The classic image of the Hollywood movie set features a gruff director -- wearing a beret and chomping a cigar -- bellowing, "Lights, camera, action!" The actors then perform their roles. In Sanford, Florida the director might shout, "Lights, camera, Sharpton!"
Although Al Sharpton is a devout blowhard, let's give the devil his due. Whenever there's race to hustle or cameras to hog, he never misses his cue. In the wake of Trayvon Martin's untimely demise, Sharpton delivered a timeless line to the teen's parents: "they will try to make your son a junkie, thief, assaulter, everything else before this is over."
It's theatrical history, Mr. Sharpton starring in a role for which he's uniquely qualified, dividing public opinion. His concern over that fateful night when one life ended and another was forever altered is purely professional. Sharpton is an actor, a caped civil rights crusader manipulating Trayvon's death to build his own street cred. It's a role he's played many times over.
Remember the Duke Lacrosse case, when white lacrosse players were accused of raping Crystal Mangum, a black stripper? Al Sharpton declared the accused guilty without a shred of substantiating evidence. Rich, powerful, white men had abused a vulnerable black woman, as if the scene had played out on an 18th Century southern plantation. Anyone who questioned Mangum's story was racist, sexist, and probably a few other things.
There was only one problem. Mangum wasn't a victim; she was a lying fraud. Ensuing scenes found her convicted of child abuse and charged with the stabbing death of her boyfriend. But before Mangum's story reached its ugly climax Sharpton had long since left the stage.
Sharpton played a similar role in Louisiana's Jena Six case. The script reverberated with racial injustice when Mychal Bell was arrested for beating a white classmate. The cameras rolled and Al delivered in all his demagogic glory. Sharpton's dramatic monologues declared Bell the victim of blatant racism at a racist high school in a racist southern town. However, Mychal Bell turned out to be everything his critics had said, and Jena's systemic racism was pure hype. When the scene ended and the set fell dark, Bell remained in jail and Sharpton had disappeared quicker than September snow.
Since Al Sharpton claims the title of reverend, it's fitting for his marquee to come directly from biblical text, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves." Al plays the role of the sympathetic civil rights crusader. Inwardly he's a publicity hog, Kim Kardashian without the buxom figure.
Evidence to date can neither exonerate nor convict George Zimmerman for Trayvon's death. Jumping to either conclusion is foolishly immature. But identifying Al Sharpton as a race-hustler is verifiable. He flawlessly performs the black leader's role, only to vanish without a trace just prior to the scene's climax. Keep a close eye on Sanford, Florida. Al Sharpton's latest performance is can't-miss theatre.
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Has everyone gone "Lin-sane?"
How can a single innocuous phrase land one ESPN employee a 30-day suspension, cause another employee's termination, and prompt a national rant about racism? In a bygone day, when common sense trumped banal emotionalism, we'd have laughed at the possibility. But it's today's reality and we're all worse for our so-called enlightenment.
ESPN's broadcast and electronic media employed the phrase "Chink in the armor" in reference to New York Knicks guard Jeremy Lin's first subpar performance. Lin is of Asian heritage. The offending parties became instant racists, and the comments pronouncing their guilt are as innumerable as they are mindless. My question is, quite honestly, has everyone lost their minds?
Only someone seeking offense, or wholly ignorant of what "chink in the armor" means, could consider the term an affront to Asians. The phrase dates to the 1400s and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It identifies a vulnerability or weakness. Since Lin had experienced his first bad game as a Knicks starter, the phrase was wholly appropriate for questioning a perceived flaw in his game that future opponents might exploit. Had the headline read "Chink blows Knicks' winning streak," the outrage would be understandable. But even Lin dismissed any racial intent. That should've ended it.
The mere presence of a word that can be used as a derisive term isn't in itself racism. We might consider the ESPN employees naïve for not anticipating reprisals for their choice of terms. However, intentionally interpreting a word or phrase out of context is equally foolish, if not downright stupid. If only this were the first time speech manipulators had twisted words to propagate racial strife. It's not.
ESPN took the coward's way out. The network could've defended their employees without offending anyone of Oriental heritage. All ESPN needed do was present the true definition of "chink in the armor." But ESPN chose to toss their people overboard, reflecting a longstanding tradition of irrational reactions at ESPN and their partner, ABC Sports.
Remember the Rush Limbaugh-Donovan McNabb controversy? Limbaugh said nothing that demeaned McNabb as an athlete or as a man. Yet he resigned from ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for political reasons. Limbaugh's not alone. ABC dismissed Howard Cosell for saying of Washington Redskins' wide receiver Alvin Garrett, "that little monkey gets open, doesn't he?" As obnoxious as Cosell was, no one cognizant of his history could've considered him racist. Cosell was an avid defender of black athletes. Yet out the door he went.
Cowardly judgments concerning race and offense aren't unique to ABC and ESPN. In fact, they are culturally systemic. Either ignorance is hailed as enlightenment, or people eager to prove their tolerance intentionally take words and phrases out of context. The culture has become so saturated with politically correct censorship that every speaker and writer must guard their words to avoid being labeled a racist goon. Free speech can't exist, let alone thrive, is so hostile an environment.
ESPN's broadcast and electronic media employed the phrase "Chink in the armor" in reference to New York Knicks guard Jeremy Lin's first subpar performance. Lin is of Asian heritage. The offending parties became instant racists, and the comments pronouncing their guilt are as innumerable as they are mindless. My question is, quite honestly, has everyone lost their minds?
Only someone seeking offense, or wholly ignorant of what "chink in the armor" means, could consider the term an affront to Asians. The phrase dates to the 1400s and has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It identifies a vulnerability or weakness. Since Lin had experienced his first bad game as a Knicks starter, the phrase was wholly appropriate for questioning a perceived flaw in his game that future opponents might exploit. Had the headline read "Chink blows Knicks' winning streak," the outrage would be understandable. But even Lin dismissed any racial intent. That should've ended it.
The mere presence of a word that can be used as a derisive term isn't in itself racism. We might consider the ESPN employees naïve for not anticipating reprisals for their choice of terms. However, intentionally interpreting a word or phrase out of context is equally foolish, if not downright stupid. If only this were the first time speech manipulators had twisted words to propagate racial strife. It's not.
ESPN took the coward's way out. The network could've defended their employees without offending anyone of Oriental heritage. All ESPN needed do was present the true definition of "chink in the armor." But ESPN chose to toss their people overboard, reflecting a longstanding tradition of irrational reactions at ESPN and their partner, ABC Sports.
Remember the Rush Limbaugh-Donovan McNabb controversy? Limbaugh said nothing that demeaned McNabb as an athlete or as a man. Yet he resigned from ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown for political reasons. Limbaugh's not alone. ABC dismissed Howard Cosell for saying of Washington Redskins' wide receiver Alvin Garrett, "that little monkey gets open, doesn't he?" As obnoxious as Cosell was, no one cognizant of his history could've considered him racist. Cosell was an avid defender of black athletes. Yet out the door he went.
Cowardly judgments concerning race and offense aren't unique to ABC and ESPN. In fact, they are culturally systemic. Either ignorance is hailed as enlightenment, or people eager to prove their tolerance intentionally take words and phrases out of context. The culture has become so saturated with politically correct censorship that every speaker and writer must guard their words to avoid being labeled a racist goon. Free speech can't exist, let alone thrive, is so hostile an environment.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
One fine day on the tarmac
Air Force One sparkled beneath the brilliant Arizona sun as President Obama and Governor Jan Brewer met one fine day on the tarmac. Then, for no reason, Brewer spat on Obama's foot. Oh, she didn't? Then she asked him for a shoeshine. No? Did her dog mark Air Force One's tires? Wrong again? So what was the big deal?
While both parties appeared terse during their recent meeting, they didn't seem on the verge of blows. Obama was apparently displeased with how Brewer's new book portrayed him while Brewer didn’t appreciate Obama's condescending attitude. Fine, there was a mild rift. The situation ended with Brewer inviting Obama to a formal meeting, which a White House spokesman indicated was accepted, and Obama referring to the incident as "overblown" and "not a big deal at all."
Neither participant considered the "confrontation" more than a common disagreement between divergent political persuasions. But the fact that the two alleged combatants let the situation pass didn't prevent the spin machine from going full throttle.
Robert Paul Reyes wrote of Gov. Brewer as if she'd worn a white sheet and hood to meet Obama. According to Reyes, Brewer's a racist for wagging her finger under the President's nose. Disagree and you're a bigot, too. Reyes has made two unsubstantiated assumptions and one inexplicable statement. He assumes Brewer would've treated a white president differently under like circumstances and that anyone who defends Brewer is equally bigoted. Furthermore, he states that the presidency always warrants respect.
It's not improper to respect the presidency. But has Reyes practiced what he now preaches? Was he outraged when Bush was branded a war criminal? Or when a film depicting Bush's assassination received critical praise? Did Reyes demand respect for the presidency when our media cheered an Iraqi reporter who tossed a shoe at Bush? No? What a surprise.
Reyes is all too typical of contemporary punditry. He issued a declarative statement based on unsubstantiated opinion. The only fact pertinent to his racism charge is that Brewer is white and Obama black. Then, in an attempt to dissuade dissention, he paints all opposition as racist, too. However, two can play this game. Suppose we reverse the roles?
President Obama abused his powerful position to scold Brewer, a mere woman. It should be obvious to everyone that Obama is an unabashed sexist. Brewer has succeeded in politics, which is a man's profession, and thus threatens Obama's chauvinistic goal of a world filled with June Cleavers. So he slapped her down. Anyone taking the President's side is excusing Obama's overt sexism, meaning they are as bigoted as he. Women are approved only when powerless, barefoot, pregnant, and lacking suffrage.
Is Obama sexist? No more than Brewer is racist. Funny how easily spin on a female governor becomes spin on a male President. Welcome to politics, where racism and sexism aren't defined by ethnicity and gender but by the political advantage each can yield.
While both parties appeared terse during their recent meeting, they didn't seem on the verge of blows. Obama was apparently displeased with how Brewer's new book portrayed him while Brewer didn’t appreciate Obama's condescending attitude. Fine, there was a mild rift. The situation ended with Brewer inviting Obama to a formal meeting, which a White House spokesman indicated was accepted, and Obama referring to the incident as "overblown" and "not a big deal at all."
