. Oh, I know why they are asking such things. It has to do with the verification and implementation of special programs designed to divert money to groups of a certain ethnic heritage or financial position.

And that is one of two things - socialism or racism.

Imagine for a minute that I decided to hire some neighborhood kids to do some yard work around my house on a weekend. Would I be within acceptable bounds to ask them what their race is, or what the value of their parent’s house is – because I plan to pay each of them differently, based on their answers? Of course not. There would be a cry of outrage from the community, and I would probably get written up in an article in my local newspaper. But that is exactly what the federal government is doing – diverting tax money unfairly, based on skin color or financial status. Let’s be honest – the government’s questions are not color-blind or fair, and they certainly exceed the power given to them by the United States Constitution.

So, instead of sending it in, I held on to my census form and awaited the promised visit from the hired census worker. I left instructions with my wife and children to hand over the census form should they call - filled out with only my name and the number “5” only. I attached a brief note explaining why I was a “census conscientious objector”. I even told my kids to be nice and offer the worker a cookie and something to drink. But by no means should they provide any other information. Sure enough, just a few days into the census period, we received a visitor. And my daughters gave her only the answers as instructed.

Perhaps this seems like no big deal to many people. But I am genuinely offended at the blatantly racist questions asked on our census form. A business owner is disallowed by law from distributing money unequally based on a person’s race – why is it considered okay for the government to do the same thing? It’s time to bring the government back in line with their original charter. Maybe I should have had my kids attach a copy of the Constitution to the survey, as well…

***********

Unfortunately, this is not the end of our census story. We next began to receive phone calls from the Bureau, with increasing rudeness – detailed in the next installment…

How (Not) To Perpetuate A Stereotype

I’m not typically one to agree with people who protest out of political correctness. But I can’t keep myself from commenting on this article – which really appeared in my local paper this week.

There’s not much more to say, except this: when I laughed out loud while reading it for the first time at the breakfast table, my kids asked me what was so funny. I read it to them, and then looked up with a smile. All three of them (ages 10 to 16), just sat there and stared blankly at me. “I don’t get it”, one of them finally said.

Which, I guess, is a testament to how not to perpetuate a stereotype. If people would stop pointing out fictional differences between races, the idea of inequality could be wiped out in one generation.

I wonder, do the Denver Public Schools have this in mind?

More Upside-Down Morals – This Time From The NFL

I don’t typically follow Rush Limbaugh. I’m usually at work when he is on the radio, and sometimes I wonder if he’s more about show than substance. To be sure, he has some right ideas, and he is passionate about them. But I don’t think I’ll be calling him my inspiration anytime soon.

Earlier this week, it was announced that Rush was partnering with another individual to purchase the St. Louis Rams. But within a few days, the NFL revealed that he would not be allowed to bid for the team, due to their differences with some opinions he expressed in 2003. At that time, Limbaugh was serving as a commentator for NFL games on ESPN. What was his “criminal” statement that later forced him to resign from ESPN?

When asked about the prowess of Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb, Limbaugh replied that McNabb was “overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well -- black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.”

What’s so offensive about this statement? Is it any different than watching the media, politicians and individuals expressing delight that we elected a black president last year? No, Limbaugh made a rather benign statement (it’s probably also true). But here is the part that really demonstrates the double-standard. The same NFL which rejects Limbaugh as a worthy owner has no problems with taking back the likes of Michael Vick (Philadelphia Eagles, participating in a cruel and unlawful dog-fighting ring), or Leonard Little (St. Louis Rams, repeat drunk-driving and manslaughter), or Adam “Pacman” Jones (too many offenses and teams to list).

Two things need to be considered here. First, was Limbaugh’s statement racist, as many claimed it to be? I think it is a stretch to make such a claim – it’s no different than those New Jersey elementary school-children being taught to sing “Hello, Mr. President we honor you today! For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!" Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one! The first black American to lead this great nation!” If you believe one of these statements is racist, then you must believe that both are. If you don’t believe that one represents racist thought, then neither one does. From where I sit, both statements imply that skin color has something to do with ability. That thought is at the very root of racism. Why mention skin color at all, and continue to perpetuate the idea that it somehow makes a difference in a person’s ability?

