As the country prepares to celebrate Martin Luther King Day I took a random, unscientific survey to get an idea of exactly what people think Dr. King actually did. It unfortunately came as no surprise that, beyond the most generic idea of him being a black civil rights leader, most of those I spoke with truly have no idea.

I have absolutely no intention of besmirching the memory or accomplishments of Martin Luther King. But MLK has become such a lauded icon that his inflated legend has done more to harm his legacy than his detractors could have. I believe the very fact that children are given the day off of school as a holiday to honor him is a perfect example of how wrongly we are celebrating what it was that Martin Luther King stood for. Keeping kids out of school would have seemed absurd to him.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a man who believed passionately in the power of education as a means to move people out of poverty. That includes black people and white people alike. King, who is now remembered for his efforts to end segregation and oppression against blacks, was really very closely aligned with the populist movement. As such, he was as much an advocate for poor white people as he was for blacks and later in his life, after many of the civil rights laws were passed, he spent the bulk of his time bringing attention to the plight of poverty in America.

He was the public face of the civil rights movement but more importantly he was focused on equality for all people. In researching his life and his speeches I have no doubt that Martin Luther King would have been appalled by any program that gave preferential treatment based on skin color, even if that preference was for blacks. His goal was to evoke equality through a change in the public’s consciousness not by some misguided racial quota.

We have lost much of what Dr. King stood for in the media hoopla of camera hogs like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The basic premise behind Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition is a Martin Luther King idea. But the actual actions of that so called coalition, focusing only on advancing blacks at the expense of all others is not.

While King deserves much credit for keeping the pressure on politicians to create and pass civil rights legislation he personally never passed a single bill or enacted any law. It is important to remember not only Martin Luther King but also who it was that supported him and his efforts and who it was that opposed him. Democrats are quick to scream racism at the drop of a hat today, but when push came to shove in the early sixties when all the civil rights legislation was being fought in the Halls of Congress, it was the Democrats that vehemently opposed it. The Kennedy administration publically supported King, but it was also then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy that ordered the FBI to secretly wiretap King’s phone lines in an effort to thwart his efforts.

The country is a very different place today than it was for Martin Luther King. In many ways the dream he spoke of on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 has been fulfilled. Unfortunately in just as many was his dream has been dashed by the slavery imposed on the culture and the spirit of the black community by the Democrats insidious imposition of dependence through welfare. I fear that Dr. King would be heartbroken to see the community he tried so hard to lift up wallowing in mire of unbridled teen pregnancies, single parent homes and parental neglect, drug abuse, gang violence, dysfunctional entitlement, abandonment of personal responsibility, prejudice and self-imposed ignorance through the rejection of education. It was never his vision that the black community be given so many fishes that they forget how to fish for themselves becoming slaves to their Democrat masters.

If you truly have a desire to honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spend some time Monday reading exactly what it was that he stood for. Then come back to BigFrick.com where we will discuss: Martin Luther King; A Dream Abandoned Part 2

How many misrepresentations? How many instances? How many unqualified and unsubstantiated stories? How many times can this stupid racism card get played before someone has the stones to say “ENOUGH”!

The latest in what has become the never ending parade of poor black men suffering under the cruel yoke of racism comes from an area particularly close to my heart, my beloved Chicago Cubs.

The obviously emotionally unstable and equally mentally challenged 30 million dollar man Milton Bradley is giving the local press all they could ask for and more by turning his all too common vilipend tirades toward Cub fans, claiming he is the victim of their racist heckling. Of course when questioned for details or specific instances Mr. Bradley has none. He intentionally dodges questions as to why he has never asked for security to remove an unruly or racially abusive fan. He pouts like a 4 year old and blames the media for even asking the questions and claims they are well aware of both the answer and the instances.

Chicago Cubs security has confirmed that Bradley has never contacted them about any instance of racial slurs or over-the-top fan behavior.