Neither participant considered the "confrontation" more than a common disagreement between divergent political persuasions. But the fact that the two alleged combatants let the situation pass didn't prevent the spin machine from going full throttle.
Robert Paul Reyes wrote of Gov. Brewer as if she'd worn a white sheet and hood to meet Obama. According to Reyes, Brewer's a racist for wagging her finger under the President's nose. Disagree and you're a bigot, too. Reyes has made two unsubstantiated assumptions and one inexplicable statement. He assumes Brewer would've treated a white president differently under like circumstances and that anyone who defends Brewer is equally bigoted. Furthermore, he states that the presidency always warrants respect.
It's not improper to respect the presidency. But has Reyes practiced what he now preaches? Was he outraged when Bush was branded a war criminal? Or when a film depicting Bush's assassination received critical praise? Did Reyes demand respect for the presidency when our media cheered an Iraqi reporter who tossed a shoe at Bush? No? What a surprise.
Reyes is all too typical of contemporary punditry. He issued a declarative statement based on unsubstantiated opinion. The only fact pertinent to his racism charge is that Brewer is white and Obama black. Then, in an attempt to dissuade dissention, he paints all opposition as racist, too. However, two can play this game. Suppose we reverse the roles?
President Obama abused his powerful position to scold Brewer, a mere woman. It should be obvious to everyone that Obama is an unabashed sexist. Brewer has succeeded in politics, which is a man's profession, and thus threatens Obama's chauvinistic goal of a world filled with June Cleavers. So he slapped her down. Anyone taking the President's side is excusing Obama's overt sexism, meaning they are as bigoted as he. Women are approved only when powerless, barefoot, pregnant, and lacking suffrage.
Is Obama sexist? No more than Brewer is racist. Funny how easily spin on a female governor becomes spin on a male President. Welcome to politics, where racism and sexism aren't defined by ethnicity and gender but by the political advantage each can yield.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Send out the clown
A rodeo clown wears some of the most garish outfits imaginable. But who would expect ordinary from someone who'll willingly tease a 2000-pound bull that's wearing a bucking strap around his groin? While unquestionably odd, the rodeo clown's wardrobe is functional, which is more than can be said of Rep. Frederica Wilson's (D-FL) attire. One glimpse of her costume will send a bull scrambling for his sunglasses.
Western wear isn't unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse.
Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments.
Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can't retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it's lost on Rep. Wilson.
Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It's not racism that erects these obstacles, it's big government.
Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn't the source of a 70-percent illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties.
Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman's work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There's no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry.
South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here's hoping they'll send her out again.
Western wear isn't unacceptable congressional dress, nor should it be. The cowboy look is an integral part of Americana. But the Technicolor edition of a dude ranch reject is a step too far. Even if Rep. Wilson offered substantive solutions to the obstacles facing this country, in particularly the black community, it would be difficult to take her serious when she looks like a Dodge City pimp. Not to worry, Wilson offers nothing in terms of discourse.
Rep. Wilson blames racism for high unemployment among blacks, especially young males. The least she could do is spout rhetoric as flashy as her wardrobe. Instead she plays the race-card, excuses irresponsible behavior, and promotes big government solutions to undesirable circumstances. In fact, big government is a chief contributor to the condition she laments.
Government decided it was a good idea to establish a minimum wage without regard to market realities. However, employers can't retain employees who produce less benefit than the cost of their employment. Therefore businesses are forced to dismiss underproductive employees, who are typically young and inexperienced. This reality is especially evident among young black men. Cost verse benefit is a simple economic concept, yet it's lost on Rep. Wilson.
Governments at all levels have complicated the business climate, making entry difficult. For instance, operating a taxi cab in an urban area is a viable service young black men could offer. Yet cab license fees can reach six digits. How many young men, of any race, can afford such an initial outlay? Similar obstacles face other young, black entrepreneurs. It's not racism that erects these obstacles, it's big government.
Rep. Wilson ignores other factors limiting black economic success as well. No one forced young black men to adopt a rap culture that degrades women, devalues academic success, mocks the rule of law, and dismisses family responsibilities. Racism isn't the source of a 70-percent illegitimacy rate among Black Americans. It was big government that replaced the black father, leaving young black men rudderless. Liberal policy has released generations of black men from their parental duties.
Finding common sense in modern government is yeoman's work. Representatives like Frederica Wilson only complicate the task. There's no reason to take someone serious when they make less sense than a pantomime presentation and dress like the Phantom of the Grand Ole Opry.
South Florida voters sent in this clown. Here's hoping they'll send her out again.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Manufactured racism is the greater evil
Racism has evolved. Historically a social barrier, it has become a contemporary political tool. That’s not to say racism is nonexistent. Racism exists aplenty, in and toward all races. Our world is filled with people who harbor illogical hatred based solely on race or ethnicity. Race relations would take a giant step forward if only we would acknowledge this basic fact. But as long as demagogues can parlay even the most innocuous example of “racism” into political points, race relations will suffer.
Such demagoguery was recently displayed in Wildwood, New Jersey, sparked by a “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot. The sign was immediately declared a racist act, perhaps even a hate crime. No other explanation would suffice. But common sense and economic reality suggest that public racism played little to no roll in posting the sign.
What business owner would risk a policy of public segregation, even if it reflected their private views? The economic consequences are too great. As it happens, the offending sign wasn’t erected with the hotel’s cooperation or knowledge. It was apparently a tasteless prank, perpetrated with gutless anonymity. Sans demagoguery, the sign would’ve been a non-story. But a demagogue surfaced in the form of Wildwood mayor Ernie Troiano, who seized the opportunity to prove his racial tolerance.
Mayor Troiano apologized on behalf of Wildwood, calling the sign “the worst thing anybody can do to anybody.” Troiano added, “For someone to do that, that’s a sick person.”
The Mayor’s contentions are demonstrably absurd. There are innumerable acts one person can commit against another that trump an anonymously posted “Whites Only” sign in an obscure hotel parking lot. In fact, screaming racial epithets at the top of one’s lungs pales compared to mankind’s capacity for genuine inhumanity.
It’s far worse for a man to rape three women in front of a five-year-old girl while the child begs the assailant not to hurt her mother and sister. Caging and starving someone until they begin to eat their own skin is an affront far greater than racism. So is beating an old man to death with his own cane, or drugging a man, tying him to a bed and severing his penis. For an 11-year-old girl to be kidnapped and subjected to 18 years as the “wife” of a maniacal degenerate also exceeds racism in terms of incivility.
A “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot is a minor inconvenience compared to the horrific torture humans can inflict on each other. I’d rather be called a cracker any day than to endure the previously described abuses. And when it comes to a “sick person,” whoever posted the “Whites Only” sign pales in comparison to the Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, and Charles Mansons of this world.
Only a fool would declare racism extinct. Every race and ethnicity under the sun practices racism to some degree. But modern racism is less about promoting petty bigotries than about gaining political advantage. Without racism, liberals can’t depend on 90-percent of the black vote in any given election. Without racism, politicians and bureaucrats would be forced to seek genuine solutions to problems they now tackle with insipid phrases like social justice, equal educational opportunity, and undocumented immigrant. Without racism, hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have nothing to hustle.
Society cringes at the mere mention of racism. Our culture has been conditioned to avoid challenging even the most banal racial allegations. Small wonder we fail to recognize how thoroughly racism has been politicized. Authentic bigotry is an undeniable character flaw. But manipulating racism for political advantage is a far greater character flaw than racism itself.
As long as people like Ernie Troiano are ready to apologize on behalf of an entire city for the action of an anonymous idiot, there will be racial division. As long as politicians and social activists gain advantage from manufactured bigotry, there will be racial strife. Racial manipulation is a grave evil and a greater danger to American culture than authentic discrimination.
A society’s greatest weapon for countering the race hustler is to confront their agitation outright. Shouting discrimination should never serve as conclusive evidence that racism has occurred. Making this approach a reality won’t be easy; it will demand courage and discipline. Anyone who follows this path can expect to take some arrows. But it’s the only path that can possibly lead to racial harmony. Continuing to treat every racial allegation like a Klan lynching will only produce further racial division.
Such demagoguery was recently displayed in Wildwood, New Jersey, sparked by a “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot. The sign was immediately declared a racist act, perhaps even a hate crime. No other explanation would suffice. But common sense and economic reality suggest that public racism played little to no roll in posting the sign.
What business owner would risk a policy of public segregation, even if it reflected their private views? The economic consequences are too great. As it happens, the offending sign wasn’t erected with the hotel’s cooperation or knowledge. It was apparently a tasteless prank, perpetrated with gutless anonymity. Sans demagoguery, the sign would’ve been a non-story. But a demagogue surfaced in the form of Wildwood mayor Ernie Troiano, who seized the opportunity to prove his racial tolerance.
Mayor Troiano apologized on behalf of Wildwood, calling the sign “the worst thing anybody can do to anybody.” Troiano added, “For someone to do that, that’s a sick person.”
The Mayor’s contentions are demonstrably absurd. There are innumerable acts one person can commit against another that trump an anonymously posted “Whites Only” sign in an obscure hotel parking lot. In fact, screaming racial epithets at the top of one’s lungs pales compared to mankind’s capacity for genuine inhumanity.
It’s far worse for a man to rape three women in front of a five-year-old girl while the child begs the assailant not to hurt her mother and sister. Caging and starving someone until they begin to eat their own skin is an affront far greater than racism. So is beating an old man to death with his own cane, or drugging a man, tying him to a bed and severing his penis. For an 11-year-old girl to be kidnapped and subjected to 18 years as the “wife” of a maniacal degenerate also exceeds racism in terms of incivility.
A “Whites Only” sign in a hotel parking lot is a minor inconvenience compared to the horrific torture humans can inflict on each other. I’d rather be called a cracker any day than to endure the previously described abuses. And when it comes to a “sick person,” whoever posted the “Whites Only” sign pales in comparison to the Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, and Charles Mansons of this world.
