Yes indeed, this was the week, Monday to be precise, that the St. Louis County, Missouri grand jury, was to render whether or not to indict Ferguson police officer, Darren Wilson, for the shooting death of Michael Brown this past October.
And sure enough this past Monday evening, the St. Louis county district attorney, Robert McCulloch, in excruciating detail explained all that he presented to the grand jury and told the world that they will not indict the White police officer in the shooting death of the Black youth on August 9 of this year.
And the reaction ended up being the dreckstorm of the 21st century.
It appears that from the start of what should have been a tragic but routine story, everything surrounding it was problematic from the start.
No question that Mr. Wilson did kill Mr. Brown. But that is the only thing that all agree about.
As Mr. McCulloch said in his statement, it was within minutes that social media caught wind of it and the information being provided was muddled at best. But the seemingly damning piece of "eyewitness" accounts came from the friend that was accompanying Mr. Brown on the fateful night, Dorian Johnson. It was Mr. Johnson who claimed that Mr. Brown was being harassed and that his friend did escape a scuffle with Mr. Wilson. According to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Brown turned around and raised his hands as if to surrender and then, Mr. Wilson played shooting gallery with Mr. Brown. An unarmed Mr. Brown.
Only, that is not quite what happened.
Let's look at Mr. McCulloch's statement regarding the so-called hands up of surrender:
The description of how Mr. Brown hands, raised his hands, or the position of his hands, is not consistent among the witnesses. Some describe his hands as being out to his sides, some said in front of him with palms up, others said his hands were raised by his head or by his shoulders. Still others describe his hands is being in a running position or in fists.
Only Mr. Johnson still insists that Mr. Brown had his hands up in the air as if he was surrendering as he went towards Mr. Wilson.
Thus, again according to the statement of Mr. McCullogh, Mr. Wilson feared for his life as he had already endured being roughed-up by Mr. Brown. That is when he started shooting for he did not know if Mr. Brown had a weapon or not.
That is the basic story.
But a lot of what happened after that was the dreckstorm on steroids.
Clearly, no one thought that it would have been a good idea to at the very least cover-up Mr. Brown's body as the immediate investigation was taking place. As people were believing that Mr. Brown was trying to surrender to Mr. Wilson, they also saw this as a sign of disrespect. And I agree.
But now this was becoming a cause celebre. The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were beginning to sink their fangs into another case of a White cop killing a Black kid indiscriminately. The town of Ferguson itself was a town of change for only about 25 years ago it was a majority White town and now the majority was Black. Yet the police department was overwhelmingly White. Now I am never certain about whether it matters that law enforcement and or firefighters and the like have to absolutely reflect the make up of any community. But in this case, the fact is there were very few Black officers.
So, many of the people of Ferguson were beginning to think, hm, there must be something to it. Mr. Wilson was merely suspended pending an investigation per the law. There was a build up of hostility and there was days of a show of force fit for a third-world nation. The reason is that little was done and when it was done, it was too late. Eventually, the Missouri governor, Jay Nixon, appointed a member of the Missouri highway patrol, Capt. Ron Johnson, as a point man to coordinate a better response from the Ferguson police department, the St. Louis County police (there is no sheriff as in almost all other counties in the United States.) and the Missouri highway patrol. Now to many, myself included, Capt. Johnson seemed to be way to accommodating to people meaning to cause trouble. But, what he was trying to do in the best way possible is to stop the dreckstorm from an all out explosion. and he did a decent job under horrible circumstances.
In my estimation, the Ferguson police and St. Louis County police were in over their head. They had no clue that by then this was, to coin a phrase, a big f---ing deal. It was not their finest moments.
But many were complaining that the grand jury, which was convened on August 23, was taking a long time. And there was a reason for it.
No doubt that Mr. McCulloch could have avoided such a circus. He had the power himself to charge Mr. Wilson with one of four potential charges, the most serious being first degree murder all the way down to involuntary manslaughter.
So why didn't Mr. McCulloch do that?
I will state that this is pure speculation on my part, but Mr. McCulloch looked at very similar cases around the United States. Although the George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin was not a case involving a police officer, it was the most recent case of a White shooting of an unarmed Black youth. We all know what happened with that one. And what could he charge him with? It is clear that it would be all but impossible to charge with first degree murder as that means having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Wilson premeditated, or planned, to kill Mr. Brown. Involuntary manslaughter would be the minimal charge and even if convicted, also not an overwhelming possibility, Mr. Wilson probably would serve less than 10 years.
In other words, Mr. McCulloch handed it off to the county grand jury. But not in a usual way.
As Mr. McCulloch noted, there was mountains of evidence, 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses and the police officer facing charges, Mr. Wilson and over 4,700 pages of transcript for all to see. And the grand jury came back with the only decision that it could.
No true bill, or no indictment on any charges.
But to add insult to incompetence, Mr. McCulloch thought, gee, I'll make my statement at 8pm on Monday evening. Maybe all those wanting to stir up trouble will be tucked away in bed.
I know that everything is earlier in the Central Time Zone. All television shows in prime time is 7pm to 10pm unlike the coastal time zones, which are from 8pm to 11pm. You know for all the farmers and the like.
But the fact is that it was known that there was a decision in the early afternoon. Yet Mr. McCulloch made his announcement while the buildup of potential anger only had more time to grow.
And of course the dreckstorm blew its lid and it was on.
Businesses were looted throughout the city and cars and buildings were set ablaze. It was a full-fledged riot. Little if anything was done to stop it. In fact, Gov. Nixon had deployed the state national guard to the region. Where were they? Sure as hell not doing a damn thing to stop the conflagration.
Later that evening, St. Louis county police chief, Jon Belmar and Capt. Johnson of the highway patrol expressed, I can't believe that I am writing this, shock that the events escalated to full-scale rioting.
Are those two kidding?!
I am but a humble blogger in Pasadena, California and just doing a cursory look around the internet and they would know that trouble was going to be made by every race-huckster extremists along with far-left allies. Hell, even pro-Palestinians were gonna hijack it and link the events of Ferguson to their cause.
But Laurel and Hardy, well they just could not believe it.
And the dreckstorm went nationwide and has even disrupted the busiest shopping day of the year, Black Friday.
Now a little more background I chose to save to this point of the post.
Mr. Brown was not just harassed then killed by Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson heard a radio call of a robbery at a convinence store. As he was finishing up another call, he heard another call with a description of the suspect. And then, he saw Mr. Brown.
A video later surfaced from the convenience store showing Mr. Brown with Swisher Sweet cigars and shoving and pushing a clerk trying to stop him from stealing the cigars.
Mr. Brown after three separate autopsies and blood samples was shown to have marijuana in his system.
Going back to the robbery, Swisher Sweets are also known as blunts and used to smoke marijuana.
There is A+B=C.
Mr. Wilson never knew if Mr. Brown was armed or not until after the shooting.
A question was brought up where was there a taser gun? Mr. Wilson said that he did not have a taser gun.