The second point relates to what the NFL considers to be forgivable and unforgivable behavior. Limbaugh’s statement, in my analysis, was neither racist, nor was it untrue. It was simply words, and relatively inoffensive ones at that. But the NFL and the media had a strong reaction to it. Michael Vick, on the other hand, was convicted of a felony and went to prison for twenty-three months. There were some expressions of outrage, but Vick was back in the NFL within months of his release.

When faced with the possibility of Limbaugh as an owner in the NFL, Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner essentially banned Limbaugh and stated, "I've said many times before, we're all held to a high standard here… divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about". That same Roger Goodell, when reinstating Vick to the NFL last July said, “I urge you to take full advantage of the resources available to support you and to dedicate yourself to rebuilding your life and your career. If you do this, the NFL will support you….I do recognize that some will never forgive him for what he did. I hope that the public will have a chance to understand his position as I have….I have thought about every alternative, but I think this gives him the best chance for success. We are not looking for failure here. We are looking to see a young man succeed.” Apparently, such sentiment doesn’t apply to middle-aged men.

Limbaugh was eliminated from the NFL for stating something that was true (but maybe unnecessary). Vick was welcomed back to the NFL after doing something wrong (and certainly unnecessary). I don’t get it. Up is down, and right is wrong in this world. And unless those of us who see the hypocrisy begin to publicly point it out, it will continue to be unnoticed by most.

Is Racism Ever Justified?

We tend to think that the roots of racism go back to slave ships sailing from Africa with a cargo hold full of black men bound for America. If they make the trip, they will live out their lives in somber duty to a harsh master, and die at an early age – penniless and without hope. I know that public school impressed this upon me, as did the release of Alex Haley’s Roots when I was in junior high. Of course, racism goes back much farther than that, likely to the very moment when the first race became two. We read of racial events in the Bible itself.

There is a group of people in our country who believe that they are right to counteract former acts of racism – by supporting the practice of reverse racism. In their mind, since blacks were repressed by the white man during a period of time, it seems reasonable to write and pass laws which favor blacks over whites (you can substitute American Indians or Chinese railroad workers in here – it doesn’t matter). One of the very definitions of affirmative action is “to redress perceived disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination”. Said a little differently, it is “to pay back wrongs inflicted by one race on another”. This may feel like justice to some…but it is actually, in itself, racism – giving advantage to one class of people over another because of their race.

Call it what you like, but reverse racism is still…racism.

In politics, it is truly of no importance to me whether our president is white, black, yellow, red, or green. Nor does it matter whether or not he has one arm, bad breath, or speaks with a lisp. What I do care about are the policies and beliefs to which my president ascribes. I care about what he is willing to fight for, and what he considers to be non-negotiable due to principle. And yet, there are people who were absolutely enamored by the prospect of having a black man elected to our nation’s highest office. Indeed, it seems as if some were even more excited to picture themselves in a voting booth casting their vote for a black man. Be careful - there is a real difference between the previous two sentences. If we were truly past racism, would we make such a big deal over the skin color of our president?

We are nearing the point where we are going to see Sonia Sotomayor appointed to the Supreme Court. I don’t really know what to think of her (she’s clearly giving evenhanded answers in an effort to hurdle the appointment process), but I do know one thing. In nearly every article that I have read about her, the opening sentences are about how she overcame a poor economic upbringing. And also, that she is a Latina. And that she’s a woman. In all seriousness, do those three things matter when evaluating someone for their ability to apply constitutional law fairly to Americans? Does anyone believe that the “poor-Latina-woman” triple-score is an accident? Or do you think that the Obama administration, like many prior administrations before them (Republican and Democrat), created a list of potential nominees based on judicial experience…and then began handing our extra credit for “poor”, “Latina”, and “woman”? Of course they did. And lest you think that a high judge is really above racism, consider the prior ruling of Sotomayor’s which was recently overturned by the very Supreme Court that she wishes to join – a ruling where she discriminated against potential white firefighter applicants by tossing out the results of a promotions test which “did not yield enough minority applicants”.