Only a fool would declare racism extinct. Every race and ethnicity under the sun practices racism to some degree. But modern racism is less about promoting petty bigotries than about gaining political advantage. Without racism, liberals can’t depend on 90-percent of the black vote in any given election. Without racism, politicians and bureaucrats would be forced to seek genuine solutions to problems they now tackle with insipid phrases like social justice, equal educational opportunity, and undocumented immigrant. Without racism, hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have nothing to hustle.
Society cringes at the mere mention of racism. Our culture has been conditioned to avoid challenging even the most banal racial allegations. Small wonder we fail to recognize how thoroughly racism has been politicized. Authentic bigotry is an undeniable character flaw. But manipulating racism for political advantage is a far greater character flaw than racism itself.
As long as people like Ernie Troiano are ready to apologize on behalf of an entire city for the action of an anonymous idiot, there will be racial division. As long as politicians and social activists gain advantage from manufactured bigotry, there will be racial strife. Racial manipulation is a grave evil and a greater danger to American culture than authentic discrimination.
A society’s greatest weapon for countering the race hustler is to confront their agitation outright. Shouting discrimination should never serve as conclusive evidence that racism has occurred. Making this approach a reality won’t be easy; it will demand courage and discipline. Anyone who follows this path can expect to take some arrows. But it’s the only path that can possibly lead to racial harmony. Continuing to treat every racial allegation like a Klan lynching will only produce further racial division.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Is President Obama a racist?
What would you think of evidence that suggested Barack Obama is a racist? And what if that evidence indicated his prejudice wasn’t against white people but against blacks? And what if that evidence were supplied by Rev. Kojo Nantambu, President of the Charlotte (NC) NAACP?
Nantambu recently declared Charlotte a bastion of racism and called on parents to hold their children out of school on Martin Luther King Day. According to Kojo, the black community is “appalled and incensed” with the school system’s “disdain and disrespect” toward them. What so upset Kojo and the NAACP?
MLK Day is a scheduled school holiday. Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools held class anyway, needing to make up for snow related closures the week prior. Said one parent who honored the boycott, “I think he (King) would have wanted all of us to protest today. I think this injustice (sic).” Attendance was down on MLK Day and about 100 people shouting “No justice, no peace” marched in uptown Charlotte.
Perhaps, by now, you’re wondering how Kojo’s diatribe paints America’s first black President as hostile to black equality? Take a guess where Obama observed MLK Day. If you answered, “At a school,” take a gold star. Not only did Obama visit Stuart Hobson Middle School in the nation’s capital, he took Michelle and his two daughters with him.
Apparently the President isn’t alone in his “disdain and disrespect” for black Americans. Stuart Hobson is an 86-percent black school in an 87-percent black school district. Should we then conclude that Stuart Hobson students, parents, and the predominately black community are racist against themselves?
In all honesty, MLK Day is a holiday at Stuart Hobson and those who attended school, Obama included, were participating in volunteer projects. But sometimes the absurd is best illustrated by absurdity. This is one of those times.
Just as there was no racism on the part of the Stuart Hobson community or the Obamas in participating in school centered functions on MLK Day, there was no racism involved in the Char-Meck decision to hold class. President’s Day is also a designated Char-Meck make-up day. What’s more, President’s Day isn’t even a school holiday; it just happened to fall on a teacher work day. Memorial Day, too, is a snow make-up day. Charlotte schools will also hold regular class schedules on Lincoln’s, Washington’s and Jefferson’s birthdays. Now, explain to me how MLK Day has been singled out or disrespected due to racism?
Equally incredible is Kojo’s charge that Charlotte is a hotbed of racism. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is 64-percent white. Yet that racist, white population elected a black mayor and black mayor pro tem. Black residents are well-represented on the city council, county commission and school board, too. Oh, and Charlotte employs a black police chief.
Kojo’s outrage may earn him 15 minutes of fame. But beyond that it’s utterly nonsensical. Does anyone think Dr. King would want his legacy honored by keeping black children out of school when one of the changes he sought was greater educational opportunities for black children? Isn’t it more logical to commemorate King’s life by attending classes instead of cutting them? I doubt King would feel honored when kids waste his day rather than seizing its opportunities.
Kojo Nantambu’s racism charges have nothing to do with genuine discrimination. He’s exploiting racism to increase his social standing and relevance. Kojo, and those like him, conveniently find Klansmen around every corner. Yet who demagogues the problems facing black communities--illegitimacy, educational failure, drugs, gangs--while offering no viable solutions? He should recognize these problems as matters of personal behavior, not conditions imposed through systemic racism.
Kojo has manipulated a non-issue and found racism where none exists. He did so for purely selfish reasons. It’s a repugnant tactic that everyone should repudiate regardless of their race, color, or creed.
Nantambu recently declared Charlotte a bastion of racism and called on parents to hold their children out of school on Martin Luther King Day. According to Kojo, the black community is “appalled and incensed” with the school system’s “disdain and disrespect” toward them. What so upset Kojo and the NAACP?
MLK Day is a scheduled school holiday. Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools held class anyway, needing to make up for snow related closures the week prior. Said one parent who honored the boycott, “I think he (King) would have wanted all of us to protest today. I think this injustice (sic).” Attendance was down on MLK Day and about 100 people shouting “No justice, no peace” marched in uptown Charlotte.
Perhaps, by now, you’re wondering how Kojo’s diatribe paints America’s first black President as hostile to black equality? Take a guess where Obama observed MLK Day. If you answered, “At a school,” take a gold star. Not only did Obama visit Stuart Hobson Middle School in the nation’s capital, he took Michelle and his two daughters with him.
Apparently the President isn’t alone in his “disdain and disrespect” for black Americans. Stuart Hobson is an 86-percent black school in an 87-percent black school district. Should we then conclude that Stuart Hobson students, parents, and the predominately black community are racist against themselves?
In all honesty, MLK Day is a holiday at Stuart Hobson and those who attended school, Obama included, were participating in volunteer projects. But sometimes the absurd is best illustrated by absurdity. This is one of those times.
Just as there was no racism on the part of the Stuart Hobson community or the Obamas in participating in school centered functions on MLK Day, there was no racism involved in the Char-Meck decision to hold class. President’s Day is also a designated Char-Meck make-up day. What’s more, President’s Day isn’t even a school holiday; it just happened to fall on a teacher work day. Memorial Day, too, is a snow make-up day. Charlotte schools will also hold regular class schedules on Lincoln’s, Washington’s and Jefferson’s birthdays. Now, explain to me how MLK Day has been singled out or disrespected due to racism?
Equally incredible is Kojo’s charge that Charlotte is a hotbed of racism. Charlotte-Mecklenburg is 64-percent white. Yet that racist, white population elected a black mayor and black mayor pro tem. Black residents are well-represented on the city council, county commission and school board, too. Oh, and Charlotte employs a black police chief.
Kojo’s outrage may earn him 15 minutes of fame. But beyond that it’s utterly nonsensical. Does anyone think Dr. King would want his legacy honored by keeping black children out of school when one of the changes he sought was greater educational opportunities for black children? Isn’t it more logical to commemorate King’s life by attending classes instead of cutting them? I doubt King would feel honored when kids waste his day rather than seizing its opportunities.
Kojo Nantambu’s racism charges have nothing to do with genuine discrimination. He’s exploiting racism to increase his social standing and relevance. Kojo, and those like him, conveniently find Klansmen around every corner. Yet who demagogues the problems facing black communities--illegitimacy, educational failure, drugs, gangs--while offering no viable solutions? He should recognize these problems as matters of personal behavior, not conditions imposed through systemic racism.
Kojo has manipulated a non-issue and found racism where none exists. He did so for purely selfish reasons. It’s a repugnant tactic that everyone should repudiate regardless of their race, color, or creed.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #1: Conservatives are racist.
Whenever conservatives comment on racial issues they’re immediately compared to the Grand Dragons of the Ku Klux Klan. Such an accusation would be laughable if it weren’t so egregious. In reality conservatives are the colorblind idealists. Since all that’s rightly promised to free people is an opportunity to use their talents for their own benefit, conservatives recognize that preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity are themselves discriminatory. Quotas aren’t necessary for success, nor are head starts required.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Christopher Columbus: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
On Columbus Day it is appropriate to discuss Christopher Columbus’s legacy. Critics seem emboldened on the day we recognize the famous mariner’s arrival in the New World. Was Columbus the barbaric sadist his detractors claim? Or was he a great explorer and discoverer?
Columbus lived an impoverished, unspectacular childhood. He spent his youth studying geography and developing his love for sailing. In manhood Columbus was relentless in peddling his belief in a spherical earth and westward sailing route to reach India. His audiences with the Spanish royalty are legendary.
However, the concept of a round world didn’t originate with Columbus. Neither was a westward trade route to India his idea. His desires to prove these theories weren’t rooted in scientific advancement. Columbus sought personal fame and fortune, expressing an entrepreneurial, capitalist attitude, which could partially explain why the modern Left hates him so.
Ultimately, Christopher Columbus never amassed the fortune he sought and died in poverty just 15 years after a discovery he never realized. He secured fame, but not in his time. Columbus never sailed west to India. Actually, he believed the New World was India. According to modern standards he would be an ignorant failure. But Columbus didn’t live by modern standards.
Columbus was an excellent navigator, a courageous explorer and an able captain. He discovered a land unknown in his world and returned home across a trackless ocean. He commanded sailors who believed the Atlantic Ocean was full of sea serpents intent on devouring the wayward seaman. They thought the Atlantic an infinite sea that boiled at the equator. Christopher Columbus’ accomplishments were remarkable considering the obstacles he faced.
Then there’s the other portrayal of Columbus, that of the murderous, slave-trading ogre that detractors use to besmirch his memory. Not content with his true faults, Columbus haters accuse the Genoa mariner of destroying the peaceful paradise that was the Caribbean.
Columbus, his antagonists allege, sparked a genocidal avalanche of misery and mayhem that decimated the Arawak Indians. In fact, the entire European exploration and settlement era exploded into an imperialistic inferno with Christopher Columbus holding the match. Yet the idea that the Western Hemisphere was the Garden of Eden prior to 1492 is fairly naïve. Some European explorers were brutal, and the Taino Arawak tribe suffered at Spanish hands. But to lay all violence at the feet of Columbus ignores the New World brutality that existed before his arrival.
