About Me

Name: The Dutchmeister
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Choosing Foster Parents Over Fathers

Choosing Parents Over Fathers
by Jeffrey Leving and Glenn Sacks

 

In the heartbreaking Melinda Smith case, a San Diego father and daughter were needlessly separated by the foster care system for over a decade. Last week, Los Angeles County settled a lawsuit over the case for an undisclosed sum. Yet a recent Urban Institute study found that the Smith case typifies the way the foster care system harms children by disregarding the loving bonds they share with their fathers.

Smith was born to an unwed couple in 1988. Her father, Thomas Marion Smith, a former Marine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, saw Melinda often and paid child support. When the girl was four, her mother abruptly moved without leaving a forwarding address. Two years later, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services found that Melinda’s mother was abusing her. Though the social worker for the case noted in the file that Thomas was the father, he was never contacted, and his then 6-year-old daughter was placed in the foster care system.

Thomas--whose fitness as a father was never impugned nor legally questioned--continued to receive and pay his child support bills. Authorities refused to disclose his daughter’s whereabouts, and didn’t even inform him that his daughter had been taken by the County. Smith employed private investigators and attorneys to try to find Melinda and secure visitation rights, but he eventually ran out of money.

Rather than allowing Smith to raise his own daughter, the system shuttled Melinda through seven different foster care placements. An understandably angry child, her outbursts led authorities to house her in a residential treatment center alongside older children convicted of criminal activity—when she was only seven years old.

Melinda says that during this period she was told that her father was a “deadbeat dad” who had abandoned her. When Melinda was 16, she told an investigating social worker that the “most important thing” for her was to find her dad. Moved by her story, the social worker began searching for Melinda’s father--and found him in one day.  In 2005, Thomas and Melinda were finally reunited.

Unfortunately, the Smith case is no aberration. When a mother and father are divorced or separated, and a child welfare agency removes the children from the mother’s home for abuse or neglect, an offer of placement to the father, barring unfitness, should be automatic. Yet in the report What About the Dads? Child Welfare Agencies’ Efforts to Identify, Locate, and Involve Nonresident Fathers, the Urban Institute presents a shocking finding: when fathers inform child welfare officials that they would like their children to live with them, the agencies seek to place the children with their fathers only 15% of the time.

Fathers can offer their children a sense of permanence, security and emotional support that a foster family (or a succession of foster care placements) cannot provide.  Many foster children are pushed out of their homes and into a tenuous existence when they turn 18 and the foster parents no longer receive state subsidies. Fathers could be a valuable source of long-term resources and sponsorship for these young adults.

Child welfare agencies often operate on the assumption that the fathers of the children they’ve taken away from their mothers are, like the mothers, unfit or uninterested in parenting. Yet many of these men are loving fathers who have been forced out of their children’s lives by mothers who denied visitation,  moved away and/or hid the children, or employed spurious abuse charges.

What About the Dads? makes it clear that many child welfare workers treat fathers as an afterthought. The report found that even when a caseworker had been in contact with a child’s father, the caseworker was still five times less likely to know basic information about the father than about the mother. Just as with Thomas Smith, 20% of the fathers whose identity and location were known by the child welfare agencies from the opening of the case were never even contacted.

These policies are harmful and misguided. One shudders to think how many little Melinda Smiths are lost in the foster care system right now—being raised by strangers, and denied their father’s love.

This column first appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune (7/11/07).


Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys. His website is www.dadsrights.com.

Glenn Sacks' columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of America's largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website at www.GlennSacks.com or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Today's Featured Columnist: The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Why Fathers Leave
by the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

One in three American children live in fatherless homes. One out of three.


This is a national disaster. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Census Bureau: 63 percent of all youth suicides; 71 percent of pregnant teenagers; 85 percent of all youth in prisons; 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children; and 71 percent of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.

Those sobering numbers represent the "what" of fatherless homes. Perhaps you have heard some of these numbers before. But what you haven't heard is the "why" of fatherless homes. There's a reason you haven't.

Why do fathers leave their children?


And why is society afraid to address the actual reason why men leave?

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nifong Finally Fesses Up, Urges "Healing"

Oh, how the fallen have become contrite, though as the old saying goes, "Too little, too late."

