Wiki lists 138 dogs by intelligence. The border collie is the most intelligent, the beagle is 131. The Afghan hound is the dumbest. How does that relate to humans? Are the most intelligent as far apart from the dumbest as the dogs?

What about the species of the dog compared to the species of the human? Darwin lists in his origin of species no people. Why or why not? He specifically stayed away from people.

In 2017 the AEI Club at Middlebury college invited Dr. Charles Murray to speak. That’s crucial to understanding what followed. When leftists protest right-wing speakers on campus, they often deny that they are infringing upon free speech. Free speech, they insist, does not require their university to give a platform to people with offensive views. That was the argument of the people who earlier this year tried to prevent ex-Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking at the University of California at Berkeley. And it was the argument of those who opposed Murray’s lecture at Middlebury. “This is not an issue of freedom of speech,” declared a letter signed by more than 450 Middlebury alums. “Why has such a person been granted a platform at Middlebury?”

The answer is: Middlebury granted Murray a platform because a group of its students invited him. Those students constitute a small ideological minority. They hold views that many of their classmates oppose, even loathe. Are they more beagle than border collie? Of course not. While there are 138 different dog species there are only, ….. there is only one human race….. Right?
Part of the answer is that there is no such right as the right to be obnoxious, …. none. If students didn’t want to hear Murray or Yiannopoulos they can certainly demonstrate and try to keep them from speaking. just as much as others can demonstrate they have the right to invite them. But no one should be forced to listen to views to which they are opposed just as much as those who want to listen can be kept away. The truth doesn’t often enter into it. What about Reparations? Would Reparations solve America’s race problems? Maybe… Perhaps, …. Is it worth a shot? Maybe…


America’s sin, it’s most grievous sin, — was against blacks. Nothing else in American history compares with slavery. Nothing. Affirmative action distorted the issue by favoring equally all “disadvantaged groups.” Some groups are disadvantaged, some not but black America is the only one that for generations was officially singled out for discrimination and worse. Why blur the issue? Why confuse the crime?


Reparations focus the issue most sharply. Reparations acknowledge the crime. They attempt restitution. They seek to repay some of “the bondsman’s 250 years of unrequited toil.” They offer the wronged some tangible means to elevate their condition.

For that very real purpose, reparations should be more than merely symbolic. Say, $500,000 for every family of four. That would cost the country a lot — but hardly, for a $21 trillion dollar economy, a bankrupting sum. (A 10-year 7 cent gas tax, for example would pay the whole bill.)

The savings to the country will be substantial: an end to endless litigations, to the inefficiencies of allocation by group (rather than merit), to the distortion of the American principle of individualism, to the resentments aroused by a system of group preferences, to the sale of drugs in the black neighborhoods, to the crimes committed in the name of slavery, i.e., work without pay, to the ill-treatment of African Americans because of poverty. The fact is, we already have a system of racial compensation. It is called Affirmative Action which is not only inherently unjust but socially demoralizing and inexcusably clumsy and which by most aby measure doesn’t work which proves it cannot work. Far better an honest focused substitute: real, hard, one-time restitution~compensation.

But is not cash-for-suffering demeaning? Perhaps. But we have found no better way to compensate for great crimes. Germans know that the millions they have dispersed to Holocaust survivors cannot begin to compensate for the murder of an entire civilization. Yet for irremediable national crimes, reparations are as dignified a form of redress as one can devise.


Racial preferences, on the other hand, are an even more demeaning form of racial tutelage. Better the dignity of a debt repaid, however impersonally, than the warm glow of condescension that permeates affirmative action.

It is time to reclaim the notion of color blindness before it is too late, A one-time reparation to blacks would help real people in a real way. It would honor the obligation to right the ancient wrongs by our great great great great grandfathers. It would allow everyone a new start. It would remove the basis for the most contentious issue in America, the sin of slavery. America could then dedicate itself to Martin Luther King Jr.’s proposition that Americans be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

Would it stop racism, …. which is, after all, human behavior? Probably not. Would it remove the argument that America treated black people, … African Americans – wrongly when it used them as slaves? No but it answers the argument that America never paid black people for their work as slaves…. So send out the checks…..  It’s certainly worth a shot.

.

Visits: 20