About a week ago I noted that
Senator Kennedy appears to believe that a wide, generous interpretation of civil rights laws (the opposite of a “narrow, stingy” interpretation) would, somehow, reduce the “disparity” in money and cars. Equal protection, in short, means equal resources.
Now comes columnist DeWayne Wickham, who argues even more explicitly that
Poverty is the new Jim Crow. It is a subtler — but no less hurtful form of racism. Last year, a quarter of all blacks in this country lived below the poverty level, compared with less than 9% of whites. The South, where the majority of blacks live, is the nation’s poorest region. That’s not a chance relationship.
So, do states that allow racial “disparities” to exist deprive blacks of equal protection and thus violate the 14th Amendment?
Well, the trouble with all this is that the evacuation of New Orleans and the follow-up efforts by the Fed are remarkable success stories.
Remember those predictions of 10,000 deaths in New Orleans alone? Fewer than 500 reported so far. So, all the blathering has been about nothing.
The reason blacks were most affected? Blacks are 2/3 of the population of New Orleans. What else would you expect?
President Bush very gracefully apologized for any and all shortcomings in the relief efforts. I’m still waiting for the race hustlers to apologize for the fit of bloviation and vengeful accusations. What a disgrace they are!
The grace and humility of the president is kind of refreshing. You won’t be witnessing anything similar from the race baiters. Really, who is it that profits from this continuing devotion to racial hatred? It’s pretty obvious… an entire industry of race hustlers has developed in the past 50 years, and they are fighting for their jobs.
The disgusting reality is that continuing to call decent, human people ugly names is how the race hustlers make a living. Shame on them!
He’s My Brother
UPDATE: September 14, 2005: Iowahawk and BlameBush! state the obvious. The race hustlers have been conning us about the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina. Thanks to Powerline for bringing this article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to my attention: …
A major component in the effort to brand the relief efforts as racism is to completely erase the fact that whites were also victims of Katrina.
“Yeah, a couple of white boys died, but hey, they were probably racists anyway and deserved it.”
And of course, all those whites folks donating money, time, and labor to the relief efforts, they’re just doing it because of their guilty consciences since they’re racists, too.
If this is what passes as thoughtful commentary, we are all in deep trouble. He seems to forget that St. Bernard Parish was totally flooded out, and that is 88% white. Half of Plaquemines Parish is gone, and that’s 70% white. And it’s racism that caused the French Quarter and the historic portions of the city to be built on high ground? Please. The reasoning, or lack of, in this piece is based more on emotion than fact. USA Today should be ashamed that it saw fit to print this drivel.
” And it’s racism that caused the French Quarter and the historic portions of the city to be built on high ground? Please”
I thikn the idea is that the historic places are the higher ground (they’ve survived) and expensive. And given disparities in wealth, tend to be whiter.
Bush the Sugar Daddy
I didn’t listen to George Bush’s speech last night, but I’m told he plans to do what he does best: spend, spend, spend other people’s money. True?
And he didn’t sufficiently address the rampant Hurricane Katrina race-ba…
The reason the historical places are on the higher ground is because they were built first. Has nothing to do with the race of anyone.
Lets say that President Bush publically espoused the same rhetoric as the right wing punditry. Would’nt that give credence to the assertions of the so called “race-baiters?” Or, does he really feel the same as most “right wingers” and is simply running a “con” game to appease his critics. Or, is he truley contrite concerning the governments role in the aftermath of Katrina, which in turn makes him more “liberal” than any Democrat in Washington. I think this is a perfect example of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”