Here’s the second problem. Let’s say she did say it was two black men (or African-American or whatever the politically correct term is these days). If she was right, why is that bad? When you witness a crime, it can be useful to get a description of the perp if possible. Race, while not a good method on which to base employment decisions, is a perfectly acceptable and often necessary descriptor precisely because it dramatically affects outward appearance. If I tell you that a 6’2”, 225 lb bald black man with a goatee committed a crime, you can immediately visualize what the perp looks like. If I say a 6’2”, 225 lb bald man with a black goatee and a dark complexion committed a crime, different people might visualize an Arab, a black, an Italian, an Indian, a Greek, an Asian, or a Nordic type with a suntan and a dye job. Using race to justify helping or harming someone is absolutely wrong. Using race to describe someone, particularly when a description of outward appearance is required, is basic common sense.

Make no mistake, the Left profits by the persistence of racism. They secretly lament the ending of segregation and the beginning of true equality between blacks and whites. This has nothing to do with the Left hating black people, mind. It has to do with the fact that if you believe the Left, every time something bad happens to a black man, it’s caused by racism. And because bad things must be caused by racism, only the Left are “enlightened” enough to “assist.” And the people they “assist” make every effort to keep them in power because those people want to believe that their problems are not their own, but the responsibility of someone else, some nebulous force they cannot define. And so, when a cop asks a man for his ID to ensure that he didn’t just break into a home, rather than simply showing the ID, the man starts yelling at the cop and calling him names and refusing to cooperate and cries racism before he is arrested.

President Obama called this a “teachable moment,” and he’s right. It is. But the lessons to be learned here are falling on willfully deaf ears, and his are among them.

Of course there is a great amount of opinion out there concerning this decision by the league. Most of it is in favor of Vick. I’m not here to weigh in on my opinion of the decision, because, frankly, I don’t have a strong feeling about it either way. I’m more concerned about some of the more widespread expressions of opinion I’ve heard recently, which speak to an alarming ignorance about rights, and responsibilities both for an individual and a private organization.

The first thing I want to point out was a caller to a radio program who claimed that Vick was the victim of “double jeopardy.” The caller posited that since Vick had been suspended before his indictment two years ago, and will again be “suspended” (though Goodell has said it is not a suspension because Vick will be paid and allowed to participate in practice should he sign with a team) now that he has “paid his debt to society.” What was missed by the host and the caller was that double jeopardy is a provision in the constitution to be applied to criminal prosecutions. If a man is found innocent of a crime, he cannot be tried again. If the courts were to “re-open” the OJ Simpson case, that would be double jeopardy, and would be illegal under the Constitution. The Constitution does not apply to private organizations. A company can uphold any disciplinary policy it chooses so long as the law is not broken. Setting rules and conditions for someone returning to their old job after they had been in prison is well within the rights of a private company, which the NFL is.

Another point that comes up frequently in suspension cases, particularly those involving long suspensions for egregious acts is the ever-popular “you can’t take away a man’s livelihood.” Oh, yes you can, if you are his employer. And some employers can make it very difficult to get another decent job. A soldier who, for example, willfully disobeys an order from a superior commissioned officer can be dishonorably discharged (among other punishments). A dishonorable discharge, particularly for insubordination, can make it difficult to find a decent job. Sure, you can dig ditches or pick strawberries, but so can your average illegal immigrant. You cannot get other federal employment, or anything that requires a security clearance, and a lot of companies won’t hire those dishonorably discharged from the service. 

Further down the line, most careers have certain offenses that can cost you. For a doctor, gross negligence or willful malpractice can cost your medical license. For Lawyers, any number of crimes, and particularly ethical violations – such as prosecuting an innocent for a crime you know full well was never committed – can get you disbarred. In sports, gambling or doing other things that affect the perceived integrity of the game can get you essentially blacklisted. Employers can and do take away people’s livelihoods for misconduct all the time.

Then there’s the whole “paid his debt to society” thing. Your debt to society has nothing to do with how your employer treats you. Some people owe no “debt to society” insofar as criminal justice is concerned, but they may be disruptive employees and the employer has the right to terminate them. Doing something that reflects poorly on a company gives that company the right not to employ you. And bad company reputations last well beyond any misconduct. The NFL allowing Vick to play free-and-clear from the beginning of the season without any strings attached would be perverted by PETA and other animal rights groups as tacit approval for dog-fighting. It’s worth noting that such groups had called for his immediate and permanent suspension from the League before it was clear that he was directly involved.

You may or may not agree with Vick’s suspension, or his reinstatement, or the conditions that were applied, or whatever. It’s perfectly reasonable for you to believe he should be fully reinstated now, or that he should be suspended for life, a la Pete Rose (interesting how none of these arguments are ever applied to him, isn’t it?).  You can say what you want about Vick, Goodell, the NFL, or anyone else involved. Heck, you could think that dog-fighting is an inalienable right that should be available to all Americans for all I care. I’m just tired of the same old, uneducated, oversimplified arguments that come up every time some athlete does something stupid.

1. Lower taxes. Reagan lowered taxes across the board (rich, middle-class, and tax-paying poor) and in one fell swoop took us out of the Carter recession and put us into a boom that went almost unabated for nearly 20 years, save the blip caused by Bush-the-Elder’s tax increases after he promised “Read my lips: no new taxes.” 
2. Start a war. And I don’t mean some foolish “limited war” with terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean full-on, all-out, 10%-of-the-population-puts-on-a-uniform war against a massive enemy, like Communist Asia or some such. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression, Showa (aka Hirohito), Hitler, and Mussolini did. World War II caused such a massive increase in heavy manufacturing and military income that people were flush with cash afterward. The late 40s and most of the 50s saw another economic boom because people could afford luxuries and companies were paid a lot by consumers to innovate new products.

We’ve now seen our first real look into the mind of President Obama vis a vis race relations, and it ain’t pretty. Apparently a black man was wrongfully arrested in his home in a case of mistaken identity. Cambridge, MA police responded to an alleged burglary call and when they got to the house they arrested the man inside. The man inside was an older gentleman called in the Associated Press report a “renowned black scholar.” The gentleman is later identified as a professor at Harvard University The arresting officer, who, of course, was white demanded to see the scholar’s ID. The professor, in a fine exhibition of his intelligence and aptitude for polite and reasonable discourse, refused and accused the officer of racism. When the police left his home, apparently satisfied that he was who he said he was, he followed them out, shouting at them over their treatment of him. That’s when he was arrested.

The incident garnered a lot of attention from the press and politicians, apparently with a fair number of people criticizing the professor for berating the police and being generally uncooperative. Of course, the President felt he had to weigh in and had this to say:

I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home. And number three — what I think we know separate and apart from this incident — is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact.

On point number one, I’d say that’s a fair assessment, but that does not excuse someone from producing ID when the cops ask for it. That would have prevented the whole thing.  On point number two, I’d say the President acted stupidly for denigrating cops who were just trying to do their job. They didn’t arrest the man for breaking and entering; they arrested him for disorderly conduct. On the third point, police stop minorities because minorities commit more street crimes (drugs, robbery, burglary, assault, muggings, random murders, etc.) than whites in toto, not just as a percentage of the population. And a great many minorities have been brought up to believe that an antagonistic relationship with police is a good thing.

It’s disappointing that the President of the United States would take sides against the police in a situation for which he does not know the details. The professor had the power to defuse the situation by simply producing identification when asked. Jumping immediately into the “cops are racist” mode is not helpful to anyone.