Now while we are given the impression that all the elected officials involved were eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll, raaaaacist (remember, there are five a's in raaaaacist!) Republicans, that is not true. Every elected official involved, the governor, Mr. Nixon, the St. Louis county DA, Mr. McCulloch, all the county elected officials and the city council of Ferguson were all Democrats.
Darren Wilson has resigned from the Ferguson police department and I doubt he will ever be involved in law enforcement again.
Could things have been done differently? Possibly but that is requiring a great deal of hindsight. Is systemic racism involved in this case? Doubtful as I see it. A crime was committed and there is no doubt a chain of events took place that probably would have turned out the same way no matter the race of those involved.
The one thing is certain.
That Ferguson, a town few heard of before August 9, 2014, sure has caused one helluva dreckstorm.
*Dreckstorm-dreck is a Yiddish word. A kinder way of saying s*it. Thus, a kinder way of saying a S*itstorm.
Showing posts with label Blacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blacks. Show all posts
Friday, November 28, 2014
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
How Can We Have That Race Conversation With Twits Like James Clyburn?
You know, the attorney general, Eric Holder, once that that Americans are afraid to have a serious conversation about race.
So, I bring you Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC).
Congresstool Clyburn is fourth in the Democrat party leadership in the House of Representatives.
I do not know why Congresstool Clyburn was asked about the South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott (R-SC), who is running for a full senate term. But he was asked. And here is a real starter about that race conversation:
“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress.”
Get it?
It's not that he does not vote the party line. Its that he does not vote for or promote the race line.
The implication of Congresstool Clyburn is that for the most part, about 95% of that part, Blacks think and act exactly alike.
At least in South Carolina. And keep in mind that Sen. Scott is Black.
It does seem to be the case of voting patterns at least. It is estimated that well north of 90% of Black Americans did vote twice for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. And I do get the voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama, the first time. Second time, not so much. Democrats in general I do not get either. But that is not the point.
The point is that people like Congresstool Clyburn make such an absurd, and quite frankly racist statement about a fellow Black American and the way that he does or does not vote.
But in the linked article, Roger Clegg of The Center For Equal Opportunity, he does make an observation about the likes of Congresstool Clyburn and the one-sided Democrat vote of Black Americans.
It's tribalism.
“It’s tribal. … It’s a step backwards from Martin Luther King’s dream [and from] maybe a couple of millennia. He (Clyburn) is saying that not only should individual African-American politicians not be allowed to vote their consciences or for what they think is the best policy for all their constituents, he’s also saying that individual voters are shackled to their respective skin colors and can vote only after asking themselves ‘What is best for my group.”
The tribalism is not unique to Blacks. Same can be said for Hispanics, the LGBT community, Asians, women. But for these groups, it is not as uniform as Black support for the Democrat party. It would really be news if an Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, or woman Democrat were to make such an absurd statement as did Congresstool Clyburn.
But it's what is the prevailing fact of the Democrat party. That Blacks will only get more of a piece of the American dream and a seat at the table if they are Democrats and vote Democrat.
So, if we are to have a serious conversation about race as the attorney general, Eric Holder, once said, how can we if it is not only so one-sided but one-sided to the point of the ridiculous.
The fact is that Sen. Scott maybe Black, but does not see everything through the prism of a Black experience. He is a man of the New South. A South that will elect him to a full term to the United States senate. Remember, Sen. Scott is running statewide. Congresstool Clyburn is a gerrymandered district so that he can win with relative ease. I think that Sen. Scott speaks more for the progress of Blacks than Congresstool Clyburn.
And what about the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself? How did he not win one but two national elections? Was it just on the backs of Black voters? Or just on a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, LGBT, women and labor unions? Did not some Whites vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama? Of course that is the case.
In general, Black Americans have made great advances in American life. Not just politically, but economically, in education and their general standard of living.
But there is no question that there have been horrible drawbacks.
It is a major drawback that up to seven out of ten child births among Black women are out of wedlock. And that Black women are more likely to have abortions than other groups. That Blacks are more likely than most groups to drop out of high school and thus never go to college. That Black men are more likely to spend a part of their life in jail. And yes, there is still some lingering of outright racism that reared its ugly head in the name of one Donald Sterling.
Not just electing a Black man to the presidency has even made a difference and in fact may have made the above worse.
So to have that honest conversation, especially among Blacks, why not two people like Congresstool Clyburn and Sen. Scott sitting down together and find some real common ground? Not just a photo-op session and play to their respective bases, but let it all hang out. Because I bet a dollar to a donut that they might just find out that they do agree on many things and can and should work together.
See, that is the conversation that needs to be had.
But if we have to vote our "race", then how can we expect people to talk to each other and not over each other?
So, I bring you Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC).
Congresstool Clyburn is fourth in the Democrat party leadership in the House of Representatives.
I do not know why Congresstool Clyburn was asked about the South Carolina Senator, Tim Scott (R-SC), who is running for a full senate term. But he was asked. And here is a real starter about that race conversation:
“If you call progress electing a person with the pigmentation that he has, who votes against the interest and aspirations of 95 percent of the black people in South Carolina, then I guess that’s progress.”
Get it?
It's not that he does not vote the party line. Its that he does not vote for or promote the race line.
The implication of Congresstool Clyburn is that for the most part, about 95% of that part, Blacks think and act exactly alike.
At least in South Carolina. And keep in mind that Sen. Scott is Black.
It does seem to be the case of voting patterns at least. It is estimated that well north of 90% of Black Americans did vote twice for Democrats in general and Barack Obama in particular. And I do get the voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama, the first time. Second time, not so much. Democrats in general I do not get either. But that is not the point.
The point is that people like Congresstool Clyburn make such an absurd, and quite frankly racist statement about a fellow Black American and the way that he does or does not vote.
But in the linked article, Roger Clegg of The Center For Equal Opportunity, he does make an observation about the likes of Congresstool Clyburn and the one-sided Democrat vote of Black Americans.
It's tribalism.
“It’s tribal. … It’s a step backwards from Martin Luther King’s dream [and from] maybe a couple of millennia. He (Clyburn) is saying that not only should individual African-American politicians not be allowed to vote their consciences or for what they think is the best policy for all their constituents, he’s also saying that individual voters are shackled to their respective skin colors and can vote only after asking themselves ‘What is best for my group.”
The tribalism is not unique to Blacks. Same can be said for Hispanics, the LGBT community, Asians, women. But for these groups, it is not as uniform as Black support for the Democrat party. It would really be news if an Asian, Hispanic, LGBT, or woman Democrat were to make such an absurd statement as did Congresstool Clyburn.
But it's what is the prevailing fact of the Democrat party. That Blacks will only get more of a piece of the American dream and a seat at the table if they are Democrats and vote Democrat.
So, if we are to have a serious conversation about race as the attorney general, Eric Holder, once said, how can we if it is not only so one-sided but one-sided to the point of the ridiculous.