Are there fans in the stands that make racial slurs towards players? In all the times that I have been at Wrigley Field over the past 55 years I cannot recall one instance of racial intimidation. But still, I’m guessing it happens. Any time you have adult males, alcohol and sports you will have some nitwit that wants to show off for his buddies by doing something completely stupid. I watched with shame and anger a few weeks ago as someone in a Cubs cap threw a full glass of beer of an opposing player as he attempted to catch a fly ball near the left/centerfield wall. It was a despicable act carried out by an obviously drunken clod. Security was on the scene immediately to eject the beer-filled bozo and I had hoped he might receive a little Chicago-style tune-up on the way out the gate or at least a free ride in a police car and a night in the drunk tank where he could spend a romantic evening with some other equally IQ challenged revelers.

My beloved Cubs are falling apart at the seams. Only weeks ago they were in first place and now they will need a miracle to get into the wild card playoff spot. It’s not that they lack talent. It’s that they lack stability and heart.

Players like Milton Bradley are like a cancer for a team. They are carriers of bad vibes. It doesn’t even matter that they have great ability and limitless potential. They drain the very lifeblood from the team like a vampire so they can steal as much personal time in the spotlight as possible.

Bradley complained about being in a restaurant and hearing the waitress make disparaging remarks about him at another table. Hey Milton, welcome to the big leagues! Countless people are going to be jealous of a guy that makes more every year than they could hope to win in the lottery. Plus, performance on and off the field matters a lot more than your color, especially here in Chicago.

Mr. Bradley, I suggest next time you take the field if you can pull your head out of wherever you have been keeping it you might want to glance up at the flags of retired numbers of Cub heroes. Number 14 Ernie Banks, Number 26 Billy Williams, Number 31 Ferguson Jenkins. There isn’t a Cub fan worth his salt that wouldn’t trade his first born for a chance to associate with these great Cub players who also just happen to be black.

Your shtick is getting old Milton. And if you think you can claim racism just because it will get you some extra attention or maybe deflect criticism from your lackluster play you picked the wrong ball park to do it in.

Take your money, go away and have a nice life.

Is there still a dividing attitude of racism in America? Yes, but it runs on both sides of the racial chasm. And while racism still exists, the perception or claims of racism is far greater than the actual occurrence.

You would be hard pressed to find a minority in this country that has not at some time experienced a situation that they considered racism. While each instance is different, I find many of the stories to be the same things white people have to deal with every day. White people get poor service in restaurants, inattentive and indifferent sales clerks in stores, we lose jobs, get passed over for promotions, get turned down for loans and credit cards, are made to feel insignificant by those with authority over us and have run-ins with police. But white folks rarely have the advantage of using racism as an excuse for our frustrations and disappointments. We are left to conclude that the person we are dealing with is an idiot or that our own actions may actually have played a part in the cards we are dealt.

Instead of focusing on the advancements made in race relations and minority opportunities available we focus our attention on insignificant annoyances that happen to everybody at some time. We have become so insanely politically correct on race that we have lost all concept of what racism is, where we have come from and where we are today.

When was the last reporting of a lynching in America? Do you suppose they still occur and the news media has decided not to cover them? Not likely. If there is a racial killing where whites kill blacks the news media is all over it with 24 hour non-stop coverage. If we had a lynching Jesse Jackson would be at the scene within hours looking for blood to smear on his shirt and Al Sharpton would be there claiming everything about white people is evil except their hair styles. The entire country would literally be turned on its ear and focused on little else for the next 6 months. It would be a shock to the entire country and rightfully so.

Golf Channel analyst Kelly Tilghman made an attempt at humor by saying other golfers would need to take Tiger Woods out back and lynch him if they wanted to win and almost lost her job. Tilghman was suspended for a month for the mere mention of the word. A garbage truck driver in Philadelphia was fired for hanging little a hangman’s nooses on his truck as a Halloween decoration because we, as a country, have become so politically correct and racially sensitive that we cannot discern between the image and the intent.

Lynchings were a dark page in our countries history. White thugs would gather up young black men who had committed some sort of inexcusable infraction like sitting in a whites only area or drinking from a whites only water fountain or looking at a white girl walk down the street and they would hang them from a tree as a sign of their brutal power and a warning to others of what happens to those that of cross them.