Former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong leaves superior court after a motions hearing in Durham, N.C., Thursday, July 26, 2007. Nifong acknowledged Thursday there is 'no credible evidence' that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he accused them of more than a year ago, offering for the first time a complete and unqualified apology. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome)

From Yahoo! News:

Disgraced former prosecutor Mike Nifong acknowledged Thursday there is "no credible evidence" that three Duke lacrosse players committed any of the crimes he accused them of more than a year ago, offering for the first time a complete and unqualified apology.


"We all need to heal," Nifong said. "It is my hope we can start this process today."


Nifong's apology came as a judge began considering whether to hold the former Durham County district attorney in criminal contempt of court for his handling of the case.


Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III has already concluded there is probable cause to believe Nifong "willfully and intentionally made false statements of material fact" to the court during a hearing in the case last fall. If he finds Nifong in contempt after an Aug. 30 hearing, the now-disbarred former prosecutor could face up to 30 days in jail.


The case started with a woman's allegations that she was raped at a March 2006 lacrosse team party where she was hired as a stripper. Nifong won indictments against three team members, but the charges were later dropped, and state Attorney General Roy Cooper went a step farther by declaring the three men innocent victims of Nifong's "tragic rush to accuse."


On Thursday, Nifong apologized.


Here is the text of Nifong's full apology.

"With the court's permission, I would have a brief statement:


The last 16 months have proven to be a difficult and painful journey for my family and for myself. I know this has also been a difficult and painful journey for Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, for their families, for Durham and for the state of North Carolina.


We all need to heal. I believe, however, that this healing process cannot truly begin until all proceedings involving this matter are concluded and everyone is able to go forward. I have resigned my position as Durham's district attorney as a part of this process.


I have read the report released by the attorney general, including his recitation of evidence I did not have — evidence that he obtained from his own investigation.


I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty or Mr. Evans committed any of the crimes for which they were indicted — or any other crimes against (the accuser) — during the party that occurred on March 13th and 14th, 2006, at North Buchanan Boulevard in Durham.


Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans were entitled to the presumption of innocence when the were under indictment. Surely they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward for the rest of their lives, and that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.


I have admitted on more than one occasion that I have made mistakes in the prosecution of these cases. For that, I sincerely apologize to Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, Mr. Evans and to their families.


It is my hope that all of us can learn from the mistakes in this case, that all of us can begin to move forward. It is my hope that we can start this process today.


Thank you, your honor."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ward Churchill Gets the Boot!

From Foxnews.com:


 
The University of Colorado Governing Board voted 8-1 on yesterday to fire America-hating professor Ward Churchill, citing plagiarism, falsification and other misconduct. These research allegations stem from some of Churchill's other writings, although the investigation began after the controversy over his Sept. 11 essay, where he called the victims of the terrorist attack "little Eichmanns" who, he feels, basically got what they deserved. 

"The decision was really pretty basic," said university President Hank Brown, adding that the school had little choice but to fire Churchill to protect the integrity of the university's research.  "The individual did not express regret, did not apologize, did not indicate a willingness to refrain from this type of falsification in the future," Brown said.

Of course, Churchill plans to sue, vowing after the decision to terminate him was announced, "New game, new game."

Churchill's essay mentioning Sept. 11 victims and Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann prompted a chorus of demands for his firing, but university officials concluded it was protected speech under the First Amendment.


Brown had recommended in May that the regents fire Churchill after faculty committees accused him of misconduct in some of his academic writing. The allegations included misrepresenting the effects of federal laws on American Indians, fabricating evidence that the Army deliberately spread smallpox to Mandan Indians in 1837, and claiming the work of a Canadian environmental group as his own.

But the essay that thrust Churchill into the national spotlight, titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," was not part of the investigation.

That essay and a follow-up book argued that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were a response to a long history of U.S. abuses. Churchill said those killed in the World Trade Center collapse were "a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire" and called them "little Eichmanns."

Churchill has said Eichmann was a bureaucrat who carried out policies like the Holocaust that were planned by others but was still responsible for his own actions.


Churchill wrote the piece shortly after the attacks, but it drew little notice until 2005, when a professor at Hamilton College in upstate New York called attention to it when Churchill was invited to speak there.