The fact is that Sen. Scott maybe Black, but does not see everything through the prism of a Black experience. He is a man of the New South. A South that will elect him to a full term to the United States senate. Remember, Sen. Scott is running statewide. Congresstool Clyburn is a gerrymandered district so that he can win with relative ease. I think that Sen. Scott speaks more for the progress of Blacks than Congresstool Clyburn.
And what about the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself? How did he not win one but two national elections? Was it just on the backs of Black voters? Or just on a coalition of Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, LGBT, women and labor unions? Did not some Whites vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama? Of course that is the case.
In general, Black Americans have made great advances in American life. Not just politically, but economically, in education and their general standard of living.
But there is no question that there have been horrible drawbacks.
It is a major drawback that up to seven out of ten child births among Black women are out of wedlock. And that Black women are more likely to have abortions than other groups. That Blacks are more likely than most groups to drop out of high school and thus never go to college. That Black men are more likely to spend a part of their life in jail. And yes, there is still some lingering of outright racism that reared its ugly head in the name of one Donald Sterling.
Not just electing a Black man to the presidency has even made a difference and in fact may have made the above worse.
So to have that honest conversation, especially among Blacks, why not two people like Congresstool Clyburn and Sen. Scott sitting down together and find some real common ground? Not just a photo-op session and play to their respective bases, but let it all hang out. Because I bet a dollar to a donut that they might just find out that they do agree on many things and can and should work together.
See, that is the conversation that needs to be had.
But if we have to vote our "race", then how can we expect people to talk to each other and not over each other?
Thursday, December 19, 2013
The Duck Dynasty Kerfuffle
OK, I must confess that I think I have seen one whole episode of the wildly popular television show Duck Dynasty.
And to be honest, it is not my cup of tea. The whole reality show thing is so over saturated, IMHO. They are not really that much on "reality" as making a show on the cheap. Very little writing, no star that wants hundreds of thousands of dollars an episode. It is the ultimate way for television companies to make big bucks on the cheap.
But what happens when reality does end up a result of a reality show?
Well, that is what happened to Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan that has parlayed a company called Duck Commander, which sells duck-hunting calls into a show on the Outdoor Channel and eventually on A & E television on standard cable.
Mr. Robertson is a very traditionalist person, especially in his religion. He is very open about it. He has preached at his home church, White's Ferry Road Church. Why Mr. Robertson even serves as an elder of his church's board. An elder is the equivalent to being a vestry member in an Anglican/Episcopal church.
A huge aspect of Mr. Robertson's traditionalism his how he feels about homosexuality. Again, I let him speak for himself direct from this interview with GQ magazine and writer, Drew Magery:
It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: Theres more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's not logical.
OK, a little TMI for my taste. But he is describing the difference between a male heterosexual and a homosexual. One wants sex with women and one wants sex with men. But, he calls it sinful. In Mr. Robertson's mind, it is sinful behavior.
But since he was asked and answered this question, the writer, Mr Magery, proceeds to ask Mr. Robertson about sin and what is sinful behavior. Again, direct from Mr. Robertson:
"Everything is blurred on what's right and wrong," he says. "Sin becomes fine."
Start with homosexual behavior and morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and those women and those men, he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers - they won't inherit the Kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
To be clear, Mr. Robertson is talking about the sexual act of homosexuality in general. However, he adds a little bit more than what is written. You can read the passage from I Corinthians right here. This is what one comes to believe in when in a evangelical, fundamentalist church.
And also, Mr. Robertson does have a very personal experience being that drunkard he spoke above. He was a bad, horrible man. He was a hell raiser. And confronted by his wife, Kay, he broke down, gave it to the Lord and became a Christian.
Now Mr. Robertson was also asked about something else that I really thought would be more controversial than this. But give it time. He was asked about growing up the pre-civil rights Louisiana and, well straight from the horses mouth:
"I never, with my own eyes, saw any mistreatment of a black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the Blacks because we're White trash. We're going across the field... .There singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one Black person, say, 'I tell you what: Those doggone White people' - not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
OK, I'm going to go with that maybe he had an idealized memory of that time. It is possible that the Blacks that he interacted with at that time were pretty cool. I have to admit, I do believe that he thought he had more in common with the Blacks because of he and his family being White trash. Interesting take. And there is something about people in general before the rise of the Welfare State. I would dare not single out one particular group of people. For it has done damage to all groups. But sadly, the statistics regarding Blacks and government dependency are some of the worst. And I totally disagree that Blacks, as a group, are not godly. In comparison to the general American population, Blacks are much more likely to attend church and be open about their faith.
Well, I do recommend that you read the whole interview that I linked because it is not good to cherry pick as the media has done on both sides.
So what happened?
A & E decided that Mr. Robertson should be suspended from any future shows of Duck Dynasty. This is important because as luck would have it, the current season is already filmed. And this does not count on the Duck Dynasty marathon that will be aired this weekend on the cable channel.
To be blunt, it is a chicken's way of claiming to take a stand and still milking some money off of a guy that the channel deems a bad dude for speaking his mind.
I must digress because some readers will ask why did I back Martin Bashir being fired for vile remarks he made about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. And why I liked MSNBC for canning actor Alec Baldwin for using anti-gay slurs.
First with Mr. Bashir.
He made his comments, that he hoped someone would pee in and take a dump in Mrs. Palin's mouth, on the air. It was written out and he was mad that she used the word slavery in regard to the Dear Leader, President Obama's economic policies. To someone not all there, Mr. Bashir was in his commentary giving someone a licence to carry out such a vile action. You just can't talk like that on television. Even on a network that is barely watched.
And in regards to Mr. Baldwin, he is the poster child of liberal hypocrisy. Telling the gay-rights crowd he is all in with their cause. But when he gets hot under the collar, he resorts to calling people faggot or c--- - sucker. Uh, last I checked, those are not terms of endearment.
But back to this situation.
At this point, Mr. Robertson is just suspended. He is not fired. Yet if you read the interview, he realizes that the show maybe getting near the end. Even if it is the most popular show on the A & E network.
But why did A & E buckle before there was any real heat put on by the usual suspects? it is curious because they knew what they were getting with the Robertson clan. And especially with Phil. And while Duck Dynasty is not a political show at all. But they will not allow the network to cut out decidedly Christian prayers before meals. And they had to know that Mr. Robertson had very traditional views on a whole range of current events.
So they can't claim ignorance.
My full take is simple.
Mr. Robertson does have his right not only to his beliefs but free to discuss them. I would not have fallen into the clear trap that Mr. Magery set for him. But maybe he did not see it as a trap but as an outlet.
A & E does have the right to do what it did but should have spoken with Mr. Robertson to get some clarification if need be. He does deserve that courtesy. The network can do what it wants. But it also has to weigh the fact that this is their number one show. It is probably not watched by many gays, lesbians or Blacks. And maybe they that do would not stop watching the show. What they have done is imply by the suspension that one's beliefs should not be on display. At least if that one is a traditionalist.
I leave you with this from Hotair.com Ed Morrissey as he states the obvious.
Let's not have any reality in our reality television, please.
