Poor Trent Lott.  I can't tell you how sad I am that he's been driven out of his exalted position as Senate Majority Leader.  NOT!  Good riddance to bad rubbish!!  This is the kind of man he is.  He strikes me as only slightly less nasty than Bush Junior's bloodthirsty executive circle.

Still, I can't help but shake my head in amazement, and amusement, at the bizarre assortment of racists who shrilly denounce Lott as a racist.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

The most extreme example has got to be the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).  Their website is here.  Read a bit of it if you have a moment.  They're PROUD that their membership is based entirely upon race.  They're PROUD that they lobby constantly, using every trick in the book, to direct taxpayer money from whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc., to people of their own race.  Using, of course, Uncle Sam's big guns to make sure everyone forks over his predetermined "fair share," which will almost certainly be re-adjusted next year--we'll let you know. 

Of course, they have layers of well-polished rationalizations to explain the compelling reasons for a race-conscious transfer of cash and other goodies at gunpoint, but this cannot change the fact that their policies are by their very nature racist.  A man is to be given money, or have money taken from him, not because of the content of his character, but because of the color of his skin.  That's the CBC position.  That's not just mildly racist, it's flaming, in-your-face racist. 

Now, I think that racists have as much right to live on this earth as anybody else.  Attitude should not be a crime.  It is, in the end, its own worst punishment, to look out at the world with such a hateful, polarized perspective.  Saying that they have the right to live, and to meet, and to pontificate, however, is not the same as saying we need to kowtow to their racist demands.  Quite the contrary!  Let's start by correcting the modest self-pronouncement "The Conscience of the Congress Since 1969."  I know that politicians have made themselves exempt from their own truth in advertising laws, but isn't this a bit much, even for a politician?  How about "The Guilt Trip of Congress Since 1969?"  Or, "The Trillion-Dollar Rat Hole of Congress Since 1969?"

Maybe you guys haven't noticed, but all that money has merely increased dependence.  We have not taught men and women to fish, we have given them an endless stream of fish and made children out of adults. 

And maybe you haven't noticed, but there are a lot of whites in this country born into great poverty, with many challenges to overcome.  Indeed, there are also, God be praised, many black children born into affluence.  It's not about race, it's about self-responsibility in the face of whatever cards life deals us.  It's about giving up the absurd notion of government as provider of Infinite Cornucopia at someone else's expense.  And it's definitely about standing tall as a man, not casting oneself into a supine role as Professional Victim.

As for Lott the Unmagnificent, I'm sorry he didn't quit the Senate altogether, and I hope his Majority Leader position is filled by someone far more worthy than he.  Yet, as far as I know, he doesn't belong to a group whose membership is strictly limited to whites, and whose stated goal is to use tax money for the advancement of whites at the expense of all other races.  Lott has many sins, but as a racist, he'd have to take lessons from his accusers even to be in the same league.

I've watched, we've all watched, as organizations like the CBC have used intimidation tactics against anyone who challenges their self-proclaimed notion of "group rights."  They've done a good job of avoiding a genuine confrontation over the implications of what they stand for.  But ultimately, this notion must be repudiated.  Every man, and every woman, has the same rights and the same obligations as every other, period.   Race conveys no guilt, and purchases not one ounce of virtue.

Martin Luther King Jr. had it exactly right when he called upon us to judge each other on the basis of character, not skin hue.  For decades, the CBC, and other supposed "followers," have betrayed his dream completely.  If they're not willing to change their ways, they should at least come clean.  It would be less hypocritical, and less harmful, to disavow Dr. King altogether, rather than pretend to be his torch-bearer while marching relentlessly in the opposite direction.