The Taino were rather passive. But the Caribs were a fierce people who abused the Tainos and took their lands before Columbus arrived. The Caribs made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), fashioned necklaces from their vanquished enemy’s teeth and may have practiced cannibalism.
The Caribs may have decimated the Ciboneys who once inhabited the Caribbean. The Ciboneys descended from a prior culture that was all but exterminated by yet another people. And if the Caribs themselves weren’t cannibals, the Tupinamba Indians were. Finally, these tribes were indigenous Caribbean Indians; they migrated from the mainland. Thus the peaceful natives Columbus assaulted were neither peaceful nor native, but warrior explorers and conquerors.
Each person must render an individual judgment on history. Make what you will of Columbus and his successors. But remember that many civilizations originated in other places and expanded their holdings and influence through force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered, settled and lost throughout world history. That reality isn’t going to change just to suit the unrealistic notions of Utopian fantasists.
Christopher Columbus is neither as pure nor as despicable as he is portrayed. He was human, a walking paradox whose life was filled with flaw and virtue, success and failure. He accomplished more than he knew while never quite realizing his dreams. Why not celebrate Christopher Columbus’ courage and contributions while learning from his faults and failures?
Originally published on American Thinker.
Columbus lived an impoverished, unspectacular childhood. He spent his youth studying geography and developing his love for sailing. In manhood Columbus was relentless in peddling his belief in a spherical earth and westward sailing route to reach India. His audiences with the Spanish royalty are legendary.
However, the concept of a round world didn’t originate with Columbus. Neither was a westward trade route to India his idea. His desires to prove these theories weren’t rooted in scientific advancement. Columbus sought personal fame and fortune, expressing an entrepreneurial, capitalist attitude, which could partially explain why the modern Left hates him so.
Ultimately, Christopher Columbus never amassed the fortune he sought and died in poverty just 15 years after a discovery he never realized. He secured fame, but not in his time. Columbus never sailed west to India. Actually, he believed the New World was India. According to modern standards he would be an ignorant failure. But Columbus didn’t live by modern standards.
Columbus was an excellent navigator, a courageous explorer and an able captain. He discovered a land unknown in his world and returned home across a trackless ocean. He commanded sailors who believed the Atlantic Ocean was full of sea serpents intent on devouring the wayward seaman. They thought the Atlantic an infinite sea that boiled at the equator. Christopher Columbus’ accomplishments were remarkable considering the obstacles he faced.
Then there’s the other portrayal of Columbus, that of the murderous, slave-trading ogre that detractors use to besmirch his memory. Not content with his true faults, Columbus haters accuse the Genoa mariner of destroying the peaceful paradise that was the Caribbean.
Columbus, his antagonists allege, sparked a genocidal avalanche of misery and mayhem that decimated the Arawak Indians. In fact, the entire European exploration and settlement era exploded into an imperialistic inferno with Christopher Columbus holding the match. Yet the idea that the Western Hemisphere was the Garden of Eden prior to 1492 is fairly naïve. Some European explorers were brutal, and the Taino Arawak tribe suffered at Spanish hands. But to lay all violence at the feet of Columbus ignores the New World brutality that existed before his arrival.
The Taino were rather passive. But the Caribs were a fierce people who abused the Tainos and took their lands before Columbus arrived. The Caribs made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), fashioned necklaces from their vanquished enemy’s teeth and may have practiced cannibalism.
The Caribs may have decimated the Ciboneys who once inhabited the Caribbean. The Ciboneys descended from a prior culture that was all but exterminated by yet another people. And if the Caribs themselves weren’t cannibals, the Tupinamba Indians were. Finally, these tribes were indigenous Caribbean Indians; they migrated from the mainland. Thus the peaceful natives Columbus assaulted were neither peaceful nor native, but warrior explorers and conquerors.
Each person must render an individual judgment on history. Make what you will of Columbus and his successors. But remember that many civilizations originated in other places and expanded their holdings and influence through force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered, settled and lost throughout world history. That reality isn’t going to change just to suit the unrealistic notions of Utopian fantasists.
Christopher Columbus is neither as pure nor as despicable as he is portrayed. He was human, a walking paradox whose life was filled with flaw and virtue, success and failure. He accomplished more than he knew while never quite realizing his dreams. Why not celebrate Christopher Columbus’ courage and contributions while learning from his faults and failures?
Originally published on American Thinker.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Illegal aliens naturally fear police
One of the prime arguments employed to promote amnesty for illegal aliens is the alien’s own fear of police. Amnesty supporters, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), claim that illegal aliens fail to report crimes for fear they will be deported. A case in Charlotte, NC seemingly bolsters that argument.
A Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer stopped a young woman for an alleged traffic violation. Her boyfriend, Abel Moreno, was a passenger and an illegal alien. During the stop the officer groped the young lady. Moreno intervened, exactly as he or anyone else should’ve done. Now he’s in jail awaiting possible deportation.
Does this prove the pro-amnesty argument, that illegal aliens are expelled for reporting crimes committed against them? Not at all. In fact, that premise is based on a faulty assumption. If Moreno is deported it won’t be for blowing the whistle on the bad cop, who’s in jail with his own legal troubles. Moreno will be deported because he violated US immigration laws. The fact that he reported the officer’s misconduct does not make his own actions legal.
No doubt the SPLC is correct in one aspect, illegal aliens aren’t likely to report all of the crimes committed against them. That is the nature of lawbreakers; they tend to avoid contact with law enforcement with the same urgency that Christians once avoided Nero’s garden parties. And this quality isn’t confined only to people who violate immigration laws; it’s common to perpetrators of all unlawful behavior.
Suppose a drug dealer returned home to find the house burglarized. It might be better to deal with the situation alone than to have investigators nosing around in the closets. The victimized dealer’s stash could be uncovered. If the dealer chooses to call the police and the cache is discovered the ensuing arrest won’t result from having reported the crime; it will arise from the dealer’s own violation of the law.
Prostitutes, likewise, endure crimes rather than invite inquiry. “Working girls” conceal robberies, assaults and even rapes. Suppose a client paid his escort with a punch in the nose rather than cash. If the prostitute reports the crime she knows her own illegal activities will be exposed, if you’ll pardon the pun. Her prostitution, not having reported the assault, has put her at odds with law enforcement.
The same principle applies to immigrants. Illegal aliens aren’t prosecuted or deported for filing crime reports. But the justifiable decision to report crimes committed against them doesn’t validate the alien’s earlier decision to ignore immigration laws. The knowledge of their own illegality motivates aliens to avoid contact that could expose their status. The fault doesn’t lie in an unjust society, cultural or racial bias, nativism, or any other sensationalistic charge routinely trotted out by pro-amnesty advocates. It is simply a characteristic of the outlaw.
Must illegal aliens then suffer silently so to avoid deportation? Not necessarily. Prosecutors routinely cut deals with suspects to provide state’s evidence in more serious cases. Plea bargains are a viable option for aliens like Abel Moreno, if their only crime is illegal immigration and their foremost desire is to become American citizens. For aliens who would game the system and bolster their legal status with false crime reports and perjury, immediate deportation is the perfect remedy.
More than sufficient reason exists to hold illegal aliens accountable for violating our borders. No reason exists to allow organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to substitute mindless, racial dogma for border enforcement policies.
Aliens aren’t deported because they report crimes committed against them. Aliens are deported because their own immigration choice placed them at odds with the law. Let the responsibility rest where it belongs.
A Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer stopped a young woman for an alleged traffic violation. Her boyfriend, Abel Moreno, was a passenger and an illegal alien. During the stop the officer groped the young lady. Moreno intervened, exactly as he or anyone else should’ve done. Now he’s in jail awaiting possible deportation.
Does this prove the pro-amnesty argument, that illegal aliens are expelled for reporting crimes committed against them? Not at all. In fact, that premise is based on a faulty assumption. If Moreno is deported it won’t be for blowing the whistle on the bad cop, who’s in jail with his own legal troubles. Moreno will be deported because he violated US immigration laws. The fact that he reported the officer’s misconduct does not make his own actions legal.
No doubt the SPLC is correct in one aspect, illegal aliens aren’t likely to report all of the crimes committed against them. That is the nature of lawbreakers; they tend to avoid contact with law enforcement with the same urgency that Christians once avoided Nero’s garden parties. And this quality isn’t confined only to people who violate immigration laws; it’s common to perpetrators of all unlawful behavior.
Suppose a drug dealer returned home to find the house burglarized. It might be better to deal with the situation alone than to have investigators nosing around in the closets. The victimized dealer’s stash could be uncovered. If the dealer chooses to call the police and the cache is discovered the ensuing arrest won’t result from having reported the crime; it will arise from the dealer’s own violation of the law.
Prostitutes, likewise, endure crimes rather than invite inquiry. “Working girls” conceal robberies, assaults and even rapes. Suppose a client paid his escort with a punch in the nose rather than cash. If the prostitute reports the crime she knows her own illegal activities will be exposed, if you’ll pardon the pun. Her prostitution, not having reported the assault, has put her at odds with law enforcement.
The same principle applies to immigrants. Illegal aliens aren’t prosecuted or deported for filing crime reports. But the justifiable decision to report crimes committed against them doesn’t validate the alien’s earlier decision to ignore immigration laws. The knowledge of their own illegality motivates aliens to avoid contact that could expose their status. The fault doesn’t lie in an unjust society, cultural or racial bias, nativism, or any other sensationalistic charge routinely trotted out by pro-amnesty advocates. It is simply a characteristic of the outlaw.
Must illegal aliens then suffer silently so to avoid deportation? Not necessarily. Prosecutors routinely cut deals with suspects to provide state’s evidence in more serious cases. Plea bargains are a viable option for aliens like Abel Moreno, if their only crime is illegal immigration and their foremost desire is to become American citizens. For aliens who would game the system and bolster their legal status with false crime reports and perjury, immediate deportation is the perfect remedy.
More than sufficient reason exists to hold illegal aliens accountable for violating our borders. No reason exists to allow organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center to substitute mindless, racial dogma for border enforcement policies.
Aliens aren’t deported because they report crimes committed against them. Aliens are deported because their own immigration choice placed them at odds with the law. Let the responsibility rest where it belongs.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Democrat dogs bark at the facts
Will the truth set you free, or is that notion outdated? In a business, personal, or spiritual sense the truth unquestionably sets you free. However, in politics the truth will earn you scorn and a stint in the doghouse.