In the uproar that followed, the regents apologized to "all Americans" for the essay, and the Colorado Legislature labeled Churchill's remarks "evil and inflammatory."


If you ask me, this guy should have been canned a long time ago.  I'm still gauled at the fact that Churchill was and continues to be unrepentantly defiant after insulting those who lost their lives on 9/11 - not to mention the fact that far left knucklehead academics and their student lemmings circled the wagons protecting him. 

Contrast the treatment of Churchill to that of former Harvard University President Lawrence Summer, who, as you may recall, was crucified by the academic P.C. Mafia for having the audacity to try to get a discussion going on why women on average are less inclined to pursue academic careers in math and science.  (Click here to read on that sordid history.)  As I've said before, unlike Churchill, Summers is a bonafide scholar, and as president of Harvard, expected nothing less from the faculty (that included you, Cornel West!).

Although we probably won't hear the last of Churchill, I'm glad the the University of Colorado Governing Board finally showed some common sense and did the right thing.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Today's Featured Columnist: Mychal Massie

Barefoot and Misled
by Mychal Massie

There are two distinct periods of alienation in the history of black America. The first period was enforced by slavery and Jim Crow – but interestingly enough, we see borne out of that period those imbued with determination and committed to perseverance.

The second period of alienation is the result of the Great Society and government dependence. This period has crippled blacks as no other group in history before or since.

Blacks, prior to the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, were self-determining, not self-limiting. Blacks established and built a network of the finest educational institutions – today referred to as Historic Black Colleges and Universities, or HBCU. They took pride in positive performances and accomplishments. Some attended other prestigious institutions of the day, such as Harvard.

Immediately following emancipation, blacks started political chapters and not only ran for political office, but won and held public office. The Republican Party of Texas was founded in 1867 by 150 blacks and 20 whites. The Republican Party in every Southern state was founded by blacks.

Blacks were inventive, disciplined and achievement oriented. They cared about the image they projected – they were moral, hardworking, family people. At the close of the civil rights era, 82 percent of black homes were two-parent families, with 40 percent of those being business owners. They, like every ethnic group of old, depended upon themselves. Then suddenly, and to a lesser extent inexplicably, they became wards of the federal government.

It seems incongruous that during slavery and Jim Crow, blacks made great advancements and contributed immeasurably to society vis-à-vis inventions, medicine and politics – despite the Erebusic evil of racial degradation – yet in the 40-plus years subsequent to the end of same, we are repeatedly told (and no few believe) that the so-called plight of the black man's struggle today is attributable to slavery and Jim Crow. Many blacks today are eager to embrace the vile heterodoxy that all of their misfortune is because of slavery and modern racial injustice. People ask, how did it come to this? It came to this because immiseration, victimization and blame became a multi-billion dollar industry. The misrepresentation of racial statistics headed uptown to plush office settings, board rooms and executive staffs.

We blame liberals – and certainly they are worthy of the greater blame – but it is grievously unfair not to blame Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the modern day NAACP, the Urban League and an educational system that genuflects to mediocrity.

For every statistic liberals and the government can personify, vis-à-vis real life images that appear to be based on reality, a private group and/or the government itself, or one of its agencies, add millions to their bottom line.

From the lie that AIDS is the number one killer of blacks to the myth that there are more blacks incarcerated than in college – people and organizations are cashing in on black ignorance and resentment.

AIDS, black-on-black crime, drugs, cancer, cigarettes and diabetes are not the principle killer of blacks – the number one killer of blacks outdistances all others combined – it is abortion. Consider this: If a white policeman randomly shot one black a day for three days, the outcry would be deafening. The airwaves would be filled with breathless imitators of reputable news services, and the halls of Congress would be filled with tortuous old sots pretending to represent the interests of the people.

Yet every day, Planned Parenthood murders 1,500 unborn black children. It maims, and in many instances permanently scars and/or kills mothers – only to have Mark Morial, president and CEO of the National Urban League, proudly proclaim on behalf of same that, "Planned Parenthood is a worthwhile organization that does good work." Julian Bond and the NAACP would not permit one word, not one word of discussion or expressed concern pursuant to how abortion is decimating blacks, at their recent convention. If the NEA, and those referenced organizations truly cared about the quality of education (or lack thereof) inner city children were receiving, they would support vouchers – but these big three make millions of dollars manipulating statistics and blaming whiteys.