We have not had a lynching in this country for decades, but every single week across America 40 to 50 young black men are killed by other young black men. Each one of them is just as dead as the young men hung from trees. The reasons for these killings are usually equally inexcusable infractions like walking down the wrong street, selling dope on the wrong corner, flashing the wrong gang sign or having the wrong color bandana, disrespecting the shooter in any number of perceived ways or doing nothing at all but being in the wrong place.

Where are Jesse and Al at these killing? Where is the President, where is Reverend Wright, where is Professor Gates? Are they afraid to go into those neighborhoods? The carnage in the streets of black neighborhoods has become so commonplace that local news media outlets cover these killings simply as time fillers if there is no other news happening that day. There is no outrage. There is no call for a federal investigation. There is only tacit acceptance.

Most of these killings are carried out in full view of witnesses who are usually too afraid to give police any information out of fear of retribution. There is no difference between these killings and the lynching’s except the color of the attacker. We use ridiculous terms like “hate crime” to add some sort of delusional meaning to an act of violence, but the reality is the guy is just as dead whether the killer hated him or not, or whether the killer was white or black. Just imagine what would happen if the 40 to 50 killings every week on our city streets were carried out by marauding whites instead of other blacks.

And what do the black leaders and the white liberals blame for this urban holocaust? They blame the gun. How far would we have gotten in this country if we would have blamed the rope for lynchings? “The key to cutting back on these lynchings is a reduction in the amount of rope we have on the streets. If these guys didn’t have the rope they wouldn’t be able to hang anybody”.

Whenever I write about race invariably I will receive e mailed comments accusing me of racial prejudice. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe liberals are the epitome of racial prejudice.

I believe everybody should be held to the same level of responsibility. Blacks are just as capable as whites, entitled to the same struggles, the same disappointments and the same benefits. Liberals are the ones who believe that blacks are not capable of competing with whites. That is why we have this constant push to lower the standards and deflect blame. Liberals have created a welfare society with generation after generation of impoverished, dependent minorities who live in far greater fear of each other than of anything a white man will do to them. Liberals have made failure attractive and success nearly impossible. Once they have you in their endless system of hopeless despair liberals understand that you cannot break the narcotic hold welfare dependence thereby assuring them of your vote.

You can build all the schools you want but if the desks sit empty you have accomplished nothing. You can give all the job training you want but if it’s acceptable to just make babies and live off the welfare dole the lure of building a new and better life is lost. You can blame racism for the inequities in life or you can develop the necessary skills that will prevent anybody from holding you back.

Racism exists. From the white liberals who glorify the acceptance of failure and diminished standards, to the black leaders who preach excuses and justification instead of empowerment.

I listen carefully when the local newscasters drop their fake “buddy buddy banter” and read an actual news story. I am constantly amazed at the blatant attempt to give every detail of a crime except the race of the perpetrator.

In a recent TV news story several members of a white family were killed by the boyfriend of one of the daughters. Among the dead were the father, a sister and the grandmother. The daughter was seriously injured as was the mother of the family, all stabbed repeatedly in what was described as a blood bath. The TV news crews covered every aspect of the crime scene and the lives of the victims, going so far as having video of the murdered sister’s high school and the church they attended. They named the boyfriend and gave information about where he lived and worked. The only item missing from the report was that the killer was black.

The August 2nd Chicago Tribune ran a front page article, complete with pictures of a police news conference, detailing violent attacks on pedestrians in Chicago’s upscale Lincoln Park neighborhood. In the 531 word piece the paper detailed the attacks and the victims. The paper gave no description of the group of men who were sneaking up on unsuspecting victims, immediately beating them in the face and head and then stealing their wallets and cell phones. I thought perhaps as these attacks occurred at night and were so sudden and unexpected that nobody got a good look at the attackers. But a when I called the police desk I was told the perpetrators were a group of black men between 15 and 20 years old.

Why has it become standard procedure for news outlets to leave out racial description when discussing crimes committed by minorities? Don’t they think it is an important part of the overall description of the crime and the criminal?

