By The old guy sitting on the bench, Guest Columnist

Sixty years ago, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court found that the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ was in fact unequal. Standing here today I wonder what has really changed. Yesterday my wife and I had went shopping for groceries and other things we need for our home. In thinking back I honestly do not recall seeing one black man or woman as we went about our business. Today in church again there wasn’t a black person to be seen. Is there a systematic, formal method of racial segregation? I don’t think so. However the empirical evidence of daily life certainly demonstrates that segregation is alive and doing quite well, thank you very much Mr. Crow.

Americans want to believe that we live in a post-racial world since we elected a black president. I believe there is evidence to suggest that today schools are as segregated as they were before Martin Luther King, when he demanded the schoolhouse doors be open to all. In today’s Sunday New York Times Magazine section there is an article titled “Am I supposed to be here? Am I good enough?” which begins by detailing the journey of a young black woman at the University of Texas at Austin. The questions the young woman at UT finds herself asking are not unusual. I’m aware of the details of another black woman’s journey through a top ten law school. A woman in those times had to be five times better than her male counterparts, while a black woman had to be spotlessly perfect. Are you that good? For sure I am not.

An old saying goes “The more things change the more they stay the same.” Take the case of the Reverend Dr. Manuel Sykes and his abortive attempt to stand as the candidate of the Democratic Party for the seat currently held by Congressman David Jolly. I’m of the opinion that one of the more illuminating comments that has come out of this strange and twisted tale was made by Mark Hanisee, Chairman of the Pinellas County Democratic Party, when Mr Hanisee said that this was a “learning lesson.”

This statement was a beautifully crafted piece of political doublespeak. It can be read several different ways by several different audiences and seeks to appeal to all. There is a real question at issue — was the voice mail left by Mr. Hanisee for Dr. Sykes insulting or not? It seems that Mr. Hanisee is unsure, as he says there was a “perceived insult.” Mr. Edward de Bono, a renowned expert on creative thinking, makes an interesting comment:“Logic will ever change emotion or perception.” If you see no insult then, as one person said regarding this situation, move on, there is nothing to see here.

Looking at the recent experiences of Democratic Party candidates for the CD-13 seat will provide some insight. This is a district that President Obama carried in both 2008 and 2012. In 2012, neither the local or state party enticed anyone into challenging the incumbent, Bill Young. A local attorney, Jessica Ehrlich, that had strong connections to Washington made a run for the seat. As we all know, Bill Young stayed in office and Ms. Ehrlich is now a commentator for Fox News. Upon the demise of Mr. Young there was a significant amount of jockeying about to arrive at a candidate for the Democratic Party to run for the open office. As I recall Ms. Ehrlich’s was already running hard and well in the seat, and then the news came that Alex Sink was to be the candidate and the deck was cleared. Ms. Sink had the backing and the money of the powers to be and she moved into the district in order to run for the office. It would seem the word came down that we don’t want a primary. Unfortunately, as we all know, she too fell short.

This brings us to the current election season. To put it charitably, the candidate selection process was muddled. Was Ms. Sink going to run? No? Then who? It seemed at times that every local Democrat had their turn in the box as a possible candidate. Yet no one wanted to stand as a challenger to the incumbent Mr. Jolly. Into this quagmire steps the Rev. Dr. Sykes seemingly treading where many others feared to go or simply said would not go. Dr. Sykes declares his candidacy as a Democrat for the position.

Rev. Dr. Sykes is certainly a very well-known individual within the community. His accomplishments are significant and impressive. He has spoken to and assisted the Democratic Party on numerous occasions. Now he finds himself declared to be “persona non grata” and dis-invited to deliver a invocation at a party fund raising function. Why? There is some individual out there who will be running for the office. Who? That is left seemingly unsaid. One name appears and just as quickly disappears. Now a newly minted Democrat will be running as a NPA. Does anyone recall how well Charlie Crist did running as a NPA? I thought so. Then the newest flash does not pan out. The upshot: there is no one challenging Mr. Jolly as a Democrat.

This isn’t to say that Dr. Sykes would have been the ideal candidate. Then again, who is? The argument is tossed out that he had no chance of winning. Is that the test of a potential candidate? You must be a sure thing? If that is the case then there are many Democratic Party candidates who should not look to either the state or local party for support.

Could there be something else at play? The good old boys making their picks seems a likely scenario. To ask an impolite question, could there be an element of racism here? I suppose the answer to that lies with your perceptions.