The Conservative Brotherhood

I will be acutely interested to hear the result of the Supreme Court review of the New Haven decision, Judge Sotomayor's explanation of her Appellate affirmation of the District Court's decision, and the reaction of those who oppose her nomination. As much as I shudder at the necessity to equate "un-learned" with "can't learn" or "can't do" as a legally binding mantle tailored specifically for minorities, represented in this case by black fire fighters, I think as a matter of law I might be required to do so by the theory of Disparate Impact. It seems that employment or promotion processes that do not render a statistically acceptable percentage of minority representation, regardless the recognized fairness or race-neutrality of the testing mechanisms "must" be adjudicated to be invalid unless the employer can make a convincing argument that the qualifying standards set by the tests are an absolute "business necessity". Absent that criterion, the standards can be considered arbitrary and a possibly capricious attempt to target areas unrelated to the performance of employment duties, but hoped and intended to be beyond the practical abilities of those targeted for exclusion. An example frequently given is an inappropriate weight lifting requirement as a standard likely to disqualify more women than men. No foolish loyalty to or identification with any ideology can exculpate our history or American culture from the documented ignominious use of inventive intellect to circumvent the intent of laws and policies designed to combat execrable discrimination and confiscation of indefeasible rights of adulthood and citizenship. It is amusingly ironic that Judge Sotomayor and her joining colleagues are being disparaged by critics on the right, not for judicial activism or personal liberal bias, but for holding firm to the letter and intent of the law, together with a lineage of precedents flowing from Disparate Impact's inception in 1971. This is not to say the policy can't and shouldn't be reviewed as a garment fit for wear in contemporary society, just that the somewhat forced attempt to paint the decision as an indication of improper judicial temperament can be questioned using the standard logic and rhetoric of the right.

I am expecting an interesting few months forthcoming. The reaction and consequence of the California marriage decision should be compelling theater. I am generally pleased with the California decision because I would have had more difficulty reconciling the court overturning the sovereign will of the people than dealing with the hurt feelings the denial of the semantic privilege to the word marriage has caused. It is inevitable the existing contractual arrangement, civil union, which I understand in California is presently virtually indistinguishable from marriage, will be transformed and subsumed under the traditional, thence universal label, but I suggest the delay in the application of the desired terminology, is less harmful than inappropriate judicial activism and expropriation of the people's will by the fraternal order of the California Bar. I can understand the frustration of those fully endowed to contract in every other manner of civil and economic commerce being made to await a special legal liturgy to address a circumstance not pertinent to any of the established elements necessary to contract, but when contrasted to the threat of judicial despotism, a deferral of a social privilege must remain secondary. I fully expect, in short order, a satisfactory legal universality of "marriage" will be approved and accepted by the people of California, which unreservedly and commonly enfranchises everyone legally competent and desirous to contract in this way, but still feel the court made the proper decision, in this instance, by not overturning a constitutional amendment properly and electorally generated by the sovereign majority. Had they done so, future generations would be slaves to rather than sovereign descendents of their predecessors, unable to propose and ratify changes to their political existence necessitated or desired due to the exigencies or particularities of their circumstances. They would be ruled by judicial fiat and autocratic courts un-deferential to the will of the people, and any mode of legal expression of their will would no longer be interpreted by courts, but legislated by them. If it was not unconstitutional to contest the issue electorally, the votes of the people must take primacy over a panel of judges. Democracy, as practiced in California, must either be changed or honored.

I have never self-identified as Republican or Democrat. I am not running for anything so I can stay molten rather than self-cooled to meet the specifications of the litmus of the moment. I enjoy following the ebb and flow of political ideology. Whether it's the "in" party seeking solace and refuge by plying the same slot altars with scarce nickels hoping for a jackpot of good fortune, trying to bribe fate with rote faith, recycling the same financial mavens implicated in our economic plight after they have been granted immunity from the Nuremburg of their past deeds, or the "out" party bilging intellectual smoke and desperate rhetorical trickery as a holding action until someone can come up with a stratagem to approximate relevance; "it's all good", as they say.

Despite my intention to refrain from blogs or blogging for a time, skimming sites has become a siren-like habitual accompaniment to my coffee and Dunkin Donuts. I always end up on the rocks of incredulity. I am amazed at the dichotomy in individuals. Some are Christian soldiers on the domestic front and Roman legionnaires internationally. They believe in a large military empire and a small precinct of personal conscience. They proclaim the goodness of the empire, yet countenance all manner of evil used for its preservation. And ideology often trumps morality, law, even reason. Torture is the issue of the day, and I am astounded, more than usual, at the size of the rift between myself and those with whom I am supposed to share conservative values.

I had made a private bargain to take a sabbatical from blogging after my most recent post. A few months to read and disentangle myself from the cacophony of arguing voices, find a job that doesn't make me sick at heart and mind, and to simply take stock of things, seemed just what the doctor ordered. Today I discovered I must also leave-off reading blogs as well, if I don't want to be agitiated to the keyboard. A blog on The Conservative Black Woman site gave me new inspiration to try to put my new policy into effect beginning tomorrow.