As I explained yesterday, we cannot have a true and honest discussion without including all the facts. The ACLU is up in arms about the number of minorities pulled over by police, but until they catch these violent predators I hope that police pull over and investigate every group of young black men they see cruising the streets of Lincoln Park at night. God help us if the police ever get to the point of reluctance in investigating crimes because they don’t want to skew some study results on racial profiling. That would be as stupid and dangerous as announcing to your enemy when you are going to withdraw your troops.

I understand the frustration for every law abiding group of young black men that gets pulled over, but they must understand that the problem is not an act of prejudice but rather an investigation based on a description. They should be mad at the group of black attackers that caused the heightened sense of alarm. Police are not going to waste their time investigating groups of blacks if the description of the attackers is red haired Irish kids.

An honest and open discussion on race relations begins with honesty and openness, not some politically correct concept of protecting racial identity so as not to appear prejudiced. The Tribune online edition has a section of Chicago Police mugshots from recent arrests. I took a look at the latest 100 booking photos. The number of minorities was about 5 to 1 over whites. You can say it’s because police are focused on minorities but that doesn’t say that the minorities didn’t actually commit the crime. Look at the minority population in prisons, look at the number of minorities in the court system, look at the minority rate of high school drop outs, look at the minority rate of unwed pregnancy, look at the minority rate of single parent households, look at the minority rate of drug abuse, look at the minority rate of welfare recipients, all of these factors hopelessly binding them to a system of government handouts designed to keep them dependent and poor. All of this matters if we are going to actually be honest about race relations and move the discussion forward.

Or are we really just looking for more of the same.

We’ll bring this discussion to a head tomorrow.

As the country continues its preordained, politically correct discussion on race, the facts are getting skewed by the intentional misuse of misleading statistics. To be sure, statistical studies are an important tool in problem solving. But in order to find root cause solutions or even carry on a meaningful discussion one must first be willing to incorporate all the facts.

Industry has adopted a statistical system of process management and problem solving through the advancement of Six Sigma programs. These Six Sigma projects teach the importance of addressing all issues involved when attempting to find the root cause problem and implement solutions. The goal in these sometimes very time consuming activities is to zero in on the correct remedy rather than take a shot gun approach or worse yet attempt to debate a problem to death. It demands careful analysis and a true willingness to change based on the results of the study.

While the positive impact on industry from this approach has been profound, the supposed discussion the country is engaged in regarding race relations lacks several of the key features necessary for success. Rarely are all the facts addressed when discussing race and even less frequently is the discussion based on a willingness of all parties involved to actually change anything. We can discuss until we all turn blue, but rather than looking for solutions most of the discussion is simply trying to attach culpability.

Such is the case with the recent release of traffic studies of Illinois communities and the state as a whole. The Chicago Tribune carried a front page article ambiguously suggesting that while police search an inordinate percentage of minority driven vehicles at traffic stops, a higher percentage of white drivers actually have contraband found when searched. The study showed officers found contraband in 15.4% of the cases for minorities as opposed to 24.7% for whites. The ACLU jumped on this statistic as proof of unwarranted searches on minorities. But while it was mentioned that these were “consent searches” no other explanation of what that means was given. Once again, in an attempt to assure a particular conclusion not all the facts are included.

A “consent search” is conducted only if the driver gives his permission. There are actually very few “consent searches” performed, accounting for a mere 1% of all traffic stops. If the driver refuses the request to search his vehicle and officers still have probable cause to believe a search will render some form of contraband, other means are used to get legal authority to conduct the search. The results of these searches are not included in these statistics as they are no longer considered a “consent search”. The reality is that minority drivers are far less likely to allow a “consent search”, whether they have something to hide or not. It also shows that while whites are more likely to give consent they are not nearly as clever as they think they are in concealing their contraband.

The purpose of releasing these study results as they were is not to further the discussion on race but rather to promote a particular outcome to the discussion as illustrated by comments made by ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka. He said “There is just a predisposition to believe that minorities have contraband….. The data and indisputable nature of this is exactly what the president was talking about…..”