Senator James Forrester (NC-41) has experienced this phenomenon first hand. During a recent speech Sen. Forrester said “slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American lobbies are running Raleigh.” The Senator apologized to anyone who may have taken offense. However, he also noted that cause for offense didn’t exist in his statement, which Democrats called “the lowest and worst type of politics.”
Who’s wrong and who’s right? Was Sen. Forrester engaging in hateful speech? Or did he merely declare what democrat politics are all about? Before you answer remember that truthful political dialogue invites attack. Now let’s look at it.
Slick city lawyers do play a major role in Democrat politics. Since 1990 the American Association for Justice (AJJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has donated $31.5 million to politicians. Democrats received $28.5 million, or 91-percent, of that amount. In no election cycle have Democrats received less that 85-percent of AAJ’s contributions and since 2006 the Democrat share has topped 95-percent.
AAJ opposes tort reform, reasonable malpractice awards and most anything that interferes with the bonanza known as tort litigation. The Democrat Party supports that agenda. However, few people care if trial lawyers are offended. Let’s look a little deeper.
Homosexuals. Now there’s an aggrieved segment of society. Did Sen. Forrester insult homosexuals when he included gay lobbies among Raleigh’s power brokers? It’s difficult to see how, unless homosexuals admit to seeking cause for offense.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the top homosexual political lobby in America. Would you believe that Democrats get 90-percent of HRC’s campaign donations? That percentage has increased in recent years. And why not? Democrats support harsher sentences for crimes committed against homosexuals even though crime is crime and should be punished equally.
This is no surprise. In the Democrat ideology it’s not enough for homosexuals to do what they do in private. No sir. Their activities must be accepted--if not openly embraced--by everyone. It’s an idea that permeates the party from the state level right through the presidency.
Is it possible that black lobbies and voters also favor Democrats? African-American lobbies promote race-based preferences in both employment and college admission. They demand wealth redistribution and a collectivist, centralized government. These ideas are harmonious with Democrat objectives.
Thus 95-percent of black voters favored Democrat Beverly Perdue for North Carolina’s Governor, 96-percent chose Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Elizabeth Dole and 93-percent favored Democrats in congressional elections nationwide. Black voters favor Democrats even though the party’s policies have done more harm to black families and black economic progress than the Ku Klux Klan could ever dream of accomplishing.
Sen. Forrester should have included labor unions in the Democrat’s corner. Of the top 100 campaign contributors over the last 20 years, 23 are unions. Those unions contributed $499 million to political campaigns, nearly all to Democrats.
Connect the dots for yourself. Democrats control North Carolina’s government and receive great support from trial lawyers, homosexuals and blacks. Sen. Forrester spoke the truth and he’s been roasted over an open fire for his trouble.
It is the North Carolina Democrat Party, not Sen. Forrester, that’s engaging in the lowest form of politics. Democrats are ignoring facts and assassinating the messenger for the sole purpose of pandering to preferred constituencies. Truth may have made Sen. Forrester a target. But the Democrat’s reaction proves that truth hurts them far worse. Remember, the hit dog barks loudest.
Originally published at Pundit House » Anthony Hager
Senator James Forrester (NC-41) has experienced this phenomenon first hand. During a recent speech Sen. Forrester said “slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American lobbies are running Raleigh.” The Senator apologized to anyone who may have taken offense. However, he also noted that cause for offense didn’t exist in his statement, which Democrats called “the lowest and worst type of politics.”
Who’s wrong and who’s right? Was Sen. Forrester engaging in hateful speech? Or did he merely declare what democrat politics are all about? Before you answer remember that truthful political dialogue invites attack. Now let’s look at it.
Slick city lawyers do play a major role in Democrat politics. Since 1990 the American Association for Justice (AJJ), formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has donated $31.5 million to politicians. Democrats received $28.5 million, or 91-percent, of that amount. In no election cycle have Democrats received less that 85-percent of AAJ’s contributions and since 2006 the Democrat share has topped 95-percent.
AAJ opposes tort reform, reasonable malpractice awards and most anything that interferes with the bonanza known as tort litigation. The Democrat Party supports that agenda. However, few people care if trial lawyers are offended. Let’s look a little deeper.
Homosexuals. Now there’s an aggrieved segment of society. Did Sen. Forrester insult homosexuals when he included gay lobbies among Raleigh’s power brokers? It’s difficult to see how, unless homosexuals admit to seeking cause for offense.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the top homosexual political lobby in America. Would you believe that Democrats get 90-percent of HRC’s campaign donations? That percentage has increased in recent years. And why not? Democrats support harsher sentences for crimes committed against homosexuals even though crime is crime and should be punished equally.
This is no surprise. In the Democrat ideology it’s not enough for homosexuals to do what they do in private. No sir. Their activities must be accepted--if not openly embraced--by everyone. It’s an idea that permeates the party from the state level right through the presidency.
Is it possible that black lobbies and voters also favor Democrats? African-American lobbies promote race-based preferences in both employment and college admission. They demand wealth redistribution and a collectivist, centralized government. These ideas are harmonious with Democrat objectives.
Thus 95-percent of black voters favored Democrat Beverly Perdue for North Carolina’s Governor, 96-percent chose Democrat Kay Hagan over Republican Elizabeth Dole and 93-percent favored Democrats in congressional elections nationwide. Black voters favor Democrats even though the party’s policies have done more harm to black families and black economic progress than the Ku Klux Klan could ever dream of accomplishing.
Sen. Forrester should have included labor unions in the Democrat’s corner. Of the top 100 campaign contributors over the last 20 years, 23 are unions. Those unions contributed $499 million to political campaigns, nearly all to Democrats.
Connect the dots for yourself. Democrats control North Carolina’s government and receive great support from trial lawyers, homosexuals and blacks. Sen. Forrester spoke the truth and he’s been roasted over an open fire for his trouble.
It is the North Carolina Democrat Party, not Sen. Forrester, that’s engaging in the lowest form of politics. Democrats are ignoring facts and assassinating the messenger for the sole purpose of pandering to preferred constituencies. Truth may have made Sen. Forrester a target. But the Democrat’s reaction proves that truth hurts them far worse. Remember, the hit dog barks loudest.
Originally published at Pundit House » Anthony Hager
Saturday, October 10, 2009
What should we make of Columbus?
Note: This column was written in October, 2007 and appeared in several outlets. With Columbus Day being this Monday I thought it an appropriate post.
On October the 8th government employees paused in honor of Christopher Columbus. The rest of us continued on business as usual, except for the banks of course. I took the occasion to reflect on what Columbus was, and I use “what” purposely because his legacy is more than a single man.
I recall some of my grade-school history concerning Columbus. He grew up poor and spent his youth sailing and studying what little was known about geography. Columbus didn’t develop the idea of a spherical earth or of sailing west to reach the East. He did, however, desire to prove each theory and gain some fame and fortune for himself.
Columbus didn’t gain the fortune he sought and died in poverty within 15 years of a discovery he never realized he had made. He certainly gained fame, but he didn’t prove the idea of sailing west to reach India. In fact, he thought the New World was India. By modern standards Columbus would be an ignorant failure. However, he didn’t live in modern times.
For his day he was certainly a great navigator and a pioneer explorer. He discovered an area unknown in his world and found his way back home. How many of us can’t find our way out of the two-acre forest behind our homes? He made his voyage with sailors who believed the sea serpent-filled Atlantic Ocean had no end and the equator was so hot that the ocean boiled. Considering the circumstances, Columbus’ achievement was remarkable.
Yet there’s another side to Columbus, and each anniversary of his landing brings renewed scorn to his memory. Not only do his critics point out his failures, as if that were a new discovery, they charge him with raping the Utopian paradise that was the Caribbean.
Antagonists charge Columbus with establishing a genocidal pattern of murder and slavery that quickly exterminated the Arawak tribesmen. Columbus’ critics maintain that the entire era of European exploration and settlement exploded into a slaughterous inquisition and that Genoa’s famed mariner lit the fuse.
However, the idea that the New World lived in peace and harmony before Columbus is somewhat naïve. Yes, the Spanish abused the Taino Arawak tribe. But Columbus’ critics accentuate his violence only, never mentioning that the New World had a native brand of brutality.
The Taino were rather peaceful. But the Caribs were a warrior tribe that was pushing Tainos from their land before Columbus arrived. They made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), made necklaces from a vanquished enemy’s teeth, and may have practiced cannibalism. Perhaps Caribs had decimated the Ciboneys, said to have populated the Caribbean 5000 years ago, before the Spanish arrived to finish off both tribes.
The Ciboneys apparently descended from a prior culture that was nearly exterminated by yet another people. Brazil’s Tupinamba Indians practiced a warrior form of cannibalism whether the Caribs did or not. And each of these tribes came from the mainland meaning that they themselves were explorers and not indigenous to the Caribbean.
I’ll neither praise nor scorn Columbus and his successors. But keep in mind that most known civilizations came from somewhere and displaced someone else along the way, likely by force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered and lost since Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden of Eden, and it will continue as long as man survives. Is that preferable to living in peace and mutual respect? Certainly not, but it’s reality nonetheless.
One commenter summarized Columbus thusly, “It is not history that is good or bad--history merely is. It is human nature that is good or bad; and we are all a part of it. Let’s celebrate it whenever we can, each in our own ways.”
We must judge Columbus’ contribution, both good and evil, on the standards of his time. To condemn him in retrospect, by modern standards, is an injustice.
On October the 8th government employees paused in honor of Christopher Columbus. The rest of us continued on business as usual, except for the banks of course. I took the occasion to reflect on what Columbus was, and I use “what” purposely because his legacy is more than a single man.
I recall some of my grade-school history concerning Columbus. He grew up poor and spent his youth sailing and studying what little was known about geography. Columbus didn’t develop the idea of a spherical earth or of sailing west to reach the East. He did, however, desire to prove each theory and gain some fame and fortune for himself.
Columbus didn’t gain the fortune he sought and died in poverty within 15 years of a discovery he never realized he had made. He certainly gained fame, but he didn’t prove the idea of sailing west to reach India. In fact, he thought the New World was India. By modern standards Columbus would be an ignorant failure. However, he didn’t live in modern times.
