Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Archive for November, 2011|Monthly archive page

How many racists does it take to make you angry?

In Opinion on November 29, 2011 at 8:18 pm

The New York Times reports that public-sector lay-offs will have a disproportionate impact on blacks.  That’s a statistical fact that should provoke some interesting thoughts and conversations about the causes of and concerns about this outcome.  (Link here.)  A central part of the piece follows.

The central role played by government employment in black communities is hard to overstate. African-Americans in the public sector earn 25 percent more than other black workers, and the jobs have long been regarded as respectable, stable work for college graduates, allowing many to buy homes, send children to private colleges and achieve other markers of middle-class life that were otherwise closed to them.

Blacks have relied on government jobs in large numbers since at least Reconstruction, when the United States Postal Service hired freed slaves. The relationship continued through a century during which racial discrimination barred blacks from many private-sector jobs, and carried over into the 1960s when government was vastly expanded to provide more services, like bus lines to new suburbs, additional public hospitals and schools, and more.

Boiler-plate, “world ends, poor hit hardest” journalism, right?

But the reason this came to my attention is that Al Sharpton, a black TV host on MSNBC, had as a guest the president of The National Urban League, Marc Morial, also a black man.  They discussed this NY Times piece on his show tonight.  And, as expected, they used this piece as the basis to argue for more government spending to support these ‘middle-class jobs’ – firemen, police officers, teachers, etc.

And, the notable part?  These two accomplished(?) black “leaders” seemed to speak with great pride in their brothers’ and sisters’ ability to be more, uh, dependent on the government for a paycheck.  They expressed great concern for their brethren and their ability to get on with life if they were to lose their grip on this rung on the ladder to middle class status.  They suggested that tax-payers owed these slaves, uh, dependents, uh, public employees a living, and officials better not dare cut spending further, else the workers would likely “take to the street” if necessary to force tax-payers to feed them, I mean, to keep their jobs

I will defer for now a discussion of why anyone in this country should be proud of his race’s success vis-a-vis other races’ success in any area of human endeavor.  (But, I will say that it doesn’t sound like a pro-diversity kind of behavior, does it?)

Instead I’ll ask this:  Is this progress for the black community?  Or, more to the point, isn’t it about time racists like Al Sharpton are taught better manners or else asked to take their bilge elsewhere.

Advertisements

Our Founders Were not Cavemen

In Opinion on November 28, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Did the drafters of the Constitution mean for us to read it as written, interpreting it based upon their understanding of the words they used – “original intent” – or is our foundational document, uh, intended to be read in the context of what is happening in our present day world, allowing for changes in culture and custom?

In addressing or debating that question, it is true that none of us were there and none of us can communicate with their souls to determine their intent, but we have lots of evidence that speaks to us pretty clearly.

  1. It generally agreed that Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots were sentient, rational, cognizant, self-aware Homo sapiens.
  2. They wrote it down.  If they had intended the principles stated in the document to have an evolving nature, they probably would not have wasted the parchment or the ink.  More likely, they would have just shaken hands, tipped their hats and agreed to reconvene in, say, a week or so, and see if a consensus still survived.  That would have kept them and their descendants pretty damn busy.
  3. Regarding the things they did put in writing, they negotiated at great length and with considerable passion.  If the words didn’t really matter that much, if the document were meant to be evanescent, would they have gone to such pains to get it right?
  4. The words they chose had specific meanings.  The “King’s English” was the language of the realm.  There were no misspellings and no grammatical errors.  The overall structure and composition was clear and concise, very well ordered and organized.  Nothing about the document shows carelessness in style or indefinite meaning.  It follows that their choice of words was intentional, not accidental.  Again, had they thought the words were subject to interpretation from generation to generation, they would not have made the effort.
  5. Many of the signatories of that most brilliant political and philosophical document had watched friends and family members die violent deaths, had risked their own lives, fortunes and sacred honor for the privilege of founding a nation of laws.  Seems logical to conclude that they figured it was worth the effort it took to put their thoughts down on paper for clarity and certainty.
  6. They said what were their intentions regarding interpretation.  For you and I, the most important words in the document are “our Posterity.”  You and I, noteworthy parties to the document, even have a named role therein.  If they didn’t intend for us to be bound by their words, would they have bothered to mention us?  The Constitution was not written to serve as the bylaws of a fraternity.  The Founders wrote it “in order to form a more perfect union” and establish a body to govern that nation.

