People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, September 05, 2005

These Guys Make My Brain Hurt

Some guy named Joel Achenbach, writing in The Washington Post, is kind enough to provide us with his definition of the word "racism." I thought I had a rather clear understanding of the word, but now I'm not sure.

Here's how he sees it:
There are many types of racism, including the type that says there's no racism in America anymore ... (link)
Say what?

I once heard a member of the New York State Supreme Court, who happened to be black, say in a television interview that there can be no such thing as a black racist since, as we all know, African-Americans have traditionally been oppressed and are generally powerless and that racism is a tool of the powerful and therefore blacks are ... exempt. This from one of the most powerful men in the state.

Say what?

First, here's a definition (right out of the dictionary):

Racism: Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

Seems simple enough. Workable. Applicable. Why try to distort the meaning of the word?

Well, we all know why.

Lefties like Achenbach and the state Supreme Court judge view a guy like me who has no problem whatsoever with black people (and who finds the time we spend discussing skin hue to be borderline bizarre), to be somehow hate-filled anyway, because they can think of me no other way. So even though I've lived among 'em (I even sold a home to a family of black folks once!), hired 'em, worked for 'em, and called many of them my friend, I'm still - somehow - a racist. I'd bet if I gave birth to a black child, I'd still be called a racist (and make the Guiness Book of World Records).

Well. What's my reaction to such idiocy?

You can both put your lips to my (mottled, off- white, perhaps slightly pallid) backside. And Joel, if you have thoughts of making a living as a deep thinker, take my advice (though a racist I may be): don't quit your day job. Whitey.

This Ain't Right

Politicians in the state of Michigan, in an attempt to get out in front of the "recidivist-child molester" issue, are doing what politicians do best - lapse into the realm of hysteria and do damage to the Constitution.

This appears in the Detroit News:
Michigan will allow past allegations in sex offense cases
By David Eggert, Associated Press Writer

LANSING, Mich. -- It is a staple of criminal law that a defendant's past behavior is generally off limits during trial.

The reasoning is that jurors should not convict someone for being a "bad guy" but instead base their decision on evidence in the case before them.

But an exception would be made in cases involving alleged sexual crimes against children under legislation that has unanimously passed the Legislature and that Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said she will sign. (link)
I have no problem with meting out harsh punishment to child molesters. I came to the conclusion long ago that they cannot be rehabilitated and are therefore dangerous when released back into society.

But there is a huge difference between the length of incarceration imposed on the guilty and using prior accusations in a criminal trial. As everyone knows, it is not a rare happenstance that a person involved in a nasty custody dispute has been accused of molesting a son or daughter. If the governor of Michigan has her way, that accusation could be used at a later trial.

Stop it. This isn't the old Soviet Union. At least not yet.