The ACLU is also filing complaints citing that in Chicago minority drivers are 4 times more likely to get searched than whites. But this statistic tells us nothing about the nature of the stop, the nature of the occupants in the car or the neighborhood in which the stop was conducted. I hate to break the news to the ACLU but there are a lot more drugs and guns rolling down the streets in the poor minority neighborhoods of Chicago than there are in the wealthy neighborhoods.

Just a quick glance at the violent crime statistics in the city will explain why more minority vehicles are searched. To somehow try to tie race to police enforcement without accounting for crime levels in the areas being patrolled is patently misleading and unimaginably dangerous.

If you want to have an honest and open discussion about race I’m all for it. But let’s start with all the facts and work our way from there.

More tomorrow.

“I’m sorry”. It’s easy to say. It must be. We seem to say it all the time whether we mean it or not.

Other than as an expression of grief where it is not used as an apology at all, such as “I am so sorry” said to the grieving widow at a funeral, “I’m sorry” has limited impact at best. That’s because it has various meanings depending on the situation. There is usually a whole other part to the sentence:

“I’m sorry” – I got caught
“I’m sorry” – you are going to be mad at me for a while
“I’m sorry” – I may have to deal with the consequences of my actions
“I’m sorry” – this didn’t work out like I had planned

Usually these two magic words have far less to do with remorse than they do with limiting consequence. They are kind of the first step in an attempt at the healing process, but not necessarily a good first step. Many times when we say “I’m sorry” we are simply attempting to close a page on what happened without having to actually change anything.

Just a month ago the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution sponsored by Iowa’s Democrat Senator Tom Harkin, apologizing to blacks “on behalf of the people of the United States, for wrongs committed against them and their ancestors under slavery and Jim Crow laws”.

This is the most disingenuous type of apology of all.

To apologize for something done by somebody else is tantamount to saying “I wouldn’t have done that”. It is an attempt to elevate oneself above the person or group that perpetrated the offense. It has absolutely no other meaning or relevance. It is as if the United States Senate apologized to the Vatican for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Quite frankly, the black community should be offended by this blatant attempt to pander their political support and pat them on the head like good little boys and girls. Senator Harkin said he was surprised that this had not been done 100 years ago. Well Senator, perhaps it is because 100 years ago our politicians were less pathetic.

6000 American lives were lost and $6 billion dollars was spent fighting over the issue of slavery. Over 360,000 of those killed were union solders, fighting against slavery. Over 99% of them were white. The war tore families’ apart and pitted brother against brother. The psychological damage and permanent physical disabilities caused by injuries is beyond measure. An American President was assassinated, not because of the end of slavery but because he was proposing voting rights for the freed slaves. If that is not enough of a commitment by the United States to those held as slaves then I doubt a meaningless bill 200 years later will have much impact.

Which brings us to this week at a picnic table set up just outside the oval office where the I’m sorriest President in the nation’s history will hold an apology-laden beer fest with the history of racial inequities once again the main topic of discussion. But please, look closely at the attendees of this photo op mea culpa-thon. It will be a black President of the United States and a black director of one of America’s most prestigious universities talking about how blacks have been held back to a white rank and file police officer.

The script to this absurd display is already written. The President will do what he does best, apologize. The white cop will explain that he was just doing his job and may even explain that he was taking the crazed professor into custody for his own protection. Professor Gates will do what he does best; prattle on about how the white man has been the black man’s problem for the past 200 years. He will also be dreaming of where to spend the royalty money from the book he will no doubt write about his harrowing experience.

Senator Harkin, I cannot apologize for slavery. It was a hideous practice but not one that I ever engaged in. But I sure am sorry to see we have come to this.

The US Supreme Court is set to hear the case of Ricci et al v. New Have Connecticut to decide if denying promotions to qualified white folks because of their lack of minority status is Constitutional.

Ricci suffers from an unfortunate lack of pigment in his skin color. He is a Caucasian firefighter in New Haven and has spent months studying and listening to study tapes to prepare for the fire department’s promotion test. He spent his evenings, free days and even his drive to work getting ready for this once in a decade opportunity to move up to a command rank within the department.