Our Founders were not cavemen.  They were not scribbling random figures on the wall with charcoal.  Let’s take them at their word and abide by the Constitution – always.  Not just when it’s convenient.

Obama IS a K^*^#*, isn’t he? The N-word and “Lyin’ Ass Bitch” revisited

In Opinion on November 28, 2011 at 11:03 am

The liberals and Michelle Bachmann haters are busy defending Jimmy Fallon by repeating his claim that he had no prior knowledge of the band’s idea to play the song.

Hmmm.  Again, they want to have it both ways:

1.  It was just a humorous bit of teasing – can’t that white bitch take a joke?

AND

2.  Of course Fallon had nothing to do with such a tasteless bit of teasing; what do you think he is, a disgusting misogynist like his bandleader?

Which is it?  Should he apologize for his bandleader’s behavior or join the chorus?

Asked another way:  If I call Barack Obama a K-word (ok, I’ll type it – a Kenyan) will I be disqualified from polite company?  Will any of my friends defend me or will they be ashamed of me.  Or both?

And, what if I imply that he’s a Keynesian?

(See here for a little humor.)

Liberals Just Need Better Friends. Really.

In Opinion on November 27, 2011 at 11:00 pm

A very good friend of mine recently gave me this bit of wisdom.

He has been telling his big-government, liberal acquaintances that they need to get a new set of people to hang out with.  They, he hypothesizes, must not have nice friends.

You see, my friend (a good man, yes, but not really a special guy) surrounds himself with kind, generous, charitable, free men and women.  They volunteer for clean-up efforts after floods, they give money to their church, they employ people to do work for pay, they encourage drunks to sober up (no comments from the cheap seats, please) and they generally love their fellow man.  More importantly, they do all those things voluntarily, cheerfully and often anonymously.

In contrast, it appears that his liberal, Democrat acquaintances are convinced that those and other innumerable good things can only be done by the government.  And, they seem to conclude, the government can only do those good things after they have confiscated money from those liberals’ friends, enemies and colleagues – in other words, rich people.

I have an idea:  Let’s introduce my friend’s friends to some of our friends.  Let’s stop trying to make them understand that big government is wrong, let’s show them it’s not necessary.  They are (I hope) good people with good intentions, they just have bad friends.

We can fix that!  Wow, that’s the best news ever!  Introduce your friends to some liberals – will change the world.

Lyin’ Ass Bitch

In Opinion on November 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm

That’s the title of a song played by a late night talk show band as Michelle Bachmann was introduced and walked on stage. The band leader is black.

When asked whether she was offended, Ms. Bachmann, replied “Nah. I mean, what do you expect from a dumb-ass nigger?”

OK, she didn’t say that, but imagine she had. 75% of you who read this will be offended that I even hypothesize about such an occurrence and virtually all of you are angry that my fingers actually typed that word instead of something like “N-word” or “n*****.”

Why?

Why is it ok to hate, lie about, demean and mock some people while others (most Democrats, all black men except Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas) live under under a protective shield of ‘thou shalt not even appear to be insensitive to my frail feelings.”  A conservative is forced daily to address unfounded, ad hominem accusations of racism, a lack of sympathy for the poor, an over-zealous support for the cruel free market, constant shilling for rich CEOs and Wall Street fat-cats, and so forth. The accusers are praised as keen thinkers or great journalists who know how to get to the heart of a topic. Yet when a conservative makes a cogent argument and concludes that, say, Barack Obama’s health care plan will not result in ‘free’ health care, he’s becomes knuckle-dragging lunatic who just can’t stand the ‘otherness’ of people who don’t fit in.