For his day he was certainly a great navigator and a pioneer explorer. He discovered an area unknown in his world and found his way back home. How many of us can’t find our way out of the two-acre forest behind our homes? He made his voyage with sailors who believed the sea serpent-filled Atlantic Ocean had no end and the equator was so hot that the ocean boiled. Considering the circumstances, Columbus’ achievement was remarkable.
Yet there’s another side to Columbus, and each anniversary of his landing brings renewed scorn to his memory. Not only do his critics point out his failures, as if that were a new discovery, they charge him with raping the Utopian paradise that was the Caribbean.
Antagonists charge Columbus with establishing a genocidal pattern of murder and slavery that quickly exterminated the Arawak tribesmen. Columbus’ critics maintain that the entire era of European exploration and settlement exploded into a slaughterous inquisition and that Genoa’s famed mariner lit the fuse.
However, the idea that the New World lived in peace and harmony before Columbus is somewhat naïve. Yes, the Spanish abused the Taino Arawak tribe. But Columbus’ critics accentuate his violence only, never mentioning that the New World had a native brand of brutality.
The Taino were rather peaceful. But the Caribs were a warrior tribe that was pushing Tainos from their land before Columbus arrived. They made wives of captured Taino women (slavery, anyone?), made necklaces from a vanquished enemy’s teeth, and may have practiced cannibalism. Perhaps Caribs had decimated the Ciboneys, said to have populated the Caribbean 5000 years ago, before the Spanish arrived to finish off both tribes.
The Ciboneys apparently descended from a prior culture that was nearly exterminated by yet another people. Brazil’s Tupinamba Indians practiced a warrior form of cannibalism whether the Caribs did or not. And each of these tribes came from the mainland meaning that they themselves were explorers and not indigenous to the Caribbean.
I’ll neither praise nor scorn Columbus and his successors. But keep in mind that most known civilizations came from somewhere and displaced someone else along the way, likely by force. Mankind has explored, fought, conquered and lost since Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden of Eden, and it will continue as long as man survives. Is that preferable to living in peace and mutual respect? Certainly not, but it’s reality nonetheless.
One commenter summarized Columbus thusly, “It is not history that is good or bad--history merely is. It is human nature that is good or bad; and we are all a part of it. Let’s celebrate it whenever we can, each in our own ways.”
We must judge Columbus’ contribution, both good and evil, on the standards of his time. To condemn him in retrospect, by modern standards, is an injustice.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Democrats’ “out” pitch becoming all too predictable
Successful pitchers have an “out” pitch, something that can be thrown for a strike in a tight situation. It could be something off-speed, like a curveball or sinker. It might be heat, like a slider, cutter, or a fastball that explodes through the strike zone.
The type of pitch really doesn’t matter as much as the pitcher’s confidence that his “stuff” can beat the hitter. But when the out pitch becomes routine the pitcher has a problem. If the out pitch is thrown to the same location in the same situation, time after time, it becomes predictable. Smart hitters adjust and the out pitch becomes ineffective.
Race has been the Democrat Party’s out pitch for as long as I can recall. Whenever facts contradict their emotions, or they lack solid footing for their arguments, they resort to shouting racism. It has worked like a charm for years. Now they’re throwing the race pitch to retire opponents of President Obama’s push toward socialized medicine.
Jimmy Carter has declared that racism, overt or latent, is driving opposition to nationalized healthcare. Carter’s race pitch seeks to accomplish two goals: to raise the specter of racism and provide top Democrats, Obama included, with plausible deniability.
Obama can now deny that racism is driving the opponents of a nationalized healthcare system, which he has done. Yet racism, the Democrats’ out pitch, remains in play. It’s the best of both worlds, isn’t it? No more.
Democrats have so overused the race pitch that it has lost its effectiveness. Empty-headed ideologues lodging equally empty racism charges are no longer intimidating. It has been wantonly abused, without the first fact to substantiate the charge. The Democrats’ out pitch has become a hanging curveball, just begging to be hit out of the park.
Opposition to nationalized healthcare is based on facts, not race. Taxes can be imposed on businesses and individuals whose insurance plans don’t meet government approval. Wording does open the door to extending health insurance to illegal aliens. Fiscal concerns are legitimate. And no one from the White House or Congress has cited the part of the Constitution that allows the central government to provide, manage, or reform health insurance.
If that’s not enough, let’s reverse course and throw the race pitch back at the Democrats, mainly Jimmy Carter.
So, Mr. Carter doesn’t believe that a white person can disagree with a black president on ideology or policy. Thus disagreeing with Obama is pure racism. Well dig in Jimmy. Let’s see if you can hit the race pitch.
Allen West is a candidate for Florida’s District 22 congressional seat. He blames government intervention for our ongoing economic problems and favors tax cuts and reforms. Mr. West is committed to a strong defense and to confronting the Islamic jihad. He fully supports the Second Amendment and domestic oil production while opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.
Mr. Carter, would you vote for Allen West? Would you support him at all? If not, you’re a racist based on your own criterion. Mr. West is black.
Bill Randall is running for Congress in North Carolina’s 13th District. Like West, Mr. Randall supports the individual right to bear arms and a strong military. He considers the federal government fundamentally overbearing and fiscally irresponsible, preferring individual liberty and free markets to tyranny and central planning. Like West, Bill Randall is a black man.
What about J.C. Watts, the former Oklahoma representative? What about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain and Kevin Jackson? Mr. Carter, are you so racist that you can’t support these men simply because all are black?
When a pitcher’s out pitch becomes predictable he must develop a new strategy to survive. Likewise, Democrats should try to develop arguments that aren’t emotionally charged and intellectually vacant. The race pitch has become too easy to hit.
The type of pitch really doesn’t matter as much as the pitcher’s confidence that his “stuff” can beat the hitter. But when the out pitch becomes routine the pitcher has a problem. If the out pitch is thrown to the same location in the same situation, time after time, it becomes predictable. Smart hitters adjust and the out pitch becomes ineffective.
Race has been the Democrat Party’s out pitch for as long as I can recall. Whenever facts contradict their emotions, or they lack solid footing for their arguments, they resort to shouting racism. It has worked like a charm for years. Now they’re throwing the race pitch to retire opponents of President Obama’s push toward socialized medicine.
Jimmy Carter has declared that racism, overt or latent, is driving opposition to nationalized healthcare. Carter’s race pitch seeks to accomplish two goals: to raise the specter of racism and provide top Democrats, Obama included, with plausible deniability.
Obama can now deny that racism is driving the opponents of a nationalized healthcare system, which he has done. Yet racism, the Democrats’ out pitch, remains in play. It’s the best of both worlds, isn’t it? No more.
Democrats have so overused the race pitch that it has lost its effectiveness. Empty-headed ideologues lodging equally empty racism charges are no longer intimidating. It has been wantonly abused, without the first fact to substantiate the charge. The Democrats’ out pitch has become a hanging curveball, just begging to be hit out of the park.
Opposition to nationalized healthcare is based on facts, not race. Taxes can be imposed on businesses and individuals whose insurance plans don’t meet government approval. Wording does open the door to extending health insurance to illegal aliens. Fiscal concerns are legitimate. And no one from the White House or Congress has cited the part of the Constitution that allows the central government to provide, manage, or reform health insurance.
If that’s not enough, let’s reverse course and throw the race pitch back at the Democrats, mainly Jimmy Carter.
So, Mr. Carter doesn’t believe that a white person can disagree with a black president on ideology or policy. Thus disagreeing with Obama is pure racism. Well dig in Jimmy. Let’s see if you can hit the race pitch.
Allen West is a candidate for Florida’s District 22 congressional seat. He blames government intervention for our ongoing economic problems and favors tax cuts and reforms. Mr. West is committed to a strong defense and to confronting the Islamic jihad. He fully supports the Second Amendment and domestic oil production while opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.
Mr. Carter, would you vote for Allen West? Would you support him at all? If not, you’re a racist based on your own criterion. Mr. West is black.
Bill Randall is running for Congress in North Carolina’s 13th District. Like West, Mr. Randall supports the individual right to bear arms and a strong military. He considers the federal government fundamentally overbearing and fiscally irresponsible, preferring individual liberty and free markets to tyranny and central planning. Like West, Bill Randall is a black man.
What about J.C. Watts, the former Oklahoma representative? What about Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Herman Cain and Kevin Jackson? Mr. Carter, are you so racist that you can’t support these men simply because all are black?
When a pitcher’s out pitch becomes predictable he must develop a new strategy to survive. Likewise, Democrats should try to develop arguments that aren’t emotionally charged and intellectually vacant. The race pitch has become too easy to hit.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Swastikas, Nazis and congressional density
Are the Nazi symbols appearing at town halls meetings and congressional district offices a sign of racism? Representative David Scott (D-GA), whose district office was defaced with a swastika, thinks so.
"We have got to make sure that the symbol of the swastika does not win, that the racial hatred that's bubbling up does not win this debate," Scott told the Associated Press. He also claims to have received racially intimidating emails, some of which have called President Obama a Marxist.
Race-baiting is childish whether employed by a Klansman or a Congressman, such as Rep. Scott. But calling Obama a Marxist is something akin to calling apples, apples and oranges, oranges.
The Nazi symbolism has sparked outrage, but very little in the way of logical thought. There are several ways to look at this situation, each with its own degree of viability.
First case. Neo-Nazis could certainly capitalize on the current mood to express their warped and repugnant views. But before accepting the premise that opponents of socialized medicine are the racists that Rep. Scott claims, let’s remember who the Nazis were. The German Nazis were the National Socialist Party. They considered people and industry to be state property, subject to dictatorial whims.
No Mr. Scott. Opponents of healthcare reform aren’t trying to intimidate you with Nazi symbols. And they certainly aren’t promoting Nazism.
Second case. Mr. Scott is correct in identifying the heated arguments surrounding healthcare reform. That being the case, who’s to say that left-wing activists wouldn’t paint a Swastika on the Congressman’s sign, certain that the offense would be blamed on the opposition?
