Entry 5:

Mornin' Sunshine (this really is just too much fun),

As for reparations, the Jews didn't start out with the Swiss bankers who "absorbed" their banks accounts and such. They got to them once they'd mostly done with the Germans. If you believe in reparations, there's just no reason, tactically or morally, not to start with homegrown white folks before working our way back to the African dictators who sold slaves to them. Legally, you don't have to sue everybody, you can pick and choose (how much money could anyone get from them?). By the way, do you really believe that if the chiefs had chosen not to sell us, the whites folks would have said, "OK. Thanks. Bye"? Those who chose not to cooperate were shown the error of their ways. But yeah, the whole casino thing is weird (Did you know about some tribes' ability to sell tax-free cigarettes? Millions.). Why is it palatable for them to get reparations (albeit indirect) but not black folks? (For you FraygrWhyants: Screw welfare and affirmative action. First, blacks paid taxes to and received much less in services, so we helped fund any transfer payments. Second, our unearned labor built this country. Whatever returned in that form was a drop in the bucket of our contributions.) I find the "anonymous ancestors" line unpersuasive and actually perverse, a cockeyed endorsement of the reparations position. My great-great-grandmother is anonymous only because her master sold her somewhere (She was already in the Mississippi delta. Where the hell else was there for her to go?) from which she never returned or was heard from again. She had six kids. No one remembers her name now. Not that you made it, but the argument that some cosmic statute of limitations has run out and prevents current descendants of slaves from pressing a claim is just plain evil. When exactly was it that we were supposed to file our neat little reparations lawsuit? It's been only in the last generation that we could stop worrying about being lynched, let alone press claims in court. I don't support the call for reparations, but I find the arguments made against it make me very, very bitter and resentful. I resist the lure in spite of its opponents, not because of them.

There's a new book by Berkeley professor John McWhorter (I'm reviewing it for National Review). It's called Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. The title is self-explanatory. He summarizes by saying,

As direct consequences of the abrupt unshackling of a crippled race, Victimology, Separatism, and Anti-intellectualism are a person with his eyes sealed shut still pawing frantically at the air long after his attacker has laid off, driven to frenzy by massive assault. But thank God the attacker did let up. And the unjust fact is that once he has, he walks on unharmed, while it is up to us to stand up, rub our eyes, brush ourselves off, and walk on to do the best work and lead the best lives we can.

That's what the reparations movement is all about, the walking-on-unharmed thing. They got away with it. There is no justice, and that's just the way it is. I guess I (grudgingly) agree with you that the gambling concession is condescending. I was at a conference this summer where an Indian activist made it clear that they very much enjoyed providing the white man his vices and watching him act a fool. As vengeance goes, it's not much is it? She didn't mention either the many black and Hispanic (and presumably Indian) gamblers wreaking havoc on their lives through gambling and smoking. I guess when you've been as thoroughly defeated as the slaves (and their descendants) and the Indians, it's best to withdraw with dignity. And try to keep from getting your ass kicked again.

Dubya and the debates: Funny that you follow the money trail. The networks should all carry the debates. It's obscene that they get control of the broadcast spectrum then refuse to carry out such an obvious public service. What's required of them is so little in return for the bazillions they make. But I think we both know what's happening here, from the candidates' side. Bush is a ditz. He seems like a nice guy, but smart he ain't. Gore will have him for lunch. If he could avoid the debates altogether (I'm sure his people have to keep explaining to him again and again why he just can't have the presidency just given to him for his next birthday) he would. Man, I wish the American public would pay attention to things like this. First the chicken hawk who supported the Vietnam War but wouldn't fight it (Clinton is a draft-dodger too, but at least he opposed the war. Bush is an elitist who thinks anyone whose dad can't buy him a deferment ought to do stuff like that since their lives matter less) goes on about restoring leadership for the military and the country, and then he hides in his basement when Gore challenges him. I doubt the public is paying attention, though. Too busy working, that other thing Bush has only done for the last six years. The networks should be shamed into showing all the prez/vice prez debates wherever they originate. It's certainly the least they can do with the free billions we've handed them.

Can we talk about the Vatican's announcement next? The one about their "monopoly on salvation." God (oops!) I love it, just love it, when religions are forced to be consistent and say stuff like this. Bitterly but buoyed by religious controversy,

Debra