His hard work paid off as he earned the top score out of everyone that took the test. Being the top guy surely would secure his future and give him his rightful place amongst the commanders, right? Not so fast their white guy.

There were 15 vacancies for upper ranks available to be filled. It turns out that 14 out of the top 15 scores from the test were white guys. The other one was Hispanic. If the department used the test scores as the deciding factor there would be no blacks promoted this time around. Not because of their color, but because no black proved to be as qualified as these non-blacks. It doesn’t make the blacks who took the test bad firefighters. But denying them a promotion because of their test results isn’t racist either.

After four racially charged city council meetings it was decided that as no blacks would be promoted, nobody should be promoted. The city’s civil service board rejected the test results and Ricci along with the other 14 qualified candidates were denied their hard earned promotions.

Barack Obama, the President of all the people, sided with the city and said that the test should be disallowed because it had “gross exclusionary effects on minorities”. They went on to site that while blacks make up 31% of the city’s firefighters, they only account for 15% of the officers. What that statistic has to do with Ricci and the other 14 is beyond me. I guess what they’re saying is that if 7 of the qualifying candidates would have been black Ricci would have been qualified, but because the blacks blew the test Ricci was not.

Lawyers for the firefighters claim the city violated the firefighters Constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The president of the NAACP disagreed stating that because fire departments have been “the preserve of white males” in the past it is only fair to unlevel the playing field in the favor of blacks.

A similar situation in Chicago back in 1986 just had the city pay off $6 million last month to firefighters who had their test scores disallowed because they are white.

It’s got to be tough for blacks having depended on the Civil Rights Act to advance their cause for these past 55 years to now have that pesky equal rights constitutional protection make the act their adversary. It also seems pretty disingenuous to have a black man elected President of the United States trying to make an issue out of white oppression.

The Obama administration is lobbying the Supreme Court to send the case back to Connecticut for obvious reasons. A ruling in favor of the white guys will have far reaching impact on the racially unfair practice of affirmative action in almost every other venue in the country.

No one is denying a history of black oppression, but to claim that history is still relevant justification to racially prejudice hiring and promotions is taking a huge step back not forward.
The president just made the headlines discussing his daughter’s past medical problems with meningitis and commended the dedicated nurses and medical professionals that helped her recover and assisted the family through the ordeal. I wonder if he was looking for a black doctor or the most qualified doctor to treat her.

Maybe someone should ask.

A few days ago I wrote a piece about our new Attorney General’s contention that we are a “nation of cowards” when it comes to race and that “….if we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough with each other, to have frank conversations about racial matters that continue to divide us.”

My point was then, and remains that it is nearly impossible to have a truly frank discussion about race or pretty much about anything else that involves blacks and whites without the threat of being called racist by those that have no other defense. Blacks have become very comfortable simply refusing to acknowledge obvious facts to the contrary and immediately claim racial prejudice as being the underlying issue. The race card trumps all others and is an easy excuse to any and all behavior and situations. Less than a week after writing the piece a group of black politico’s, preachers and pundits in Chicago and elsewhere have gone to extreme measures to prove this premise 100% correct.

The lightning rod for this latest round of racial despair is the new Senator from Illinois Roland Burris. Burris was installed by the now infamously impeached Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to fill the vacated Senate seat of Barack Obama. Burris is a lifelong Democrat office holder who appeared to have no excess baggage that would preclude him from taking over as Senator. But the main reason he was tapped to fill the spot was because he possessed the most important qualification, he is black. It was repeatedly chanted throughout the black community and by the card carrying political correctness enforcement squads that this seat must be filled by a black simply because it was being vacated by a black. Pay no mind to the fact that if this same argument was used to fill the vacancy of a white politician it would be deemed completely inappropriate and racist.

The problems began to surface shortly after Burris was finally and reluctantly seated in the US Senate. Burris had appeared before an Illinois special committee investigating then Governor Blagojevich for corruption. Burris was asked specific questions regarding his relationship with the governor and his crew of fundraising henchmen.