And to be honest, it is not my cup of tea. The whole reality show thing is so over saturated, IMHO. They are not really that much on "reality" as making a show on the cheap. Very little writing, no star that wants hundreds of thousands of dollars an episode. It is the ultimate way for television companies to make big bucks on the cheap.
But what happens when reality does end up a result of a reality show?
Well, that is what happened to Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the clan that has parlayed a company called Duck Commander, which sells duck-hunting calls into a show on the Outdoor Channel and eventually on A & E television on standard cable.
Mr. Robertson is a very traditionalist person, especially in his religion. He is very open about it. He has preached at his home church, White's Ferry Road Church. Why Mr. Robertson even serves as an elder of his church's board. An elder is the equivalent to being a vestry member in an Anglican/Episcopal church.
A huge aspect of Mr. Robertson's traditionalism his how he feels about homosexuality. Again, I let him speak for himself direct from this interview with GQ magazine and writer, Drew Magery:
It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: Theres more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's not logical.
OK, a little TMI for my taste. But he is describing the difference between a male heterosexual and a homosexual. One wants sex with women and one wants sex with men. But, he calls it sinful. In Mr. Robertson's mind, it is sinful behavior.
But since he was asked and answered this question, the writer, Mr Magery, proceeds to ask Mr. Robertson about sin and what is sinful behavior. Again, direct from Mr. Robertson:
"Everything is blurred on what's right and wrong," he says. "Sin becomes fine."
Start with homosexual behavior and morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and those women and those men, he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers - they won't inherit the Kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
To be clear, Mr. Robertson is talking about the sexual act of homosexuality in general. However, he adds a little bit more than what is written. You can read the passage from I Corinthians right here. This is what one comes to believe in when in a evangelical, fundamentalist church.
And also, Mr. Robertson does have a very personal experience being that drunkard he spoke above. He was a bad, horrible man. He was a hell raiser. And confronted by his wife, Kay, he broke down, gave it to the Lord and became a Christian.
Now Mr. Robertson was also asked about something else that I really thought would be more controversial than this. But give it time. He was asked about growing up the pre-civil rights Louisiana and, well straight from the horses mouth:
"I never, with my own eyes, saw any mistreatment of a black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the Blacks because we're White trash. We're going across the field... .There singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one Black person, say, 'I tell you what: Those doggone White people' - not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
OK, I'm going to go with that maybe he had an idealized memory of that time. It is possible that the Blacks that he interacted with at that time were pretty cool. I have to admit, I do believe that he thought he had more in common with the Blacks because of he and his family being White trash. Interesting take. And there is something about people in general before the rise of the Welfare State. I would dare not single out one particular group of people. For it has done damage to all groups. But sadly, the statistics regarding Blacks and government dependency are some of the worst. And I totally disagree that Blacks, as a group, are not godly. In comparison to the general American population, Blacks are much more likely to attend church and be open about their faith.
Well, I do recommend that you read the whole interview that I linked because it is not good to cherry pick as the media has done on both sides.
So what happened?
A & E decided that Mr. Robertson should be suspended from any future shows of Duck Dynasty. This is important because as luck would have it, the current season is already filmed. And this does not count on the Duck Dynasty marathon that will be aired this weekend on the cable channel.
To be blunt, it is a chicken's way of claiming to take a stand and still milking some money off of a guy that the channel deems a bad dude for speaking his mind.
I must digress because some readers will ask why did I back Martin Bashir being fired for vile remarks he made about former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. And why I liked MSNBC for canning actor Alec Baldwin for using anti-gay slurs.
First with Mr. Bashir.
He made his comments, that he hoped someone would pee in and take a dump in Mrs. Palin's mouth, on the air. It was written out and he was mad that she used the word slavery in regard to the Dear Leader, President Obama's economic policies. To someone not all there, Mr. Bashir was in his commentary giving someone a licence to carry out such a vile action. You just can't talk like that on television. Even on a network that is barely watched.
And in regards to Mr. Baldwin, he is the poster child of liberal hypocrisy. Telling the gay-rights crowd he is all in with their cause. But when he gets hot under the collar, he resorts to calling people faggot or c--- - sucker. Uh, last I checked, those are not terms of endearment.
But back to this situation.
At this point, Mr. Robertson is just suspended. He is not fired. Yet if you read the interview, he realizes that the show maybe getting near the end. Even if it is the most popular show on the A & E network.
But why did A & E buckle before there was any real heat put on by the usual suspects? it is curious because they knew what they were getting with the Robertson clan. And especially with Phil. And while Duck Dynasty is not a political show at all. But they will not allow the network to cut out decidedly Christian prayers before meals. And they had to know that Mr. Robertson had very traditional views on a whole range of current events.
So they can't claim ignorance.
My full take is simple.
Mr. Robertson does have his right not only to his beliefs but free to discuss them. I would not have fallen into the clear trap that Mr. Magery set for him. But maybe he did not see it as a trap but as an outlet.
A & E does have the right to do what it did but should have spoken with Mr. Robertson to get some clarification if need be. He does deserve that courtesy. The network can do what it wants. But it also has to weigh the fact that this is their number one show. It is probably not watched by many gays, lesbians or Blacks. And maybe they that do would not stop watching the show. What they have done is imply by the suspension that one's beliefs should not be on display. At least if that one is a traditionalist.
I leave you with this from Hotair.com Ed Morrissey as he states the obvious.
Let's not have any reality in our reality television, please.
Monday, June 17, 2013
The Illegal Alien Debate Marches On
I was going to write today on the subject of illegal immigration but reading this beyond excellent piece by Victor Davis Hanson over at National Review changed the whole way that I was going to write about this subject.
Let me advise you to read the link first before reading any more that I have to write.
The thrust of what I was going to write is similar to Mr. Hanson. That this is a debate between the elites and the American people.
But he gets it right.
It is not a pretty left-right debate. Nor really Democrat and Republican. But it is about the elites, and there are left-right elites as well as Democrat and Republican elites.
The opening paragraph is epic, but I want to focus on the last part because it is important to what this is all about:
They talk deprecatingly of rubes who do not understand the new global realities, but never of their own parochialism ensconced in New York or Washington or San Francisco. They talk of reactionaries who do not fathom the ins and outs of the debate; never of their own willful ignorance of the realities on the ground in East L.A. or southwest Fresno.
WOW! So true, Mr. Hanson. So true.
Yes, the elites love to talk about the victims of this boondoggle of immigration, legal and rampantly illegal. Yet they do realize that many of the victims are in fact multi-generational Mexican-Americans. They think that they know what is best for the people in East L. A. or Southwest Fresno. Yet they really have no clue about the people that do live there now.
But what Mr. Hanson does, and this is important because this is a conservative making this point, is how the corporate class has no problem with de facto amnesty and a constant stream of cheap labor from not just Mexico but anywhere from Latin America.