Maybe I have too much free time and its making me cranky, but the article called "Torture Mr. President? by Rev. Wayne Perryman", would have sent me to buy a bottle if I had spare dollars for such an indulgence. I don't know when, if ever, I have seen such a nonsensical stringing together of legitimate words. The author tried to make the case that the Democrats, in the person of Obama, are hypocritical to denounce the use of torture in Iraq, Gitmo, or any other venue where the "War on Terrorism" is being prosecuted, because of past evil and racists acts perpetrated against black people, by those mostly alleged to have affiliated with the Democratic Party. That the tragic events cited in the article occurred before Obama was even born, and subsequently many of the most significant advancements in Civil Rights are associated in the minds of most black people with the contemporary Democratic Party (who put forth and elected a black President?), were not any mediation in the author's strange reasoning. And what does the history cited have to do with our current use of torture against belligerents captured on the field of battle or in intelligence operations? I am not representing or endorsing any political party, and I don't see a present necessity to advance an opinion on the efficacy or suitability of torture, but I am at a lost to understand the point of the article. Is it the intention of the author to suggest we tap into and take advantage of the documented mean streak of white people to bend these new people of color to our national will? Is it supposed to be OK for the Republicans to initiate a program of torture because they should have a chance to be as bad as the Democrats once were? Is he trying to defend the need for and effectiveness of torture? Did the torture he alludes to weaken or strenghten the black community and its resolve for justice and equality? As I said, I don't understand what the man was trying to say, but making an illegitimate and irrational use of history is either deliberate obfuscation or profound misunderstanding. And if he is shilling for the Republicans, he should probably read the latest memo. They are trying to re-brand as the Party of GM rather than Lincoln.

In the past weeks I have been intrigued by the national Thematic Apperception Test schematized in the panoply of media. YouTube's faux Thomas Paine blaming the street cleaners for the mess left by the naked emperor's parade is an interesting perspective on our economic plight. It is also peculiar to me that the new Sons of Liberty, drafting form the same well of history and human experience as their predecessors, didn't re-incorporate to "Tea Party" the excesses of The Patriot Act and its statutory menace to liberty, but only reprised their buckskins and war paint when they feared the long arm of the starving government might pick their pockets.

Recently it seems the blogosphere, especially the portions purporting to display conservatism, has been inundated with religious references to a "culture war". It is lamented that this was once a Christian nation, and that Democrats and their tag-along liberals have demoted us to a profane and mistakenly secular political collective. To argue we have been a nation with a large, maybe predominately Christian population, without ever having been a "Christian nation" is evidence of the demonic influences that have invaded my mind and manipulate my keyboard, or so it has been suggested by some. Separation of church and state has never meant there is a requirement for any individual to separate themselves personally from religion, but more properly that the state should be a neutral weight in balancing the secular demands of competing religious dogmas. I cannot warrant that I am not under satanic influence, but this is my provisional literal view of the Constitution. But we needn't traverse well trampled ground again. Instead I would like to offer another perspective. The culture war isn't between Christians and the broader culture; it is an intramural tussle among Christians. Chiaroscuro portraits on topics such as abortion and same-sex marriage elicit the divisive Rorschach interpretations from contemporary Christianity. Frequently, an apparent goal of one of the constituencies is to claim the closest approximation to the religious beliefs of selected Founding Fathers, and with it the entitlement to direct societal morality indefinitely, albeit in accordance with 18th century views that were themselves in stark contrast to the pre-Enlightenment intellectual disposition on science and religion. The "divine" right of kings was discounted in the most pagan fashion by those rascally Founders.

A few months ago I saw an interview with Michelle Rhee, the Chancellor of the Washington D.C. public schools, on the Charlie Rose show. She proposed changes to the existing scheme designed to attract new, younger teachers, not acclimated "to the old way of doing things”, whose future compensation would be merit-based and not wholly adjusted on seniority or the level of degree held. And she saw no permanently engraved necessity to limit hiring to those holding education degrees, positing that the knowledge, energy, experience, and skill sets from other professional endeavors could be invaluable if coupled with enthusiasm for teaching. Since then I have read the research she chaired for "The New Teachers Project". The report called for a re-focusing of the education profession's ethos on the fiduciary responsibility to children, which was unintentionally eroded by industrial model labor provisions in the original collective bargaining agreements struck with teachers unions over forty years ago. I must admit I had succumbed to that most deceitful informer, generational bias, and faulted contemporary youth and their attributes as students for academic declension, while never questioning the complicity of some of the profession's adults in the failing paradigm. Recently, my serendipitous involvement with a friend's project exposed the error of my bias and reinforced the cogency of many of the New Teachers Project's arguments.