Finally, I can’t help but share the following video. In the video, California Senator Barbara Boxer is completely flummoxed by Harry Alford, a black man who challenges her insistence on quoting “black” groups who have passed policies on clean energy. She clearly cannot see that good energy policy ought to come from people who know something about energy – not based on lines of race. I wish more people had the tenacity of Mr. Alford, who came to an energy meeting with facts gathered from energy-related companies, but who left with disappointment in a senator who cannot see past her own reverse racial bias. Well done, Mr. Alford!

Racism Is Still Alive and Well

This political season, my kids have enjoyed pointing out some of the political t-shirts, signs and bumper stickers that they see. They obviously have a bias that they get from me and my wife, because their politics are always right in line with ours. We’ll take full credit and shout “Hallelujah”!

One t-shirt caught their eye recently, and they asked us to explain it. The text of the message said this – “Paint the White House Black – Obama”. After reciting the words to us, they asked us for a deeper explanation about this slogan. I’ve looked it up and found that this line stems from a rap song by Ludacris – I’ve never heard it, nor do I intend to. Senator Obama has said that Ludacris is one of his favorite artists. If you want to see hatred wrapped up in a “song”, go read the lyrics to this rap entitled “Politics (Obama is Here)”. You’ll be shocked (I hope).

How do you explain racism to young children? Aren’t the days of the Ku Klux Klan and the Watts riots past us? Is our nation still enduring the hatred and baiting that characterized the 1960’s? Do we still live in a time where skin color and nationality make a difference in how we treat people? Apparently we do.

Make no mistake - the t-shirt in question does contain a racist message. Racism is defined as any policy that fosters the idea that there are inherent differences in race or culture. As skin color in this case determines a racial difference, it’s rather easy to conclude that the wearer of the shirt believes that there is a difference between putting a black person in the White House instead of a white person. It’s a kind of reverse apartheid, where segregation is made based on skin color. The person in question here is clearly making a stand for black skin color over white, as if that has anything to do with who should be governing our nation.

To put it in perspective, imagine for a moment that I had a t-shirt made up that said “Keep The White House White – McCain”. Could I get away with wearing that in public? It’s doubtful. I would very likely get negative publicity, and possibly be accused of a hate crime in our society today. It would certainly draw all sorts of negative media attention. But isn’t it the same message as the first t-shirt? Doesn’t it somehow imply that race has something to do with the election? Wearing either shirt or rapping the lyrics to a Ludacris song are clear announcements of racism.

Here is the lesson I am teaching my children. Skin color does not matter. Policy matters. Our nation should be judging our presidential candidates by what they say, do, and believe. Their race should have absolutely nothing to do with it. And yet, for a large segment of people (on both sides) it still does. I wonder where the polls would stand today if we had locked both candidates in a box when it all started and we were exposed only to their words. The numbers would be different, I’m sure.

The sad truth is that skin color still makes a difference to some people. White people still distrust black people and their ability to govern. And some black people want to make up for years of injustice by behaving in the same racist and biased way – only in reverse. They are acting as if there is a need to offset decades of racial bias by suppressing whites for a time. Many would not admit this openly, but a glance at some of the rapper lyrics that are so popular would tell us otherwise. They want the whites to suffer for a time, as penance for slavery and suppression inflicted on them by our ancestors.

If we truly want to be a nation known for its equal treatment of race, then we need to act that way now – not by offsetting the past sins with equal and opposite treatment. This election (as in all elections) should be about evaluating each candidate on principles and beliefs, with a blind eye toward truly irrelevant issues such as skin color. Would we disparage a candidate because they were balding, or sat in a wheelchair? Then why does the amount of melanin in a person’s skin have anything to do with their ability to lead? The clear answer is that it does not.