The fact is that many of these people, men mostly but also many strong women, come to the United States and pick the crops, construction work, nanny service, maids. They are anywhere between the ages of 18-40. And because of their limited English, if any, and lack of legality and education and well, they will wear themselves out. Especially the farm workers. But don't worry. For the taxpayers of California eventually will subsidize these workers eventually with housing subsidies, health care, food and the children of these illegal aliens will be educated to not fare as the parents who have come to the United States for a better life.
Interestingly, the illegal that is paid less than the American worker still makes five times more an hour than they would doing almost anything in Mexico according to Mr. Hanson. So yes, they are exploited yet are better off when all is said and done in the United States.
What a country!
A little digression here.
The huge elephant in the room is Mexico itself.
Mexico is a plutocratic, socialist mess of a nation. There is not a strong middle class to speak of. The majority of people live in abysmal poverty. And unlike being an illegal alien in the United States, they have almost no hope of ever getting out of their station in life. Bottom line, there is a real reason that these people, and not just Mexicans but most of Latin America, want to come to the United States. For most it is still the land of opportunity. And while a sizable minority are criminal and yes get on government assistance, that is the minority.
Back to the article.
Mr. Hanson makes a valid point about the conservative Republican elite that really believe that fighting for so-called comprehensive immigration is going to be an electoral bonanza.
It will not.
If the 1986 immigration reform, yes it was called amnesty then, is a guide, the sad fact is that it will not help the Republican party make any considerable inroads in the Hispanic community. In fact, with any luck maybe, and it is a maybe, a rip-roaring 35% might vote Republican. And really, that is not going to happen.
What will make inroads is for the Republican party to stop this cheap way to get votes. Because it won't happen.
What will make a difference is to get involved in the Hispanic community. It means showing up! It means getting involved way before the election season, not just a few weeks before. It means that no matter the outcome of an election, to stay and keep being in the fight. It is a form of political guerrilla warfare. It is how the Democrats do it. It is why they have won the Hispanic vote election after election. It is why Republicans need to make this a long term strategy and yes, it will yield results.
And Mr. Hanson points out that the GOP, the party of Black Americans from the Civil War to the beginning of the Great Depression, has so written of the Black vote yet it may be more attainable than the Hispanic vote at this juncture of American history.
But Mr. Hanson continues to get at the heart of this dilemma.
That the elites really do not see the damage of their short-sighted policies.
For instance, now that the illegal alien scourge is getting right to the borders of Silicon Valley, why the elites there are not really sending their children to public schools. Nor public colleges or universities. And they don't care that much about their taxes going up to pay for those that do the work that they do not want to do. Yet they are not the only ones that will have to pay higher taxes and get substandard educations and lower services from the government. After all, even the elites need fire protection and police and hospitals.
And look at what our so-called immigration policies are doing to those that provide more than cheap labor. Again from Mr. Hanson's article:
Almost every aspect of illegal immigration is illiberal to the core. Respect for the law? The elite decides that for a particular political constituency, the law is now fluid. If you are a Bulgarian M.D. and overstay your visa, beware. A Korean engineer wouldn’t dare to fly to Mexico City and cross illegally into Arizona. Without ethnic bosses and millions of compatriots within our borders, all others are lawbreakers subject to deportation.
Yes other lawbreakers are going to get it. But if you are a South of the border illegal, well probably not. Your reward is going to be blanket amnesty. No matter how one looks at it, that is what this so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform leads to.
And here is a gruesome Rogue's Gallery of bad players in this drama:
Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not.
Sad that America has become a lot like Europe after World War II when most nations instituted a strong welfare state and imported a lot of cheap labor. And mostly from Islamic nations. And they failed to integrate these workers into their national fabrics. And they wonder why now they have these people rioting in the streets.
We all want something better than the so-called immigration system we have now.
But that cannot and should not happen until there is verifiable border security. And it cannot happen until there is a way to root out those that are criminals and taking advantage of American generosity. Then, and only then can we look at legalizing those that have been here a long time. But nothing like that until then.
One thing that all should have learned about a massive federal government overhaul is what happened during the Obamacare debacle. Only now and in the next several years will we learn the disaster that is. We should not want that in regards to solving the illegal alien situation.
Victor Davis Hanson has hit it on the head with this one. We need to face that this fight is between an elite and the rest of us. Until we face that, we will not be able to mobilize to defeat this abomination.
Let me advise you to read the link first before reading any more that I have to write.
The thrust of what I was going to write is similar to Mr. Hanson. That this is a debate between the elites and the American people.
But he gets it right.
It is not a pretty left-right debate. Nor really Democrat and Republican. But it is about the elites, and there are left-right elites as well as Democrat and Republican elites.
The opening paragraph is epic, but I want to focus on the last part because it is important to what this is all about:
They talk deprecatingly of rubes who do not understand the new global realities, but never of their own parochialism ensconced in New York or Washington or San Francisco. They talk of reactionaries who do not fathom the ins and outs of the debate; never of their own willful ignorance of the realities on the ground in East L.A. or southwest Fresno.
WOW! So true, Mr. Hanson. So true.
Yes, the elites love to talk about the victims of this boondoggle of immigration, legal and rampantly illegal. Yet they do realize that many of the victims are in fact multi-generational Mexican-Americans. They think that they know what is best for the people in East L. A. or Southwest Fresno. Yet they really have no clue about the people that do live there now.
But what Mr. Hanson does, and this is important because this is a conservative making this point, is how the corporate class has no problem with de facto amnesty and a constant stream of cheap labor from not just Mexico but anywhere from Latin America.
The fact is that many of these people, men mostly but also many strong women, come to the United States and pick the crops, construction work, nanny service, maids. They are anywhere between the ages of 18-40. And because of their limited English, if any, and lack of legality and education and well, they will wear themselves out. Especially the farm workers. But don't worry. For the taxpayers of California eventually will subsidize these workers eventually with housing subsidies, health care, food and the children of these illegal aliens will be educated to not fare as the parents who have come to the United States for a better life.
Interestingly, the illegal that is paid less than the American worker still makes five times more an hour than they would doing almost anything in Mexico according to Mr. Hanson. So yes, they are exploited yet are better off when all is said and done in the United States.
What a country!
A little digression here.
The huge elephant in the room is Mexico itself.
Mexico is a plutocratic, socialist mess of a nation. There is not a strong middle class to speak of. The majority of people live in abysmal poverty. And unlike being an illegal alien in the United States, they have almost no hope of ever getting out of their station in life. Bottom line, there is a real reason that these people, and not just Mexicans but most of Latin America, want to come to the United States. For most it is still the land of opportunity. And while a sizable minority are criminal and yes get on government assistance, that is the minority.
Back to the article.
Mr. Hanson makes a valid point about the conservative Republican elite that really believe that fighting for so-called comprehensive immigration is going to be an electoral bonanza.
It will not.
If the 1986 immigration reform, yes it was called amnesty then, is a guide, the sad fact is that it will not help the Republican party make any considerable inroads in the Hispanic community. In fact, with any luck maybe, and it is a maybe, a rip-roaring 35% might vote Republican. And really, that is not going to happen.
What will make inroads is for the Republican party to stop this cheap way to get votes. Because it won't happen.
