Random Thoughts

Dec. 18, 2002

End affirmative action? Not yet

At one of our local wildlife rehabilitation centers, an injured hawk was released back into the wild. The hawk had broken its wing and had been nursed back to health after many months of care. But there came a time when everyone agreed that it was best for the hawk to fly on its own.
The same analogy might be considered regarding the end of affirmative action at America’s colleges, which is discussed in detail on the following page.
Like the War on Poverty of the ‘60s, affirmative action has done a great deal to uplift African-Americans. It has been a keystone in the creation of the black middle class, and we are all better for it, whatever our race, because letting any of our citizens linger in poverty ultimately harms us all.
Affirmative action and many other social programs have provided a stop-gap to 400 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow laws. Critics of these programs forget that lynch mobs ruled the South just 75 years ago, and that white riots and klansmen routinely destroyed black America’s hopes of bettering itself economically. A good example is that of the Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, Oklahoma -- a thriving black community which was known as “the Negro Wall Street,” until its 35 blocks and 1,200 homes were burned by whites in 1921. More than 300 black citizens died in that genocidal outburst, and our history is all too full of such incidents.
Those racist impulses have been behind attempts to scuttle affirmative action from the get-go.
But, as even some black writers point out, there comes a time when the scales of social justice tip enough so that a government program starts to harm the people it is meant to help by becoming a source of dependency.
As a white man, I would no more presume to know what is best for the black community than I would care to dictate what reproductive choices a woman should have.
But it’s fair to say that overcoming the impact of a 500-year slave culture is a crushing burden that most of us can’t begin to understand unless we’ve walked in those shoes. The black middle class is still in its tender youth -- less than a generation old. A safer course might be to set a deadline for ending affirmative action in one more generation to ensure that its mission is fulfilled. Why blow it when we’ve come this far?

Who Wants to Die for Oil?

There‘s a mantra being repeated on the TV news these days, with anchormen claiming that the majority of Americans support a war with Iraq... provided, that is, it can be proved that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Another proviso is that a war might be okay if we can enlist a lot of other nations to cover our butt for when the Muslim world goes even more bananas than it already is.
It would be more accurate, however, to say that only 20 percent of Americans support going to war with Iraq; but the networks like to spin it as being popular -- possibly to pump up ratings for shows such as MSNBC‘s Countdown: Iraq. This is a military prep show that makes it sound as if the impending war isn‘t going to be much tougher than going to Boy Scout camp in a rubber biohazard suit.
But the idea that Americans are gung-ho for blood in the sand is a clinker, because this is basically a war without a worthy cause.
When Rep. Bart Stupak voted against authorizing the war this fall, it was because his office received more than 900 messages from constituents opposed to America going to war. Stupak‘s office received less than 20 messages in support of a war.
Why is that? Because many of us suspect that the real motive underlying this war is oil. And nobody wants to die for oil.
One optimistic estimate of American casualties in a war against Iraq claims that our side will lose 1,000 - 5,000 soldiers.
Of course, it could be far more if it takes an urban warfare turn, with tons of poison gas and biotoxins thrown in. But let‘s say it‘s “only“ 5,000 young Americans.
What will they die for?
Oil.
Wars in our past have had ringing causes. The American Revolution speaks for itself. The Civil War was to end slavery and preserve the Union. World War II saved the world from the Nazis. Korea was fought to stop communists whom we feared would show up at our doorstep.
These were causes worth dying for.
But Iraq? The best cause that George Bush & Co. can dream up is that Iraq may have “weapons of mass destruction.“
Coincidentally, our country is the biggest manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction in the world, and we’ve sold them to just about every nutcase dictator you can think of, including Saddam.
Does any young American dream of risking life or limbs for a cause that is this shallow? Give up any thought of children, marriage, a career, trips to Disneyworld, family gatherings ‘round the Christmas tree -- the works -- for a cause that rings like a tin bell?
This isn’t about fighting for God and country, apple pie, your best girl and the folks back home. This is about fighting a war so that oil companies can get even richer.
Pakistan is a far more dangerous and unstable country than Iraq, with nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Unlike Iraq, which has a secular government, Pakistan is a Muslim country, teeming with religious fanatics and illiterate have-nots. Pakistan has fought two wars with India, and its next suicidal outbreak is predicted to make Iraq‘s threat to world stability on par with a shoot-out with B-B guns.
So, why aren‘t we stepping in to relieve Pakistan of its weapons of mass destruction?
Perhaps it‘s because Pakistan isn‘t awash with oil, unlike a place like, say, Iraq.
Iraq floats on a sea of oil. According to the federal Energy Information Administration, “Iraq is important to world energy markets because it holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil -- the world‘s second largest reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of (natural) gas.“
Hmmm... wonder if that could be a motive for war?
The Bush administration, coincidentally, is packed with former executives and board members of oil companies. Coincidentally, the companies they have ties to would benefit from a new oil pipeline across Central Asia, and a regime change in Iraq.
Hmmm... wonder if there‘s any connection?
Oil as the motive for a war with Iraq is common knowledge throughout the rest of the world. It is commonly discussed in the media outside of the U.S.
But somehow, no one seems to be able to connect the dots on our own evening news, despite the fact that so many Americans -- including the leaders of the Democratic Party -- keep scratching their heads over the iffy logic behind the war.