Blacks, specifically, are ignorant of their own history and the history of America, and those cashing in on them are only to happy to keep them that way. The history of blacks doesn't lie in dashikis, bean pies or dresses more akin to that which Carman Miranda wore on her head – it lies in education, decency, two-parent homes, hard-work, cutting-edge inventions and development that enhances the lives of all. It doesn't lie in vulgar, misogynistic, depraved machinations, acted out by pre-Magdalenian characterizations of humanity masquerading as musicians – it lies in Duke Ellington, Nat King Cole, Sarah Vaughn and Lionel Harris. The "blame slavery, white's are out to get us and whites are holding us back" crowd have made same a surreptitious meme – exploiting the willful ignorance of those who are blinded by resentment and false ideals.
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blacks Imprisoned over Five Times the Rate of Whites

From Yahoo! News

According to a new report by The Sentencing Project, a Washington, DC-based criminal justice policy group, Blacks in the United States are imprisoned at more than five times the rate of whites, and Hispanics are locked up at nearly double the white rate.  In particular, the report found that states in the Midwest and Northeast have the greatest black-to-white disparity in incarceration. Iowa had the widest disparity in the nation, imprisoning blacks at more than 13 times the rate of whites.  Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut and Wisconsin incarcerated blacks at more than 10 times the rate of whites, the group said, citing Justice Department statistics from 2005. Vermont had a ratio of 12.5, followed by New Jersey with 12.4 and Connecticut with 12.  States with the lowest black-to-white ratio were Hawaii, with 1.9, Georgia with 3.3 and Mississippi with 3.5.

Although I don't doubt these statistics, as depressing as they may be, I do take issue with the reasons for this crisis.  Marc Mauer, the policy group's executive director, blames the racial disparities in imprisonment on "a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively."  I'm more in agreement with Paul Stageberg, administrator of the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, who says the results are more likely linked to high poverty rates among blacks and lower educational achievement.  

Allow me to take it a step further.  The disproportionately high black poverty rate, of which the disproportionately high black crime rate is an all-too-common offspring, is a direct result of the epidemic of fatherlessness and broken, single-parent (and mostly dysfunctional) homes that so many of our youth are born and grow up in.  This, not a lack of economic or social interventions, is the number one social and cultural problem disproportionately afflicting Black Americans, and the reason why so many blacks are disproportionately (I'm using this word alot in this blog) behind bars.

If think tanks and other policy wonks want to address black crime and subsequent incarceration effectively, they need to address fatherlessness and its effect on black youth.  It may not be the politically correct thing to do, but it's the right thing to do.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The "Hush Rush" Crowd is At It Again

A Project 21 Press Release.

Black Group Slams Proposed Resurrection of Radio "Fairness Doctrine"
 
 
 
For Release: July 19, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
 
 
Washington, D.C. - The Bush Administration is commended for announcing that it would veto any legislation reinstating the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
 
The Administration's announcement came following media reports of support for reimposing the Fairness Doctrine by Senators Dianne Feinstein, Dick Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, and others. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) intends to re-introduce legislation "to restore the Fairness Doctrine" in coming weeks. Hinchey's "Media Ownership Reform Act (H.R. 3302)," better known as MORA, had 16 co-sponsors in the 109th Congress, but got nowhere due to GOP control.
 
"It's the 'Hush Rush' crowd at it again, and it has nothing to do with fairness. They are simply trying to shut down popular radio programs because they disagree with them," said Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli. "The Fairness Doctrine is unfair to those who believe in limited government and a free market. If liberal talk shows fail to attract listeners and sponsors, as is the case here, then the problem must lie with their message."
 
Introduced in 1949 when there were relatively few broadcast outlets, the Federal Communications Commission administered the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that no single political viewpoint dominated the airwaves. In 1985, the FCC determined that "a multiplicity of voices in the marketplace assured diversity of opinion" and Fairness Doctrine was no longer achieving its intended goals and was possibly creating a "chilling effect" on free speech. The FCC rescinded the Fairness Doctrine in 1987.
 