Think of it this way. Besides Michelle Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and [Donald Sterling], who else is on the list of “People it’s OK to Hate.” I won’t hate or wish ill fortune on any of them, but I want to know which hatreds I’m supposed to excuse when I see it from other people.

So, please let me know. Who do YOU think it is OK to hate?

“Higher” Education and McDonalds

In Opinion on November 22, 2011 at 6:33 pm

I have been critical of the college students who, some with the Occupy Wall Street crowds and others on their campuses, are complaining about high tuition and having to pay back those student loans.

Then I listened to a professor at UC Davis in an interview this morning on MSNBC.

First, he made it clear that the police brutality (uh, what word will he use when he actually sees something that is brutal?) was unnecessary, unreasonable and cause for the immediate dismissal of his boss, the chancellor of the university.  He must have tenure, huh?  And, I guess he did not listen to the chancellor’s apology speech in which she said she was ashamed to be associated with UC Davis.  QUERY:  If you were a member of the Board of Regents, wouldn’t you want to relieve her of that shame as soon as possible after such a comment?

Second, he stated emphatically that he empathized with the students and that their demands for lower tuition and relief from the burden of their mounting student loans should be met.  (Yeah, the guy who is paid by them said that!)

That second recommendation of his triggered two questions:

1.  Why doesn’t he form a committee of faculty members and get together with the students?  They could negotiate an $X dollar reduction in tuition accompanied by a corresponding $X dollar reduction in the faculty salary line-item in the university’s budget.  End of protest, peace on earth, no pepper spray wasted!

AND

2.  How long before he realizes that he said, in essence, “Ya know, I agree with them – this so-called ‘education’ we’re feeding them isn’t worth what they’re paying for it.”

As I pondered those questions, I imagined walking into McDonald’s and demanding a Big Mac for, say, $1.50 less than the the price on the big menu board over the counter.  I pictured the manager coming from behind the counter saying “Yeah, Jeff (they know me) our burgers are not worth sh^#, but the boss says I can’t give them away.  Says we’d be out of business before long if we did.”

Then the big one hit me – – The professor is right, though what he doesn’t realize is that he admitted that he’s too expensive or expendable, or both.  You and I will pay for the Big Mac, because it’s an even trade, or we won’t because we like Five Guys better, or we’ll go home and cook a nice burger on the grill, right?  Competition.

When you think about their competition, what do universities offer?   I doubt that U.C. Davis (or Harvard or Stanford) has very many books in its library that (a) I want my sons to read and (b) I can’t find on Amazon or elsewhere on the ‘net.  Furthermore, I know that professor doesn’t know one damn thing I want him to teach my sons.

All the universities better figure out how to add value in exchange for the tuition they charge, or they’re going out of business.  They are no longer institutions of higher learning, they are a collection of buildings and intellectuals that give some window dressing to their athletic departments.

Now that I have pondered it, I’d be pissed, too, if I were $100,000 in debt for something I can get for free on the internet.

Open Letter to Newt Gingrich

In Political Critique on November 19, 2011 at 9:02 am

Mr. Speaker,

The “he’s a really smart hypocrite!” line against you is taking root.  Unfortunately, no one, including you, is making the distinction between (1) a former politician being paid as a consultant (fully-disclosed) and (1) a sitting politician taking campaign contributions (or sweetheart mortgages) while voting on matters that affect the contributor.

I suggest that disclosure of the actual advice (memos, notes from meetings, emails . . .) you gave to Freddie Mac would help us determine whether that distinction really constitutes a difference.

In other words, did Freddie’s money buy your expert advice or your political support?

Can you answer that question publicly or does Chris Matthews have a point?

Your friend,

 

Am I ‘Anti-government’?