What will make a difference is to get involved in the Hispanic community. It means showing up! It means getting involved way before the election season, not just a few weeks before. It means that no matter the outcome of an election, to stay and keep being in the fight. It is a form of political guerrilla warfare. It is how the Democrats do it. It is why they have won the Hispanic vote election after election. It is why Republicans need to make this a long term strategy and yes, it will yield results.
And Mr. Hanson points out that the GOP, the party of Black Americans from the Civil War to the beginning of the Great Depression, has so written of the Black vote yet it may be more attainable than the Hispanic vote at this juncture of American history.
But Mr. Hanson continues to get at the heart of this dilemma.
That the elites really do not see the damage of their short-sighted policies.
For instance, now that the illegal alien scourge is getting right to the borders of Silicon Valley, why the elites there are not really sending their children to public schools. Nor public colleges or universities. And they don't care that much about their taxes going up to pay for those that do the work that they do not want to do. Yet they are not the only ones that will have to pay higher taxes and get substandard educations and lower services from the government. After all, even the elites need fire protection and police and hospitals.
And look at what our so-called immigration policies are doing to those that provide more than cheap labor. Again from Mr. Hanson's article:
Almost every aspect of illegal immigration is illiberal to the core. Respect for the law? The elite decides that for a particular political constituency, the law is now fluid. If you are a Bulgarian M.D. and overstay your visa, beware. A Korean engineer wouldn’t dare to fly to Mexico City and cross illegally into Arizona. Without ethnic bosses and millions of compatriots within our borders, all others are lawbreakers subject to deportation.
Yes other lawbreakers are going to get it. But if you are a South of the border illegal, well probably not. Your reward is going to be blanket amnesty. No matter how one looks at it, that is what this so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform leads to.
And here is a gruesome Rogue's Gallery of bad players in this drama:
Indeed, the tragedy of illegal immigration is that it becomes the cornerstone for hundreds of agendas: those of the self-interested Mexican government, exploitative American employers, the new ethnic chauvinists, the upper middle classes who deem themselves lords of the manor, and, yes, the elite whose professions are as noble as their deeds are not.
Sad that America has become a lot like Europe after World War II when most nations instituted a strong welfare state and imported a lot of cheap labor. And mostly from Islamic nations. And they failed to integrate these workers into their national fabrics. And they wonder why now they have these people rioting in the streets.
We all want something better than the so-called immigration system we have now.
But that cannot and should not happen until there is verifiable border security. And it cannot happen until there is a way to root out those that are criminals and taking advantage of American generosity. Then, and only then can we look at legalizing those that have been here a long time. But nothing like that until then.
One thing that all should have learned about a massive federal government overhaul is what happened during the Obamacare debacle. Only now and in the next several years will we learn the disaster that is. We should not want that in regards to solving the illegal alien situation.
Victor Davis Hanson has hit it on the head with this one. We need to face that this fight is between an elite and the rest of us. Until we face that, we will not be able to mobilize to defeat this abomination.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
If You Live Or Will Visit Phoenix, Don't Go To A Public Pool
Frightfully, it is coming to this in the great quest to seek affirmative action in every aspect of life in the United States.
Why am I frightened?
Because it appears that one American city, and a surprising one at that, is recruiting non-White lifeguards to protect swimmers in the city pools this summer.
Nothing wrong with that on the surface.
But when you read this piece over at National Public Radio, you will see why I am frightened.
It appears that an experienced swimmer need not apply for a lifeguard position if he or she is White.
Because the Asian, Black and Hispanic kids that swim in the pools really, they want someone that looks like them. And talks like them.
Read this line from one Kelly Martinez, who actually works for the city of Phoenix as she explains this effort at minority outreach and hiring:
"The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don't like that. The kids don't relate; there's language issues."
Close you eyes at this point if easily offended because I am not holding back my disgust.
What the fuck?! What the hell is this nit wit talking about?!
We don't like that "every" lifeguard supposedly at the city of Phoenix public pools are White? Really?! So, let me ask you Miss Martinez, would you rather have this scenario. No lifeguard at said pools because the minorities you are trying to outreach and give employment can not meet the minimum requirement. Like basic swimming. And a person dies in a pool. Or many. Because the people did not like looking at the White kid that they do not relate to?
Well, Miss Martinez goes double-down on this theme. Miss Martinez proceeds to put this kid on the spot:
Martinez turns to a Latina student next to her. "Do you speak Spanish?" she asks. "We need more lifeguards who can speak Spanish."
I repeat my plea from above. WTF?!
So, if I understand Miss Martinez, it would be better to have a less qualified Hispanic lifeguard that spoke Spanish and could "relate" to the Hispanic kids than to have one that may not be realatable but able to potentially save a life, right? And I suppose in Miss Martinezland, we need Blacks for the Black swimmers and Asians for the Asian swimmers, right? Nevermind that once you go Asia, better make sure it is the right one. You know, a Chinese speaker. Oh, make sure fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
My head is spinning.
What a racist battle axe Miss Martinez is. And remember, she works for the city of Phoenix and is an aide to one Melissa Boyle, who seems to be in charge of this "outreach" according to the NPR article.
Now to be fair, it appears that there is some effort to identify and find minorities that have the potential and bring them to basic standards to potentially become a lifeguard.
That would be the obvious suggestion. Not for the reasons that Miss Martinez spouts off. Because as the article points out many of the Whites that do become lifeguards are not part of the neighborhood. Yes they come from the affluent parts of town. And what seems to be missing is the fact that these White kids are going into neighborhoods certainly not exactly receptive to them on the surface. What is missing is what the White kids are learning going out of their comfort zone and being of service in parts of town that need their kind of service.
Now the article does not mention it but is their anything that the lifeguards can do to help more of these kids gain swimming skills? Not to take their jobs but to be able to attain an important life skill? I know that there is the $15,000 grant, but what more can be done?
There is no doubt that swimming, rightly or wrongly, in many parts of the United States is still seen as something, well something White. Or to put it this way. If a minority person mocks a White swimmer with something life surfer boy, as I said, it is not a compliment.
But living here in So Cal, that barrier is in most places non-existent. When my stepson was in high school, he was the blond, surfer-looking kid on the swim team. However, there were Asians and Hispanics and a good representation without going out of the way of the school itself.
The reality of being a lifeguard is that he or she must be a great swimmer. And one that is very strong. Strong enough to be able to bring a drowning person from underwater. One that would be able to perform basic CPR on a potential drowning victim. I don't think for a moment that there is a race component to it. But access for minorities may be different in other parts of the United States. Lowering the basics could, no will, prove very costly in the long run if a person drowns because a less qualified lifeguard was trying to save that person.
That is what this is about.
Lowering standards.
Again, if you read what Miss Martinez says, she is not really concerned about the pool patron safety. She is worried about how a young Hispanic student who does not speak English feels about having a White lifeguard. But assumption, one that does not speak Spanish. Of course I am kind of sort of thinking, hey, why does this student not speak, wait for it. . .ENGLISH!
