·:[ The (vast) Right Wing Conspiracy ]:·
• • • • •

WaPo editorialist William Raspberry writes about something novel to the Black community: the destruction of the Black family.

The absence of fathers means, as well, that girls lack both a pattern against which to measure the boys who pursue them and an example of sacrificial love between a man and a woman. As the ministers were at pains to say last week, it isn’t the incompetence of mothers that is at issue but the absence of half of the adult support needed for families to be most effective.

Interestingly, they blamed the black church for abetting the decline of the black family — by moderating virtually out of existence its once stern sanctions against extramarital sex and childbirth and by accepting the present trends as more or less inevitable.

They didn’t say — but might have — that black America’s almost reflexive search for outside explanations for our internal problems delayed the introspective examination that might have slowed the trend. What we have now is a changed culture — a culture whose worst aspects are reinforced by oversexualized popular entertainment and that places a reduced value on the things that produced nearly a century of socioeconomic improvement. For the first time since slavery, it is no longer possible to say with assurance that things are getting better.

I don’t want to come across too sarcastic; I do applaud these ministers and Mr. Raspberry for highlighting such an important and devestating phenomenon. However, I do believe that this more ubiquitous and dangerous trend (almost) is the trend to every-couple-of-months-or-so bring up the topic and talk about how much needs to be done within and from outside of the Black community and then forget about it for another couple of months (wasn’t Bill Cosby saying this stuff a couple of months ago? And what was the outcome of all the media hoopla? A condemnation of Cosby, and no progress for Black families).

Sorry, but I’ll be less negative when I start to see more and more Black communities take action against this phenomenon. This cannot be a top-down operation (and by that I mean government-led or so-called-Black-leader-led). No amount of government programs or inspirational MLK, Jr. quotes mouthed by Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton is going to keep my old friends in Charlotte from making babies, smoking weed, and dropping out of school (not always in that order). What will, however, make a difference is community and church outreach, and the example being set by young blacks such as Ambra Nykol, myself, and my boy Travis Mason: young Blacks that prove it pays to let God lead you, complete your studies, be real about your responsibilities and work hard to help others. My boys in NC joke that I left them to become a nerd and go to college in New York, but I know at least that I am setting an example for them. I can only hope and pray that more young Blacks will, in the cliche words of Spike Lee, “Do the right thing.”

Claudio

Katie Holmes has converted to Scientology.

If only she were a better actress (read: hotter) I might bemoan that the former Catholic is now a member of a brain-washing cult of institutional murder.

Claudio

…that’s just wrong.

But funny.

Claudio

Scrappleface hits the nail on the head:

Court Allows 10 Commandments on Seized Land
by Scott Ott

(2005-06-27) — In a pair of rulings on the constitutionality of the 10 Commandments on government property, the Supreme Court today said the commandments may be displayed on public land if that property has been seized from private owners for ‘public purposes’ under eminent domain.

The 5-4 decision comes on the heels of last week’s court declaration that so-called “private” property is actually government land temporarily under private management until its eventual seizure.

In a second ruling handed down today, the Supreme Court banned the 10 commandments from appearing in courtrooms unless the following disclaimer is included: “Display of this historically-significant collection of laws shall not be construed as an endorsement of the God who may, or may not, have spoken them, nor of the existence of such a God, nor of the legality of the laws. Citizens may observe and obey these commandments at their own risk. Please consult your family attorney before embarking on any law-abiding regimen.”

Claudio

Scalia’s dissent (joined in full by Rehnquist, Thomas and in part by Kennedy) in the Kentucky Ten Commandments case.

Highlight:

Nothing stands behind the Court’s assertion that governmental affirmation of the society’s belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court’s own say-so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say-so of earlier Courts going back no farther than the mid-20th century.

Lots of fun.

Claudio

1. School A receives state money.
1a. School A is a state public school.
2. School A sucks.
3. School B does not receive state money.
4. School B is better.
4a. School B is a private religious school.
5. State Y has responsibility to give children free and decent education.
6. Student X of School A is not getting a decent education.

THEREFORE,

7. State Y has an obligation to:
OPTION 1: Give School A more money.
OPTION 2: Put the Student X in another public school.
OPTION 3: Give the family of Student X money to help X attend the (better) private schools.

Let’s really reason this out.

OPTION 1: Give School A more money. It sounds good, but it is often times the case that many failing public schools have been given resources but poorly managed them. So perhaps Option 1 will fix the situation, but perhaps it will mean throwing money into a bottomless pit. And how long will it take this public school to get its act together after getting more funding? Not nearly quickly enough to salvage Student X’s academic career and future, probably.

OPTION 2: Put Student X in another public school. Assuming there are other, better public schools around, this wouldn’t be too bad of an idea. However, most public schools are already crowded, and to continually add students from the poor-performing public schools to the better public schools would only to serve the one purpose most of these commie–liberal–radical egalitarians worship: levelling. It would bring the good schools down. Mediocrity is to be the order of the day.

OPTION 3: School vouchers to private (usually religious schools). Okay, I’m not so much of a hack that I won’t note that this option is particularly tricky when it comes to the Constitution.

As far as Florida is concerned, it would seem as if the plan has some problems. The Florida state constitution states that the state can only pay for, “the support and maintenance of free public schools.”