Leftists routinely likened Bush to Adolf Hitler. They called for his impeachment and execution, even writing books and making films about how to assassinate him. They toss unsubstantiated charges and labels—such as racist, sexist, homophobe, or xenophobe—at their opposition, attempting to discredit them without having to argue the facts. That is the heart of authoritarian dogma.
Now, is it impossible that people who utilize such tactics would paint a swastika on Congressman Scott’s sign? Not by a long shot. But it’s not a lead pipe cinch that the Left painted the symbol.
Frankly, opponents of government healthcare could’ve painted that swastika on Rep. Scott’s sign. But, if so, the intent wasn’t racial intimidation or promoting Nazism. He who has eyes let him see, and he who has a mind let him think.
Rep. Scott, how blind and dense can you be? If town hall protesters painted a swastika on your sign they did so not to promote Nazism but to call attention to the heavy-handed manner in which you and your colleagues are governing.
You and your party are promoting a healthcare plan that few of you have read. You and your party speak about the plan as if you’re familiar with every aspect. Yet when questions are raised you simply deny their viability, never offering reasons for why antagonists are wrong.
The President, a man of your party, claims to want a spirited debate over healthcare legislation. Yet when the debate turns spirited he dismisses or trashes legitimate questions about the bill’s language as misleading or false. His administration establishes a snitch line and encourages Americans to become White House spies.
Have people utilized Nazi symbolism to oppose nationalizing healthcare? No question. But if those people deface property, which isn’t a proper response, it’s not to promote racist ideas or Nazism itself.
Some Americans are just tired of federal diktat, Rep. Scott. Perhaps they’re letting you know that Washington’s actions are usurping private property, individual liberty, and our Constitution. Maybe they’re letting Congress know that they realize what’s happening and that they’re not pleased with the way Washington is exceeding its authority.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Lessons learned at Harvard
It’s rare to begin a column with a disclaimer. This is one of the exceptions.
The truth is that I’ve never attended a single class at Harvard University, a record I’m confident will remain intact until my dying day. I’ve never even passed the ivy covered entrance to Harvard or driven through Cambridge. Yet I’ve learned some lessons from Harvard, lessons that are worth sharing.
Reality dispersed the fallacy surrounding Professor Henry Louis Gates’ arrest just as sure as a drop of water disperses oil. That doesn’t mean the incident didn’t warrant an investigation. No one--regardless of their race--should be arrested inside their home without just cause. However, jumping to conclusions before facts become evident isn’t a good excuse for speaking in ignorance either. That became the norm in the Gates episode.
Sgt. Crowley’s account was corroborated by other officers--including black officers--and an eyewitness. Gates’ version carried the weight of Harvard, a famous and venerable institution. These men aren’t stupid; they are intelligent, professional and supposedly rational.
To have formed an opinion during the investigation’s early stages indicates an undeniable lack of discernment. That’s lesson one. Don’t form opinions without facts, which brings us to lesson two.
The president displayed an alarming lack of wisdom. When asked about the Gates arrest President Obama was quick to concede his ignorance of the particulars. Yet Obama told the entire nation exactly what he thought of the situation despite having admitted his lack of knowledge. He said it was troubling for a black man to be arrested inside his own home.
I concur. But that didn’t happen to Prof. Gates; he wasn’t arrested inside his home. He was arrested outside after following the investigating officer to the front porch, his belligerent attitude in tow.
Prudence, especially in a president, demands that we keep our opinions silent until we have the facts. Obama would have none of that. He spoke publicly and authoritatively immediately after admitting his ignorance, displaying a disturbing lack of judgment.
A third lesson is where racism may exist. If Gates was the target of racist police tactics or profiling, where did it occur? The scene didn’t unfold at a Klan rally or in a corner booth at Denny’s. It happened at Harvard University, the school where Berkeley leftists learn liberalism.
Harvard is one of the most liberal outposts in one of the most liberal areas of arguably the most liberal state in the union. We’re constantly told that such high-minded institutions are nuanced and intellectually superior to those of us in the great unwashed. Yet the alleged racism took place in the heart of leftist philosophy. Oh, say it isn’t so!
Addendum to lesson three. With more facts now available concerning Gates’ actions prior to his arrest it’s becoming apparent that racism is indeed alive and well at Harvard. Can you figure out who was stereotyping whom?
Fourth lesson, what if the suspected burglary had been real? Suppose Officer Crowley had accepted forged identification from a genuine burglar. Had Crowley then left the burglar at the scene he would certainly have been labeled a racist. Do you believe for a minute that Gates wouldn’t have accused the white officer of refusing to protect a black man’s property?
The fifth lesson is that race shouldn’t have become a factor. There’s been no proof of racism, only the unsubstantiated rants from Gates, for whom life is all about race. Sgt. Leon Lashley, a black officer at the scene, supported Gates’ arrest. And black Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson called Obama’s imprudent comments racist and irresponsible, and accused the president of “causing deep irreparable damage to race relations in this country.”
Racism remains the Left’s favorite political tool. They practice racism from one side of their mouths while accusing opponents of it from the other. That makes six lessons I’ve learned from Harvard, all without attending a single class.
The truth is that I’ve never attended a single class at Harvard University, a record I’m confident will remain intact until my dying day. I’ve never even passed the ivy covered entrance to Harvard or driven through Cambridge. Yet I’ve learned some lessons from Harvard, lessons that are worth sharing.
Reality dispersed the fallacy surrounding Professor Henry Louis Gates’ arrest just as sure as a drop of water disperses oil. That doesn’t mean the incident didn’t warrant an investigation. No one--regardless of their race--should be arrested inside their home without just cause. However, jumping to conclusions before facts become evident isn’t a good excuse for speaking in ignorance either. That became the norm in the Gates episode.
Sgt. Crowley’s account was corroborated by other officers--including black officers--and an eyewitness. Gates’ version carried the weight of Harvard, a famous and venerable institution. These men aren’t stupid; they are intelligent, professional and supposedly rational.
To have formed an opinion during the investigation’s early stages indicates an undeniable lack of discernment. That’s lesson one. Don’t form opinions without facts, which brings us to lesson two.
The president displayed an alarming lack of wisdom. When asked about the Gates arrest President Obama was quick to concede his ignorance of the particulars. Yet Obama told the entire nation exactly what he thought of the situation despite having admitted his lack of knowledge. He said it was troubling for a black man to be arrested inside his own home.
I concur. But that didn’t happen to Prof. Gates; he wasn’t arrested inside his home. He was arrested outside after following the investigating officer to the front porch, his belligerent attitude in tow.
Prudence, especially in a president, demands that we keep our opinions silent until we have the facts. Obama would have none of that. He spoke publicly and authoritatively immediately after admitting his ignorance, displaying a disturbing lack of judgment.
A third lesson is where racism may exist. If Gates was the target of racist police tactics or profiling, where did it occur? The scene didn’t unfold at a Klan rally or in a corner booth at Denny’s. It happened at Harvard University, the school where Berkeley leftists learn liberalism.
Harvard is one of the most liberal outposts in one of the most liberal areas of arguably the most liberal state in the union. We’re constantly told that such high-minded institutions are nuanced and intellectually superior to those of us in the great unwashed. Yet the alleged racism took place in the heart of leftist philosophy. Oh, say it isn’t so!
Addendum to lesson three. With more facts now available concerning Gates’ actions prior to his arrest it’s becoming apparent that racism is indeed alive and well at Harvard. Can you figure out who was stereotyping whom?
Fourth lesson, what if the suspected burglary had been real? Suppose Officer Crowley had accepted forged identification from a genuine burglar. Had Crowley then left the burglar at the scene he would certainly have been labeled a racist. Do you believe for a minute that Gates wouldn’t have accused the white officer of refusing to protect a black man’s property?
The fifth lesson is that race shouldn’t have become a factor. There’s been no proof of racism, only the unsubstantiated rants from Gates, for whom life is all about race. Sgt. Leon Lashley, a black officer at the scene, supported Gates’ arrest. And black Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson called Obama’s imprudent comments racist and irresponsible, and accused the president of “causing deep irreparable damage to race relations in this country.”
Racism remains the Left’s favorite political tool. They practice racism from one side of their mouths while accusing opponents of it from the other. That makes six lessons I’ve learned from Harvard, all without attending a single class.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Time for the NBA to “look like” America
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has again been overturned by the very court on which she seeks to serve. That makes four out of six reviews in which the high court has reversed her opinions.
This case involved four white, New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied due promotions because no minorities scored high enough on the required test. Sotomayor’s ruling supported the town’s decision. She held that preparation and achievement should take a back seat to quota systems and racial bean counting. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.
There was a time when I would’ve hailed the Court’s decision as a step toward the truly colorblind society that everyone demands in theory but scorns in practice. My mind has now changed. Preferences and quota systems based on race, age, or disability are entirely appropriate in certain situations.
With that in mind I forfeit my college eligibility and declare myself available for the 2010 NBA draft. What’s more, I expect to be picked. Otherwise a discrimination lawsuit is coming. And I’ve counted all the beans necessary to prove my claim, especially if Sotomayor is confirmed.
In 2009 only 18-percent of NBA players were white while whites have averaged about 75-percent of the total population over the last three census estimates. Blacks, conversely, are 12-percent of the population. Yet 77-percent of NBA players are black. Isn’t that appalling?
The NBA doesn’t “look like” America. It needs more white players in order to be racially balanced and representative of the population. Let change begin with me.
“But Hager, you can’t jump,” you argue.
Well, I’m not fast or quick either. I also can’t dribble or sink three-pointers and I’d probably curl up in a ball if I had to shoot a free throw in front of 15,000 screaming fans. So what?
“You’re not qualified for the NBA,” you continue. “You have nothing for Lebron James. You’d be embarrassed.”
That’s quite true. Again, so what? Being unqualified is a prime qualification in the world of racial quotas. And I can ease my shame with each trip to the bank.
“Wise up, Hager. You’ll be forty-five before draft day.”
Yes I will. No NBA team will draft an earthbound 45-year-old who hasn’t played competitive basketball at any level in 30 years. But age discrimination is also a fertile field for litigation, and my lack of vertical elevation is a disability.
With the right team of lawyers there’s no reason why this case can’t become a class action suit. Let’s achieve diversity. Not only can the white, the aged and the gravitationally challenged join the suit, but other races, too.