Now that this has come to light, the program needs to be really thought out how to gain qualified potential non-White lifeguard candidates without lowering standards.
Is it too much to ask the brain trust of Phoenix to figure out how to have more minority lifeguards without lowering the bar? Is this what we have come to in the United States that we have to risk safety to feel good?
Why am I frightened?
Because it appears that one American city, and a surprising one at that, is recruiting non-White lifeguards to protect swimmers in the city pools this summer.
Nothing wrong with that on the surface.
But when you read this piece over at National Public Radio, you will see why I am frightened.
It appears that an experienced swimmer need not apply for a lifeguard position if he or she is White.
Because the Asian, Black and Hispanic kids that swim in the pools really, they want someone that looks like them. And talks like them.
Read this line from one Kelly Martinez, who actually works for the city of Phoenix as she explains this effort at minority outreach and hiring:
"The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white and we don't like that. The kids don't relate; there's language issues."
Close you eyes at this point if easily offended because I am not holding back my disgust.
What the fuck?! What the hell is this nit wit talking about?!
We don't like that "every" lifeguard supposedly at the city of Phoenix public pools are White? Really?! So, let me ask you Miss Martinez, would you rather have this scenario. No lifeguard at said pools because the minorities you are trying to outreach and give employment can not meet the minimum requirement. Like basic swimming. And a person dies in a pool. Or many. Because the people did not like looking at the White kid that they do not relate to?
Well, Miss Martinez goes double-down on this theme. Miss Martinez proceeds to put this kid on the spot:
Martinez turns to a Latina student next to her. "Do you speak Spanish?" she asks. "We need more lifeguards who can speak Spanish."
I repeat my plea from above. WTF?!
So, if I understand Miss Martinez, it would be better to have a less qualified Hispanic lifeguard that spoke Spanish and could "relate" to the Hispanic kids than to have one that may not be realatable but able to potentially save a life, right? And I suppose in Miss Martinezland, we need Blacks for the Black swimmers and Asians for the Asian swimmers, right? Nevermind that once you go Asia, better make sure it is the right one. You know, a Chinese speaker. Oh, make sure fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin.
My head is spinning.
What a racist battle axe Miss Martinez is. And remember, she works for the city of Phoenix and is an aide to one Melissa Boyle, who seems to be in charge of this "outreach" according to the NPR article.
Now to be fair, it appears that there is some effort to identify and find minorities that have the potential and bring them to basic standards to potentially become a lifeguard.
That would be the obvious suggestion. Not for the reasons that Miss Martinez spouts off. Because as the article points out many of the Whites that do become lifeguards are not part of the neighborhood. Yes they come from the affluent parts of town. And what seems to be missing is the fact that these White kids are going into neighborhoods certainly not exactly receptive to them on the surface. What is missing is what the White kids are learning going out of their comfort zone and being of service in parts of town that need their kind of service.
Now the article does not mention it but is their anything that the lifeguards can do to help more of these kids gain swimming skills? Not to take their jobs but to be able to attain an important life skill? I know that there is the $15,000 grant, but what more can be done?
There is no doubt that swimming, rightly or wrongly, in many parts of the United States is still seen as something, well something White. Or to put it this way. If a minority person mocks a White swimmer with something life surfer boy, as I said, it is not a compliment.
But living here in So Cal, that barrier is in most places non-existent. When my stepson was in high school, he was the blond, surfer-looking kid on the swim team. However, there were Asians and Hispanics and a good representation without going out of the way of the school itself.
The reality of being a lifeguard is that he or she must be a great swimmer. And one that is very strong. Strong enough to be able to bring a drowning person from underwater. One that would be able to perform basic CPR on a potential drowning victim. I don't think for a moment that there is a race component to it. But access for minorities may be different in other parts of the United States. Lowering the basics could, no will, prove very costly in the long run if a person drowns because a less qualified lifeguard was trying to save that person.
That is what this is about.
Lowering standards.
Again, if you read what Miss Martinez says, she is not really concerned about the pool patron safety. She is worried about how a young Hispanic student who does not speak English feels about having a White lifeguard. But assumption, one that does not speak Spanish. Of course I am kind of sort of thinking, hey, why does this student not speak, wait for it. . .ENGLISH!
Now that this has come to light, the program needs to be really thought out how to gain qualified potential non-White lifeguard candidates without lowering standards.
Is it too much to ask the brain trust of Phoenix to figure out how to have more minority lifeguards without lowering the bar? Is this what we have come to in the United States that we have to risk safety to feel good?
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Meet Utah's Next Big Thing, Congressman Mia Love
Mrs. Love is running for congress in Utah's fourth congressional district. The only one currently in the hands of a Democrat, Jim Matheson.
Although not for long for Rep. Matheson.
Mrs. Love is, if you want to go there, a minority, within a minority, within a minority.
What do I mean?
Well, the obvious is Mrs. Love is Black. The daughter of Haitian immigrants that came to the United States for the proverbial better life. They got it and then some. And got to see their daughter graduate the University of Hartford. What is wonderful is the story Mrs. Love tells about her dad telling her this after her college orientation:
"Mia, your mother and I never took a handout. You will not be a burden to society. You will give back."
Understand that these people were from Haiti, the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. They could have easily gone the dependency route was they arrived in the United States in 1973. But they did not and instilled that important value in their daughter.
The second minority is being a Black member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Understand that until the late 1970s, the Mormons did not allow Black men to rise in the lay-ministry that separates the Mormons from other Christian denominations. Since seeing the light and really understanding the Holy Bible, the growth of Mormons, especially Blacks, is very impressive. But in the United States, there are really not that many Black Mormons.
And the third minority is being a Black Mormon woman. No doubt on that one.
And roll it all together and this is all happening in Utah, one of the most White and religious states in the nation.
OK, so what makes Mrs. Love think that she can be a great congressman? Hell, just a congressman?
Well, she is mayor of her home town, Saratoga Springs, Utah.
Saratoga Springs?! Never heard of it.
Seriously, I never heard of it until yesterday.
But she has been mayor of a town basically built from scratch.
Saratoga Springs was incorporated in 1997 and according to the 2000 census, there were but 1,003 people in the whole town. But by 2010, the population exploded to 17,781. A huge increase. And as a city council member, Mrs. Love did change the way taxes were collected from agriculture to a municipal tax. And when there was the economic debacle of 2008, taxes were not raised but expenses cut. And the city has a AA+ bond rating, the highest for a city of the size of Saratoga Springs.
And what guides Mrs. Love's political positions? According to her own words:
"Is it affordable. Is it sustainable. Is it my job?"
And Mrs. Love believes in fiscal discipline, limited government and personal responsibility.
Pretty conservative and Republican, isn't it?
Yes, it is!
And to understand a little something of the town she is mayor of, it is in Utah County, the most Republican county in the United States. And like the rest of the state, probably very White. And yet this woman has been elected mayor of her home town.