Burris, on tape and under oath, denied having contact with the governor or his crew regarding either the Senate seat or any special fundraising requests. All of which are untrue. Since making those statements under oath Burris has publicly changed his story four times and has filed amended affidavits twice more redefining his activities. The more the story evolves the more it is obvious that Burris has developed his skills in the “Pay for Play” game of Illinois politics to an art.

He not only failed to admit to his dealings with the disgraced governor and his fundraising brother, he also failed to detail how his son was given a sweet state job as senior council for the state’s housing authority. His son’s state paid $75,000 per year job includes overseeing mortgage programs for low-income home buyers and anti-foreclosure initiatives.

Roland Burris II, because Roland Burris I simply couldn’t find enough things to put his name on, should have some insight into these mortgage programs as he was hired shortly after facing foreclosure of his own house. He was also recently slapped with a $34,000 tax lien by the I.R.S. for failure to pay income tax, which should make him eminently qualified to serve on the Obama cabinet.

Regardless of the sordid facts of this whole imbroglio the Chicago City Council Black Caucus is screaming racism and warning white politician’s that if they continue with this investigation they will be out of work come the next election.

Illinois Congressman Danny Davis has joined the chorus and said that there is considerable support for Burris in the black community so whites should just leave him alone. A group of black ministers and community leaders held a press conference warning whites that if they continue to seek a Burris resignation “…they gotta come by us and we will not forget”.

This is truly nothing but racial blackmail. Leave the black guy alone regardless of the facts or we brand you as racist.

Perhaps if our new Attorney General is looking to open a dialog about race he may want to start with the blackmailers.

You said we are a nation of cowards. You also said race “.. is an issue we have never been at ease with, and given our nation’s history this is in some ways understandable, and yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have a frank conversation about racial matters that continue to divide us.”

OK Mr. Attorney General. Let’s talk.

Is it that we are not at ease talking about race or is it that anytime we try to have the discussion we are silenced by those that would rather make headlines than make headway?

Could it be that any condemnation of the black community is immediately met with cries of racism and intolerance from those who make their living by making allegations? Organizations like Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, with a rainbow that covers the entire spectrum of a Tootsie Roll. Or Al Sharpton who led the charge against innocent white Duke University students that were falsely accused of rape by a drunk black stripper yet who remained completely silent about the two white coeds robbed and murdered by a black man during that same time.

Could it be that success for the black community is for those who excel in black related endeavors and not those that make the leap across that which divides us? Success amongst blacks is reserved for Snoop Dog and P Diddy, but Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas are held in disdain as lap dogs. Where is the incentive for young black kids to succeed in the real world when if they try and fail they will be ridiculed for even trying and if they persevere and succeed they are shunned for their accomplishments?

Is it wrong for me to question how slavery, which ended 147 years ago, is still cause to justify victimization? Is it wrong of me to question how we can now have a black president, a black Supreme Court justice, blacks in Congress and have several blacks amongst the wealthiest people in our country and yet hear how it is impossible for blacks to succeed because of white oppression?

Is it wrong of me to view welfare as a disaster for the black community creating a dependent society incapable and unwilling to care for themselves? Is it wrong of me to view the disaster in New Orleans and compare it to every other disaster our country has faced as validation for that belief?

Is it wrong of me to view the outrageous ranting of Jeremiah Wright as racist and divisive and question why his words are hailed as a vision of truth and righteousness in the black community and why they were supported by our new president for over 20 years? The black church has historically been a place of strength and praise. If Reverend Wright with his insane raving about aids and drugs and government plots truly is the voice of the black church is it wrong of me to believe the loss of a true faith may be one of the biggest problems?

Is it wrong of me to view affirmative action as a means of reverse discrimination and that refusing to hire a more qualified white person in favor of a less qualified black simply because of the color of their skin is as patently wrong as the discrimination against blacks?

Is it wrong of me to view the dropout rate, illiteracy, teen and unwed pregnancy, single parent homes, gangs, criminal activity and black on black violence as the leading cause for the oppression of blacks, not white racism. Is it wrong of me to question why prominent blacks like Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Michael Steele, Walter Williams and Juan Williams to name but a few, who constantly beat the drum of increased personal responsibility in the black community, are summarily discounted and ridiculed by that community as being out of touch with their own blackness.