Recently, liberal lawmakers and their special interest supporters have raised the possibility of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine because there are more conservative talk shows than liberal ones among profit-driven radio stations. FCC chairman Kevin Martin has publicly opposed bringing the doctrine back, telling Broadcasting and Cable magazine that the absence of it "has made a lot of opportunities like talk radio."
 
By an overwhelming vote of 309 to 115, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment on June 28 prohibiting the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. An attempt to introduce similar legislation in the U.S. Senate on July 13, however, was procedurally blocked by Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL). Senator Durbin last month declared, "it's time to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine."
 
Allan B. Hubbard, the director of the White House's National Economic Council, issued a statement on July 13 stating that "the case for the Fairness Doctrine is weaker than ever" and its resurrection "would muzzle political debate and free speech." Hubbard also said President Bush would veto any legislation reinstating the doctrine.
 
"The Fairness Doctrine is inherently un-American," said Project 21's Geoffrey Moore. "This will do nothing but stifle free speech and prop up a product - liberal talk radio - that cannot succeed on its own."
 
Project 21's Mark Jordan added: "All of this discussion about the so-called Fairness Doctrine reveals the true character of the liberal/socialist movement. The success of conservative talk radio - which, by the way, is the only real alternative media - has forced the left to face the fact that the majority of listeners aren't buying their hate-America pessimism that permeates the establishment media. The abysmal failure of their own Air America network is proof that faith, optimism and patriotism is what sells in the free market."
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Alleged Child Rapist Gets a Meat Fork in the Rump

 Texas Mom Uses Barbecue Meat Fork to Catch Alleged Child Rapist

Personally, I'd have planted that fork a little deeper, but that's just me.  Serves the little punk (pictured) right!  -- Dutchmeister



"He was well done."

That's what one woman said Monday after helping her son apprehend an alleged child rapist using her barbecue meat fork.

"I stuck him in his butt!" Linda Rhodes told MyFOXdfw.com, explaining how she and her son John Jennings apprehended the 17-year-old suspect Friday night in Garland, Texas.

Jennings was barbecuing chicken when he heard a 7-year-old boy calling for help. He said he saw the suspect, Deshaun Ridge, on top of the child, allegedly raping the boy.

"He stood up, and I just punched him right in the face," Jennings said. "He put his hands up and I grabbed him, and we went fighting."

Rhodes called police and then jumped into the fight to help her son apprehend the suspect. They held Ridge until police arrived.

"They were citizens that jumped in, most definitely, and did a good deed," Joe Harn, a spokesman for the Garland Police Department, told MyFOXdfw.com. "These people are heroes."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Today's Featured Columnist: Cal Thomas

Columnist Cal Thomas offers some words of wisdom in his new article on Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) in light of his recent admitted involement with a Washington, DC escort service:

"Laughing at others, especially over adultery, is the ultimate cover-up. It keeps us from focusing on our lower nature, which used to be called sinful before we all became "dysfunctional." Once, we repented and confessed to God such things, if we did them, or sought God's power in order to protect us from such behavior. Today, we issue press releases, consult advisers, take medication, or check into rehab. Those yukking it up seem oblivious of their own potential to follow in Vitter's footsteps, as many have done before. Whatever happened to the humbling expression, "There, but for the grace of God, go I?"

While sexual escapades have always been with us, we now seem to have a bipolar approach to such behavior. On the one hand we condemn it, at least when it is practiced by someone who preaches "family values," or is identified with a party that promotes morality; on the other hand we promote, especially in the media, what we simultaneously decry. Some in Congress stand up for family values, while they lie down with prostitutes. Their rhetoric may add to the cultural debate, but their behavior nullifies any credibility they might expect to enjoy. Anyone who can't impose morality on himself is unlikely to be successful in legislating it for others."
 
Click here to read the rest of the article.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Opposes School Vouchers

A Project 21 Press Release.

Blacks Admonish Barack Obama for His Opposition to Options for Children in Failing Public Schools
 
Senator Suggests Eliminating School Vouchers at Teachers’ Union Gathering

 

For Release: July 16, 2007
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
 
 
In a recent speech to the nation’s largest teachers’ union, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) pointedly criticized school vouchers as a means of improving American schools.  The black leadership network Project 21 says the senator supports taking away needed education options for children whose only option often is failing public schools.
 