Hispanics and Latinos are 15-percent of the U.S. population but only 3-percent of NBA players. And what about Asians? Asians are 4-percent of the population but only 1-percent of NBA players. If Yao Ming’s injury forces his retirement, Asians can join the suit, too. Let me explain.
The way I see it, any group can join the suit as long as they’re underrepresented in the NBA by three or more percentage points related to their representation in the overall population. If three percent is a proper margin of error in polling data it should work for bean counting, too.
For the NBA to achieve racial parity and properly represent American diversity its players should be roughly 72-percent white, 12-percent Hispanic, 9-percent black and 1-percent Asian.
Oh, you don’t think people will pay $50 a ticket to watch the pitiful product such racial manipulation will undoubtedly produce? Neither do I. Too bad, isn’t it? Looks like the federal government will have to nationalize the NBA.
This most certainly sounds ridiculous, especially the part about me joining the NBA. But it’s the racial quota reality. All I’ve done is provide a mirror image of such programs.
Now, how much of a signing bonus should I demand?
This case involved four white, New Haven, CT firefighters who were denied due promotions because no minorities scored high enough on the required test. Sotomayor’s ruling supported the town’s decision. She held that preparation and achievement should take a back seat to quota systems and racial bean counting. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed.
There was a time when I would’ve hailed the Court’s decision as a step toward the truly colorblind society that everyone demands in theory but scorns in practice. My mind has now changed. Preferences and quota systems based on race, age, or disability are entirely appropriate in certain situations.
With that in mind I forfeit my college eligibility and declare myself available for the 2010 NBA draft. What’s more, I expect to be picked. Otherwise a discrimination lawsuit is coming. And I’ve counted all the beans necessary to prove my claim, especially if Sotomayor is confirmed.
In 2009 only 18-percent of NBA players were white while whites have averaged about 75-percent of the total population over the last three census estimates. Blacks, conversely, are 12-percent of the population. Yet 77-percent of NBA players are black. Isn’t that appalling?
The NBA doesn’t “look like” America. It needs more white players in order to be racially balanced and representative of the population. Let change begin with me.
“But Hager, you can’t jump,” you argue.
Well, I’m not fast or quick either. I also can’t dribble or sink three-pointers and I’d probably curl up in a ball if I had to shoot a free throw in front of 15,000 screaming fans. So what?
“You’re not qualified for the NBA,” you continue. “You have nothing for Lebron James. You’d be embarrassed.”
That’s quite true. Again, so what? Being unqualified is a prime qualification in the world of racial quotas. And I can ease my shame with each trip to the bank.
“Wise up, Hager. You’ll be forty-five before draft day.”
Yes I will. No NBA team will draft an earthbound 45-year-old who hasn’t played competitive basketball at any level in 30 years. But age discrimination is also a fertile field for litigation, and my lack of vertical elevation is a disability.
With the right team of lawyers there’s no reason why this case can’t become a class action suit. Let’s achieve diversity. Not only can the white, the aged and the gravitationally challenged join the suit, but other races, too.
Hispanics and Latinos are 15-percent of the U.S. population but only 3-percent of NBA players. And what about Asians? Asians are 4-percent of the population but only 1-percent of NBA players. If Yao Ming’s injury forces his retirement, Asians can join the suit, too. Let me explain.
The way I see it, any group can join the suit as long as they’re underrepresented in the NBA by three or more percentage points related to their representation in the overall population. If three percent is a proper margin of error in polling data it should work for bean counting, too.
For the NBA to achieve racial parity and properly represent American diversity its players should be roughly 72-percent white, 12-percent Hispanic, 9-percent black and 1-percent Asian.
Oh, you don’t think people will pay $50 a ticket to watch the pitiful product such racial manipulation will undoubtedly produce? Neither do I. Too bad, isn’t it? Looks like the federal government will have to nationalize the NBA.
This most certainly sounds ridiculous, especially the part about me joining the NBA. But it’s the racial quota reality. All I’ve done is provide a mirror image of such programs.
Now, how much of a signing bonus should I demand?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Obama, Sotomayor promise to remove Lady Justice’s blindfold
One of the key tenets of American jurisprudence is the notion of equality before the law. All citizens of a free nation should expect--no, make that demand--an impartial judiciary.
No symbol better illustrates our nation’s devotion to blind justice than Lady Justice herself. Ideas concerning her origin are diverse, with some experts tracing her heritage to Greek or Roman mythology and others to ancient Egyptian paganism. No matter. Whatever her origin, her symbolism is easily determined through common logic.
Her balanced scale indicates that justice supersedes favoritism. Her sword is ready to deliver a swift and equitable sentence. But it’s the blindfold that is truly indispensable. The blindfold represents justice dispensed without regard to wealth, power, social status, race, creed, or sex. Everyone stands equal before the law and everyone can expect fair treatment.
No doubt that’s idealistic, and blind justice isn’t invariably administered. But a required quality in the next Supreme Court nominee appears to be ignoring equality altogether, stripping Lady Justice of her blindfold in favor of decisions based on the ambiguous notion of social justice.
Social justice, at best, means only what its promoter decides at any given time. One person may consider slavery socially just while another determines that using government to confiscate private earnings for the benefit of another fits the definition. Come to think of it they’re very similar, given that one person is forced to serve another’s interest in either case. But neither situation is blind, equitable, or just.
However, Obama pledged to nominate a champion of social justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Souter’s replacement must understand how the powerless view life and the law. The next justice must empathize with the “oppressed” and have a sense of when to ignore the law altogether. Among other determining factors in Obama’s choice are race, gender and judicial philosophy.
His nominee must represent quotas in some way and be a judicial activist who’s unafraid to manipulate the law so it conforms to communalistic doctrines. In Obama’s mind Lady Justice’s blindfold must be removed so ideology can trump the impartial application of the law. He has made good his pledge.
If a conservative employed Obama’s judicial litmus test he would be charged with narrow-mindedness, bigotry and racism.
No one who believes in liberty will argue that wealthy, powerful, or connected people should receive preferential treatment in court. Yet that philosophy in reverse is exactly what President Obama considers impartial. Through his own words we can conclude that the next Supreme Court justice will be totally comfortable slanting their decisions to grant preferred treatment to the alleged disadvantaged.
Justice now means enforcing or ignoring the law based on how it works or doesn’t work in everyday life. For example, laws against theft can apply to wealthier Americans while being inapplicable to poorer Americans. Stealing can increase a poorer person’s economic standing. Therefore, laws against theft might “not work” in the poorer person’s day-to-day life. Should such laws be unenforceable upon them?
Law written, applied, or interpreted to benefit one person or group at another’s expense isn’t law; it is diktat. When justice is applied in consideration to race, ethnicity, sex, or class it is no longer honorable. It matters not a whit whether the preferred treatment is given to the rich and the strong or the poor and the weak. Judicial rulings without neutrality aren’t just; they are preference, plain and simple.
So what kind of Supreme Court judge might we get in Sonia Sotomayor? She’s stated her desire to determine policy from the appellate bench. She doesn’t hide her willingness to allow her race and sex to influence her rulings. Finally, she fits perfectly the aforementioned template of the man who nominated her.
Then again, Obama could simply want a Supreme Court justice who won’t force him to reveal his birth certificate.
No symbol better illustrates our nation’s devotion to blind justice than Lady Justice herself. Ideas concerning her origin are diverse, with some experts tracing her heritage to Greek or Roman mythology and others to ancient Egyptian paganism. No matter. Whatever her origin, her symbolism is easily determined through common logic.
Her balanced scale indicates that justice supersedes favoritism. Her sword is ready to deliver a swift and equitable sentence. But it’s the blindfold that is truly indispensable. The blindfold represents justice dispensed without regard to wealth, power, social status, race, creed, or sex. Everyone stands equal before the law and everyone can expect fair treatment.
No doubt that’s idealistic, and blind justice isn’t invariably administered. But a required quality in the next Supreme Court nominee appears to be ignoring equality altogether, stripping Lady Justice of her blindfold in favor of decisions based on the ambiguous notion of social justice.
Social justice, at best, means only what its promoter decides at any given time. One person may consider slavery socially just while another determines that using government to confiscate private earnings for the benefit of another fits the definition. Come to think of it they’re very similar, given that one person is forced to serve another’s interest in either case. But neither situation is blind, equitable, or just.
However, Obama pledged to nominate a champion of social justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Souter’s replacement must understand how the powerless view life and the law. The next justice must empathize with the “oppressed” and have a sense of when to ignore the law altogether. Among other determining factors in Obama’s choice are race, gender and judicial philosophy.
His nominee must represent quotas in some way and be a judicial activist who’s unafraid to manipulate the law so it conforms to communalistic doctrines. In Obama’s mind Lady Justice’s blindfold must be removed so ideology can trump the impartial application of the law. He has made good his pledge.
If a conservative employed Obama’s judicial litmus test he would be charged with narrow-mindedness, bigotry and racism.
No one who believes in liberty will argue that wealthy, powerful, or connected people should receive preferential treatment in court. Yet that philosophy in reverse is exactly what President Obama considers impartial. Through his own words we can conclude that the next Supreme Court justice will be totally comfortable slanting their decisions to grant preferred treatment to the alleged disadvantaged.
Justice now means enforcing or ignoring the law based on how it works or doesn’t work in everyday life. For example, laws against theft can apply to wealthier Americans while being inapplicable to poorer Americans. Stealing can increase a poorer person’s economic standing. Therefore, laws against theft might “not work” in the poorer person’s day-to-day life. Should such laws be unenforceable upon them?
Law written, applied, or interpreted to benefit one person or group at another’s expense isn’t law; it is diktat. When justice is applied in consideration to race, ethnicity, sex, or class it is no longer honorable. It matters not a whit whether the preferred treatment is given to the rich and the strong or the poor and the weak. Judicial rulings without neutrality aren’t just; they are preference, plain and simple.
So what kind of Supreme Court judge might we get in Sonia Sotomayor? She’s stated her desire to determine policy from the appellate bench. She doesn’t hide her willingness to allow her race and sex to influence her rulings. Finally, she fits perfectly the aforementioned template of the man who nominated her.
Then again, Obama could simply want a Supreme Court justice who won’t force him to reveal his birth certificate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