Now if the state is paying families, though, then they are nto paying pricy private schools. Just like if the state gives someone a tax refund so large that they turn around and build a church with it, that would not be considered a violation of the Establishment Clause. Why? Because the government gave that person his or her money, but cannot control what he or she does with it. In the same vein, could not the state argue that they are simply giving families financial reimbursement for failing to live up to their duty to provide quality education? Then whatever the families do with the money (enroll their children in private religious schools) is not the government’s responsibility.

What pisses me off the most here, of course, is the involvement of the Not Allowing Any Colored Progress (NAACP) group. Their lawyer stated,

What the state is paying for is religious indoctrination of young children.”

Alright, let us consider then this point. Exhibit A: He lacks the proof there is “religious indoctrination” going on here (idiot). Exhibit B: He is forgetting that people get to CHOOSE with a voucher program what schools they will send their children to. This leads to Exhibit C: If someone has a problem with the religious nature of a school they can CHOOSE to go somewhere else, or CHOOSE to stand on principle and get a crappy education from the public school. Their choice.

I don’t know. Having gone to a relatively good school (North Meck) and a relatively bad school (Grover Cleveland) and having done horrible in the good school and just great in the bad school, I would venture to say that much of your education is what you make it. (It would seem as if I am on a path to repeat this if I go from City College to Yale Law as planned).

Then again, it is nice to have the resources, options, and attention that people in very good schools get. Just compare the debate budgets of a school like the one my girlfriend went to (Stuyvesant) and the one of my school (Cleveland). No contest. Never mind all the programs and course offerings that Stuy has that Cleveland will never have.

Hell, if it is really a matter of education v. freedom of religion, then the courts should have no say in the matter. Let people decide for themselves. If they are threatened by religious schools, then they can stay out. If they think the benefits outweigh the costs, then let them send their kids.

Claudio

Not quite, argues Rich Lowry:

DERB MISSES IT [Rich Lowry ]
From reading Derb’s column today, you might get the impression that evangelicals and Catholics are somehow behind the drift toward “big-government conservatism.” This is misconception that has appeared elsewhere too, so it bears some scrutiny. Everyone forgets that the infusion of the religious right into politics, and the shift of evangelicals into the GOP column, partly accounted for Ronald Reagan’s victories in the 1980s. The pre-religious right Republican party was characterized by a go-along-to-get-along establishment that was perfectly happy to accommodate ever-bigger government. It was thankfully swept away by the religious “crazies” (and other new Republican voters). The trend continued with the role the religious right played in the 1994 Republican “revolution,” sweeping the Democrats from power and leading to a full-frontal assault on big government. What happened next is that congressional Republicans got trounced by Bill Clinton in the budget wars, chastening them forevermore. The GOP needed some sort of fresh approach and George Bush came up with “compassionate conservatism.” This was not something forced upon him by religious people. True, it was in some ways, especially rhetorically, pitched toward Catholic swing voters, who are not ideologically anti-statist. But it’s not as though Bush could have discarded them and built an anti-statist political majority with some other group of voters.

Today’s Republican party is more anti-regulation than, say, the GOP under President Bush’s father was. It is more anti-tax. It is too lax on spending–but we complained about spending growth under Bush’s father and even under Reagan. Finally, it is more willing to broach fundamental reforms of the welfare state. Now, through Social Security reform, Bush is actually proposing a creative way to significantly reduce government’s spending over time and ultimately its sway over our lives. If it sinks, it won’t be because of evangelicals and devout Catholics have risen up against it. It will be because of decidedly non-religious right Republicans such as Susan Collins and, well, Derb.
Posted at 03:00 PM

Being both a Christian conservative (Religious Right Represent!) and a paleoconservative (Shrink that Government Baby!) I find arguments that the two philosophies are incompatible to be a bit ludicrous. Indeed, Christian conservatives are less likely to care about spending or balanced budgets, but that is not evidence of a concerted effort to bring the GOP into some sort of “cut-taxes-and-spend” era.

I know I need to post more. Next Sunday I’m heading to Missouri for the Truman Scholarship orientation, and then I have a million finals before I leave for Europe.

And my laptop is broken.

Here is to hoping Pat and I can get our acts together and return to prior form!

Claudio

Finally Fox has blessed us with the fourth season of Family Guy.

Too bad it isn’t the Family Guy I love.

The episode, although hilarious, was entirely too political, and its political humor was entirely too one-sided. Aside from Peter going on a crusade against Mel Gibson, dissing Jesus, and the show parodying priests, they ruined Brian forever by uncharacteristically having him read Michael Moore’s, “Dude, Who Stole My Country?”

Hopefully this is a fluke, and the next new episode (next Sunday at 9pm ET) will see a return to the roots. Until then, here are some of the more tolerable and hilarious quotes from Sunday night’s episode:

Stewie: [spanking Chris] And what do you tell the teachers about the bruises if they ask?
Chris: I WAS HIT BY A BASEBALL!! *cries*

Brian: This whole thing has turned his world upside down…face.
Stewie: *Glares at Brian in priceless form*

Lois: Oh my god there is a prostitute on the mattress!
Peter: Stand perfectly still - they’re vision is based on motion…
Prostitute: Hey, where’d you go!?

Peter: Well let us remember, everyone who is against the war is gay!
Politicians (Republicans): I’m not against the war!
Dick Cheney: I was the first one not against the war!

Ah, the gems.

Claudio