Local programs already in operation allow parents with children enrolled in consistently failing government-run schools to use a “voucher,” much like a scholarship, to place their children in other area public, private or parochial schools they believe will better educate their children.
 
Speaking to a crowd of about 9,000 at the annual National Education Association teachers’ union convention in Philadelphia, Senator Obama said, “The ideal of a public education has always been at the heart of the American promise.  It’s why we are committed to fixing and improving our public school instead of abandoning them and passing out vouchers.”  Obama also said the “single most important factor in determining [a child’s] achievement” is a teacher.  He further said his plan for fixing American schools is “to invest billions of new dollars into the teaching profession.”
 
“Clearly, Senator Obama is showing his true liberal colors by pandering to the teachers’ unions at the peril of the educational needs of our children,” said Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli, a member of the board of trustees of the Harlem Opportunity Charter School in New York City.  “When government-run schools are failing our children, school choice options such as vouchers, tax credits and charter schools must be available for parents.  Parents — not teachers — know what’s best for individual children. Senator Obama should realize this since he is a product of private schooling, as are his own children.”
 
"Senator Obama seems more interested in appeasing special interests than seeing that African-American children have the same chance at a quality education as wealthier Americans," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin, the son of a retired teacher.  "Obama could essentially deny yet another generation of young blacks a quality education, often against their parents’ wishes.”
 
As a teenager, Obama was a student at the private Punahou High School in Hawaii.  His two daughters have also attended private school.
 
A 2001 NEA-sponsored poll found 63 percent of respondents favored school choice.  A Zogby International poll in 2002 found support for school choice as high as 76 percent. Polls commissioned by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies and Black America’s Political Action Committee between 2001 and 2002 found black support for school choice between 57.4 and 63 percent.
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org <mailto:Project21@nationalcenter.org> , or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html <http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html> .
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Response to Yet Another Anti-Thomas Attack

Although people are entitled to their opinion, I have to say that I am getting sick and tired of all of the personal attacks against Justice Clarence Thomas. The following is my response to a writer's recent letter to Justice Thomas.

Dear Mr. Love,

I recently read your letter to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. First off, let me make it clear that you are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Secondly, I must say at the outset that I am not a lawyer, like you. However, as a conservative black man, I am an admirer of Justice Thomas, and, having studied his writings on the U.S. Constitution and how he strictly interprets our country’s founding document in adjudicating High Court cases, I have profound respect for his intellect and legal reasoning.

With that said, allow me to respond to your letter to Justice Thomas.

Although you say in the opening paragraph that Justice Thomas should not interpret your words as “antagonistic or of ill will,” that is exactly (at least in my reading thereof) how you come across. Your letter is one part “I don’t agree with your rulings” and two parts “You’re an Uncle Tom/Sellout/House n*gger/blah, blah, blah…” This is the common theme that underlies the broadsides, smears and bombs that thrown by self-righteous “blacker-than-thou” blacks at Justice Thomas throughout his entire 17-year tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court.

People like the late Judge Higginbotham, the NAACP, the co-presidents of Chocolate City and co-Grand Poobahs of All Things Blacks, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and, based on your letter, yourself, base have attacked, slandered and judged Justice Thomas based on two very faulty premises:

  1. That Justice Thomas and other black conservatives are nothing more than self-loathing sellouts and race traitors in cahoots with “Whitey”; and
  2. Black Americans, despite the gargantuan political, economic and social gains we have made over the last 40 years, have barely advanced one iota since the civil rights movement, and remain eternal helpless “victims” of white oppression, completely incapable of helping ourselves.

This latter point represents a line of thinking advanced by the modern-day civil rights establishment that is more hurtful to blacks in 21st century America than institutionalized racism and Jim Crow segregation were just a few generations ago. Why? Because it basically teaches – no, brainwashes! – blacks into believing that their fate is not in their hands, but in the hands of others who only wish to do them harm. Furthermore, it flies in the face of reality.

But, I digress.

I have written reviews on two excellent books that have analyzed all of Justice Thomas’s High Court opinions (majority, concurring, and dissenting). Click here and scroll to the bottom to read both of them.