Is it wrong of me to use these incidents to draw the conclusion that it takes little or no effort to remain a victim and that the black community has in many ways become pretty comfortable in that role.

I am not a racist, I am a realist. I truly believe that every man is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That does not mean that all will succeed but simply that all have the right to continue trying unimpeded by bigotry or intolerance. But that door swings both ways.

How’s that for a start to the conversation?

I will gladly discuss race with the new Attorney General Eric Holder or anybody else for that matter. I will also gladly discuss the history of America and how we got from where we were to where we are now. Unlike some, I actually feel pride and not shame when looking at the accomplishments in overcoming the inequities of this country and unlike some have the ability to put those inequities of the past into historical context without comparing them to today’s standards and sentiments. There are certainly things that by today’s morality seem unconscionable but you cannot judge previously held mentalities by today’s standards. When put into the context and mentality of the time in which they occurred it becomes less an issue of race and more an issue of mentality. Not desirable, not fair or reasonable but understandable.

I will gladly point out to Mr. Holder that a nation of racial cowards would not have elected a black man to be President of the United States. A nation of cowards would have made excuses for not voting for him simply because of his color rather than ignoring both his color and his qualifications and voting for the rhetoric of a remarkably gifted campaigner. I wonder if Martin Luther King would view the progress made in the relatively short time since his historic speech on the steps in Washington DC as being the acts of a nation of cowards.

Mr. Holder stated that it is understandable why we don’t want to talk about the history of this country. I will gladly discuss our history with Mr. Holder. While I have not been anointed as the spokesman for white people, I can say that at our last white people meeting we voted almost unanimously that we are against slavery. I do not feel any personal shame for slavery in America because historically slavery was a standard practice all over the world. In the blessed home land of “African Americans” slavery was completely acceptable for thousands of years and in some African cultures is still in vogue. In the majority of cases the slaves brought to America were from vanquished tribes. The African tribal victors sold or traded the defeated tribes to the white slave traders or anybody else that had something of value with which to trade. White men did not have to go into the jungles of the Dark Continent and steal slaves in the dead of night. They went to the trading posts and bought them from other Africans. It is neither an excuse nor justification, simply a historic fact.

Slaves brought to America were viewed and treated like livestock. They suffered a horrid life of hard labor and abuse. But it was no different than how slaves were viewed and treated throughout history. In Africa, Europe, Asia and the Middle East slavery was the rule not the exception. This practice lasted thousands of years, not the 60 or 70 years it was practiced in America. And just as a side note, it was whites that put an end to slavery in this country.

There is no question that this country has a history of segregation and prejudice. Outrageous acts of cruelty and murder were committed by whites on blacks simply because of the color of their skin. But that is not the standard today and it was not a nation of cowards that changed it. The greatest threat to a black today is from another black. I would ask Mr. Holder if he was alone walking down the street at night in his custom tailored suit would he rather it be in a white neighborhood or a black neighborhood.

We are not a nation of cowards but there certainly are cowards amongst us. That is actually to Mr. Holder’s and his new bosses benefit rather than to their detriment. The cowards are those who are so afraid of being called racist that they abandon reality and common sense and look for things to be offended about or ways they can claim victimization, either for themselves or as a means to claim tacit support for others.

George Bush could not say good morning without the Washington press corps claiming he had offended the good and pure nature of somebody or something. “How could he say good when he knows Americans are suffering and morning when he knows that for some it is already afternoon. He is such a thoughtless separatist.” But yet the press remains almost completely mum regarding the outrageously offensive and racist comments made by Mr. Holder to the staff serving under him at the Department of Justice. Had a white man made reference to blacks being cowards he would have been burned at the media stake.

We are not a nation of cowards, Mr. Holder. But you have spent so much time in the sheltered halls of Washington DC, where so many true cowards reside, that you do not have a clue what kind of nation we really are.

More tomorrow.