In Opinion, Political Critique on November 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm

A standard line from the Democratic Party these days involves some version of “the right/GOP hates government and wants to eliminate all taxes, so government would possess no power.”

Sort of.

Or, actually, not at all.  The right and the GOP better correct that lie, and soon.

How?  It’s my belief that Americans are relatively indifferent about the effectiveness of ‘good’ government.  However, we are passionate about the power, the compassion and the productiveness of free men and women.

In my world, all of the left and the collectivists are free to try it their way – but they should not try and, under our Constitution, do not have the power to impose their approach on me.  I believe and history proves that freedom beats coercion every time, no matter how ‘good’ some coerced behavior might seem to be.

I say – Let me and those who agree live or die based upon the outcome.  I will bet my life on it.  Will Barack Obama or Harry Reid do the same if I take away their power (via confiscation of my income to finance their welfare state) to force me to agree with them?  I doubt it.

We can do better, America, but only if we’re free and government is smaller.

Herman Cain – Man or Man Slut? We’ll Know Soon Enough, but First . . .

In Opinion on November 8, 2011 at 12:03 am

First, I have some idea whether Herman Cain is a clumsy flirter who has some ‘splainin to do with his wife or a man who knows not how to treat a woman.  But my opinion on the matter is irrelevant, unimportant, and pure speculation based largely on the proposition that, if he is the latter, it wouldn’t take one of America’s least respected lawyers (pretty difficult to get under that low bar, I know) to drag one of the many mistreated women in front of the bright lights for a press conference.

But, my curiosity is not stimulated by probing the question of Mr. Cain’s veracity – that would be a waste of my time – some other process will produce the answer to that question in due course.

No, seeing Ms. Bialek in her news conference today triggered this much more interesting question:  Why is she smiling so much?

Well, I guess she has decided to punch her ticket – fame, a book deal, fortune, then easy street and a job hosting a show on MSNBC right after Al Sharpton.  I say, “Cheers and more power to her.  Whatever the market will bear.  C’est la vie in the grande ville” to coin a phrase.

And then, as the evening wore on, I asked myself an even more interesting riddle – Why are the Democrats and their cheerleaders in the news and opinion business so damn happy about these acts that they have determined represent horrendous and despicable acts, even crimes?  How can can these ‘journalists’ choose such a happy, nearly exultant tone when they report [what they have concluded is] a proven crime?  They’re practically having ticker tape parades to celebrate finding evil in our midst.

Who does that?  Is it because they don’t really believe the ‘crimes’ happened?  Or, is it because they’ve so coarsened their sense of right and wrong that the only ‘right’ things are those that advance their political agenda and their quest for power?  Have they concluded that the truth is flexible, maybe even dependent on what the meaning of the word ‘is‘ is.

Is Stevie Williams racist?

In Opinion on November 5, 2011 at 6:10 pm

A life-long friend sent me this irony-filled note today – I post it here with his permission.

______________________

If my nearly half century on this earth has taught me anything it is not to rush to judgment and to take a person’s whole life in context before judging one statement or action. This brings me to Tiger Woods’ former caddie Stevie Williams, who days ago referred to his former boss as a “black a**hole”.  While these words are offensive, a person cannot truly determine if Stevie is racist without knowing a little more about him.  Here are a few things you might look for in the next few days to help you make a righteous determination:

1)     If Stevie comes out in the next few days and endorses Herman Cain, he is a racist.

2)     If he says the same thing about Mr. Cain that he said about Tiger, he is not.

3)     If Mr. Williams throws his support behind the murder of millions of unborn black babies, he is a good man.

4)     If, on the other hand, he goes out and tells black youth that they are smart enough, strong enough, and good enough to make it in America without any help from government, he is as big a racist as Rush Limbaugh and should be considered one of the most dangerous men in America.

So I encourage you to be patient and wise. The true Steve Williams will show himself to you over time.  In the meantime I am going to withhold judgment – –  at least until I can get a copy of his voter registration card.