Allow me to touch on Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in the recent ruling of Parents vs. Seattle School District No. 1. Thomas is absolutely right in saying (emphasis added):

"But without a history of state-enforced racial separation, a school district has no affirmative legal obligation to take race-based remedial measures to eliminate segregation and its vestiges…. As these programs demonstrate, every time the government uses racial criteria to 'bring the races together,'… someone gets excluded, and the person excluded suffers an injury solely because of his or her race…. Simply putting students together under the same roof does not necessarily mean that the students will learn together or even interact. Furthermore, it is unclear whether increased interracial contact improves racial attitudes and relations…. Some studies have even found that a deterioration in racial attitudes seems to result from racial mixing in schools."

He goes on to say that “[R]acial imbalance is not segregation, and the mere incantation of terms like resegregation and remediation cannot make up the difference.”

Justice Thomas is challenging the long-held yet racially condescending view by black and white liberals that, basically, black schoolchildren cannot learn without white schoolchildren learning alongside them. That is complete bunk! He knows, and studies have shown, that black students can excel in predominantly black high schools and don’t necessarily need to mix with white students (not that there’s anything wrong with that) in order to learn. He points out that Seattle, WA operates a K-8 school called the African American Academy, which is 99 percent non-white. “This racially imbalanced environment,” Justice Thomas says, “has reportedly produced test scores ‘higher across all grade levels in reading, writing and math.’ … Contrary to what the dissent would have predicted…the children in Seattle’s African American Academy have shown gains when placed in a ‘highly segregated’ environment.”

In the early part of the 20th century, as Thomas Sowell has written, Dunbar High School in Washington, DC produced black graduates that went on to Ivy League Schools.

Conservative black female (oh, what irony!) blogger La Shawn Barber puts it beautifully:

“His concurring opinion contains some of the most empowering sentiments I’ve ever read, yet black liberals have and will continue to label him an ‘Uncle Tom.’ … Irrational hatred notwithstanding, black liberals are off the mark. In a country where citizens are supposed to be equal before the law, regardless of color, it’s disingenuous to argue in favor of race preferences of any kind.”

Basically, “racial diversity” for its own sake is not going to close the huge academic achievement gap that separates black students from their white and Asian counterparts, where in many inner-city neighborhoods, a black high school graduate has in essence the reading, writing and mathematical skills of a white eight-grader. “Racial diversity” for its own sake will never address the self-defeating anti-intellectual sub-culture in many black inner-city and suburban communities that equates a love of learning and academic conscientiousness with “acting white.” (This is a sub-culture that I experienced with great pain throughout my school years – and even in college and graduate school!) “Racial diversity” for its own sake will never deal with the breakdown of the two-parent black family unit, punctuated by a horrendously out-of-control black out-of-wedlock birthrate and the concomitant epidemic of fatherlessness. “Racial diversity” does nothing to reverse the 50% black high school dropout rate, or the myriad other social pathologies that have afflicted black American culture since the end of the civil rights movement. Nor will constantly calling Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom,” though it may feel good to some people.

But, I digress.

Here’s what it all boils down to, Mr. Love: Black liberals hate Justice Clarence Thomas because he doesn’t (to paraphrase his own words) allow his ideas, opinions and worldview to be assigned to him like an “intellectual slave,” just because he is black. He is a man who sticks to his guns and walks the walk. Yes, he grew up in the segregated American South. And yes, he may have “benefited” from affirmative action (which, kept in the proper context, was right on the heels of the civil rights movement and MLK’s assassination). However, keep in mind that affirmative action in the late-1960s was totally different than the system of racial preferences that it ultimately morphed into. Also, Justice Thomas wasn’t accepted to Yale Law School merely because he was black; he was accepted because he graduated from the College of the Holy Cross with honors!

Enough about Justice Thomas (I feel I have defended him successfully). I want to briefly address the second paragraph of your letter, where you describe your accomplishments and how proud you are of them (as you should be). You mention how the sacrifices of our forbears made it possible for you to enroll in and ultimately graduate from Harvard. I couldn’t agree with you more, and you are to be commended for your accomplishments.