I always believe that is very easy for a minority to win in gerrymandered districts in which their particular group is the majority. The real test for a minority person is to run and win where they are nowhere near the majority.
Ask Rep. Allan West. Or Rep. Tim Scott. Both Southern, Black Republicans that ran and won in pretty White districts. Oh, and Rep. Scott? He only defeated one of Strom Thurmond's sons in the GOP primary in 2010.
How about Nikki Haley, governor of South Carolina? An Indian-American. Same for Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.
And how can we forget Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida? And soon to be Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas?
And, God willing, we can and must add Mia Love to that list. She will make an outstanding congressman and set the old Black establishment back on its heels. I would love, no pun intended, when Congressman Love joins the Congressional Black Caucus as she has promised to do for her to be right next to the Devil herself, Rep. Mad Maxine Waters, and as Mrs. Love says, "take that thing apart from the inside out”. Of course she can start with Rep. Mad Maxine.
Here is where you and I can help Mrs. Love out to not just fight but win the Utah fourth congressional district. And if you missed the speech, it is right here. Mrs. Love made more sense in four minutes than a certain occupier of the White House has made in four years.
Lets all work together to make sure this political studette can get to Washington. President Romney and Vice-President Ryan will need people like Mia Love to pursue the reform agenda.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
The Sorry State Of Race Relations In The United States
I came across this seemingly shocking poll of Republican voters in Alabama and Mississippi that indicates roughly about 30% do not like interracial marriage and also think that it should be illegal.
One thought I have is that I am not surprised. I am not surprised that many people do not like the idea of interracial marriage.
The second thought is why would anyone be that honest to suggest interracial marriage actually be banned?
But the third thought is the one I would like to ask.
Was or is this question ever asked of Democrat voters? I mean, is the party that once supported segregation and the very laws that banned interracial marriage and by extension sexual relations? Yes it is. And should Democrat voters not be asked such things?
And let me take that a step further.
How about asking these questions on racial breakdown? You know, lets see how Blacks feel about the subject. And Hispanics. Lets not forget Asians.
Let me relate that these groups are much more vocal in opposition to interracial marriage than many if not most Whites.
But why ask such things in the first place? Is it not meant to illicit a negative response? Of course it is.
After all, the only way to keep the race huckster gravy train going to point out such information as the above poll.
Again, I find it to be at best a shock poll rather than anything of reality.
In my own family, some of my nephews and nieces are in interracial marriages. My one niece lives in Florida and is married to a Black man. One nephew is married to a Korean-American and the other, his brother, is married to a Filipina-American.
As I write that, my blood boils because all I can think of is the fact that I am an American.
That is it.
An American. My heritage happens to be European, but I would have to relationship to family that might be in Edinburgh, Scotland where my maternal grandmother was from. Or where my paternal grandparents came from, Odessa, the Ukraine.
My race is American.
Yet everywhere I have to answer on many things what race best describes me.
And yet I can not write American anywhere.
Why is that? Why must we be categorized in racial groups that for many we really have no real anchor to?
Because it is to Balkinize the United States of America.
I am sure that a lot of people of all race groups feel the same as I do. But what are we doing about it?
One of the most nauseating things that was said about the Tea Party movement has been that we are a bunch of racists.
Yet the only people pushing the race issue at Tea Party rallies I was privileged to be at were Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs. Democrat Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs.
I saw many people of many heritages. Asian, Black, Hispanic, others that I do not know nor for the sake of this care. Because we are united in being Americans first and heritage second.
Even people that I know should know better ask me about why the Tea Party is racist. Of course none who asked ever participated or went to a rally. But are spoon-fed the race angle because, well, the leftywhore media has to make the Tea Party a negative.
Somehow, keeping taxes low, restoring eroding freedom and keeping the federal government at bay is a racist issue.
But to the left everything is now in the prism of race.
It is how they keep the above-mentioned groups on the Democrat plantation.
And that is why they need to demonize any opposition to their policies as race-driven.
And with the first Black American president, it seems tailor-made, right?
Yet this is probably the reason the chains are probably going to be broken.
Because Americans elected a Black to the presidency, we will not have a problem electing someone from another group. And many who have been on the plantation only because of race will say no more.
It is what has to happen.
Because if it does not, many people will take the above poll seriously rather than the shock value that it is.
One thought I have is that I am not surprised. I am not surprised that many people do not like the idea of interracial marriage.
The second thought is why would anyone be that honest to suggest interracial marriage actually be banned?
But the third thought is the one I would like to ask.
Was or is this question ever asked of Democrat voters? I mean, is the party that once supported segregation and the very laws that banned interracial marriage and by extension sexual relations? Yes it is. And should Democrat voters not be asked such things?
And let me take that a step further.
How about asking these questions on racial breakdown? You know, lets see how Blacks feel about the subject. And Hispanics. Lets not forget Asians.
Let me relate that these groups are much more vocal in opposition to interracial marriage than many if not most Whites.
But why ask such things in the first place? Is it not meant to illicit a negative response? Of course it is.
After all, the only way to keep the race huckster gravy train going to point out such information as the above poll.
Again, I find it to be at best a shock poll rather than anything of reality.
In my own family, some of my nephews and nieces are in interracial marriages. My one niece lives in Florida and is married to a Black man. One nephew is married to a Korean-American and the other, his brother, is married to a Filipina-American.
As I write that, my blood boils because all I can think of is the fact that I am an American.
That is it.
An American. My heritage happens to be European, but I would have to relationship to family that might be in Edinburgh, Scotland where my maternal grandmother was from. Or where my paternal grandparents came from, Odessa, the Ukraine.
My race is American.
Yet everywhere I have to answer on many things what race best describes me.
And yet I can not write American anywhere.
Why is that? Why must we be categorized in racial groups that for many we really have no real anchor to?
Because it is to Balkinize the United States of America.
I am sure that a lot of people of all race groups feel the same as I do. But what are we doing about it?
One of the most nauseating things that was said about the Tea Party movement has been that we are a bunch of racists.
Yet the only people pushing the race issue at Tea Party rallies I was privileged to be at were Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs. Democrat Lyndon LaRouche whack jobs.
I saw many people of many heritages. Asian, Black, Hispanic, others that I do not know nor for the sake of this care. Because we are united in being Americans first and heritage second.
Even people that I know should know better ask me about why the Tea Party is racist. Of course none who asked ever participated or went to a rally. But are spoon-fed the race angle because, well, the leftywhore media has to make the Tea Party a negative.
Somehow, keeping taxes low, restoring eroding freedom and keeping the federal government at bay is a racist issue.
But to the left everything is now in the prism of race.
It is how they keep the above-mentioned groups on the Democrat plantation.
And that is why they need to demonize any opposition to their policies as race-driven.
And with the first Black American president, it seems tailor-made, right?
Yet this is probably the reason the chains are probably going to be broken.
Because Americans elected a Black to the presidency, we will not have a problem electing someone from another group. And many who have been on the plantation only because of race will say no more.
It is what has to happen.
Because if it does not, many people will take the above poll seriously rather than the shock value that it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)