Let me tell you a little about myself. I’m the youngest of six children, the product of a poverty-stricken, welfare-dependent, fatherless home. However, the greatest gift that my dearly departed mother ever gave me was to instill in me the value of an education. As a result, I graduated at the top of my high school class (the first black male in the history of my high school to do so), became the first – and, thus far, only – college graduate in my family (I hold a BA from Boston University), went on to earn a Master’s degree in public policy and management from Carnegie Mellon University, and am now a successful professional working in our nation’s capitol. (I also have a wonderful and drop-dead gorgeous wife; I just thought I’d throw that in for good measure.)

I am eternally grateful to the sacrifices of our forbears in making every opportunity that I have enjoyed possible. At the same time, though, I thank my mother, as well as well-meaning and supportive teachers (black and white, male and female) who encouraged me to stay focused on my studies and to stop bowing to negative peer pressure to be “cool” (read: authentically “black”) instead of “smart.” Furthermore, at the risk of tooting my own horn, I owe myself an occasional pat on the back for learning early on to push myself, to take advantage of every opportunity I had to better myself, and, most importantly, not living my life as a “victim.” I didn’t get to where I am by blaming the white man for all of my problems; neither, I suspect, did you, Mr. Love.

Does racism still exist in America? Of course. Does discrimination still exist? Of course. However, what used to be an institutionalized means of holding our people back has now been rendered to little more than a minor and easily surmountable inconvenience, a mere stepping stone, in the lives of most black folks today. Our country will never be “perfect”. What nation is? Yet, our country is indeed the Land of Opportunity, where anyone, regardless of race, gender, class or disadvantage, who wants to succeed, and is willing to just work hard, stay focused and be the best that he/she can be, well, guess what: Success is all but guaranteed!

Justice Thomas, no matter what his critics think of him, is a living, breathing example of the American dream. So am I. So are you.

Instead of harping of Justice Clarence Thomas, the brilliant jurist and great American that he is, black people need to take Bill Cosby’s words to heart and “turn the mirror around” onto themselves. Instead of trying to show how “BLACK” they are, blacks – especially lower-class blacks – need to start being better and more responsible role models, model citizens and parents to their children.

But, I digress.

Respecfully,

Dutch Martin

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From the Streets to the Stove: The Story of Jeff Henderson

I'm a sucker for the good old-fashioned "overcoming adversity" story.  In particular, I love reading about people who not only overcame incredible odds, but who found the power to overcome bad choices, learn from them, and now work tirelessly to encourage others (especially young people) to make the right choices in life.

Add Chef Jeff Henderson to my list of heroes.  I was getting out of the shower one afternoon and "Oprah" happened to be on.  She was speaking with people who had overcome odds.  One of her guests was Jeff Henderson.  The product a broken, father-absent home, Jeff was born in a drug- and crime-infested area of San Diego, CA.  His early role models were hustlers, gang bangers and drug dealers.   Not only did he follow in their footsteps, but by age 21, he had become the biggest cocaine and crack dealer in San Diego, earning $35,000 a week.  Money.  Expensive houses.  Fancy cars.  Bling.  Women.  Jeff had it all (or so he thought), until he was busted on federal drug trafficking charges and sentenced to almost 20 years in federal prison.

During his time in prison (he served nine years total), he discovered his true passion: cooking.  Instead of cooking crack cocaine, Jeff learned to cook food - and became really good at it.  Before long, he set out to use his newfound culinary skills to redeem himself and, once released, ultimately become a master chef.

However, Jeff had a tough road to hough upon his release from prison.  As an ex-con, it was not easy to find his first cooking job on the outside.  Here's an excerpt from his website:

"Few chefs would give him the opportunity to cook in their restaurants.  And once hired, he endured racism and sabotage in the kitchen.  But Henderson refused to accept rejection.  Driven by a dram and an unshakable will to succeed, Chef Jeff worked hard to overcome unimaginable adversity and eventually reached the top of his profession, becoming executive chef at Café Bellagio in Las Vegas."

Placing blame on nobody but himself for the bad choices he made, Jeff Henderson is a shining example of personal redemption, an indomitable spirit, and a can-do attitude. 

The next book you should get is"Cooked: From the Streets to the Stove, From Cocaine to Foie Gras."  Having just finished it, I can say it is indeed a must-read.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »