… ’bout Politics « Black Man Thinkin'

Are Folks Mad At Mirrors?

Tags: baby carrier, black dolls, black illegitimacy, black nuclear family, Cheerios, multiracial family, racist backlash, white nuclear family

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: June 29, 2014

When this seemingly innocuous commercial aired:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYofm5d5Xdw[/youtube]
no one anticipated the negative reaction, right?

Well, if one believes a major food producer, in 2013, was naive regarding social media, and the potential for strong reactions to a nontraditional ad, then that would be right. However, General Mills, the maker of Cheerios cereal, was not naive. They were not only aware of the potential reaction, they prepared for it:

Camille Gibson, vice president of marketing for Cheerios, said it’s the first time the ad campaign that focuses on family moments has featured an interracial couple, with General Mills Inc. casting the actors to reflect the changing U.S. population.

Knowing the internet denizens would react, the company went with a family portrayal that was uncommon in TV ads, responding to increasing numbers of multiracial youth in the U.S. Translation: Cheerios held up a mirror to the country, one not normally seen in TV commercials. Does anyone honestly believe that was accidental?

It is not cynical to think two factors drove the Cheerios ad:

2) There ain’t no such thing as bad publicity

Want proof that Cheerios meant to hold up that mirror of a changing American demographic? Check out their ad at the 2014 Super Bowl ad:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKuQrKeGe6g[/youtube]
Of course, not everyone reacted negatively and those that did, well, they just seemed unhappy with what the mirror showed.

Away from the TV screen, the imagery does not stop: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEsq9oXHIEw[/youtube]
This Staten Island woman’s unhappiness with Battat Inc.’s packaging differences between white and black “Our Generation” dolls alleges racism. But is the allegation true? It may depend on whether one is the “paying consumer” or the “intended consumer”.

There is a black doll with one outfit and no accessories in the box and, for the exact same price, a white doll whose box is “loaded with gear”. It looks like an overcharging of “paying consumers” who want a black doll. While it is unlikely (though not impossible) that black dolls cost more to make, it is more likely that a pricing error occurred; these things happen.

So, the “Our Generation” doll makers may not be trying to tell “Our Generation” anything, except that their distributors make mistakes. There is nothing to indicate that the Staten Island woman alerted store personnel to her concerns as the mother in Fayetteville, GA, did. Unfortunately, rarely do those called racist by “paying consumers” get the benefit of the doubt.

However, an “intended customer” can react to products differently. Abrianna received the same black doll that angered the Staten Island Target woman. Abrianna had no problem with what the manufacturer tried to tell her: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs2zJ7zBI2w[/youtube]
She is not mad at the mirror presented by the “Our Generation” doll. I wonder if it is better to let Abrianna see her doll as like herself and beautiful, or to tell her that the manufacturer put an ugly message in a doll she believes looks like her?

Here is another item one might find on a department store shelf; should this marketing image displease anyone?

Baby Carrier Packages

Two baby carriers, both made by the same company. Quite a few people on social media took issue with this, calling it obviously racist, among other things. But remember: Folks tend to buy stuff that people who look like them use. With that in mind, let’s consider some demographic information that was undoubtedly known to any marketing department.

The federal government’s 2011 data on U.S births showed 72.3% of black children, and 29.1% of white children, were born out-of wedlock. So, less than 3 in 10 black children were born into a nuclear family, while less 3 in 10 white children were born outside of a nuclear family.

Another way to interpret the data — in the U.S., you are about 2-1/2 times more likely to see this: white nuclear family

than you are likely to see this: black nuclear family

So, would you market a baby carrier to blacks showing a nuclear family, reminding them of what they likely are not, or would you “go with the flow” of the black single parent norm?

Of course, no marketing department, at any company, generated those statistics; they simply cannot ignore such demographic information when trying to sell products, including baby carriers. Baby K’Tan did not paint a picture of Americans when it created the images for customers to see when shopping; they held up a mirror to Americans, in hopes that they would see people like themselves using their product…and buy it.

It is common for people to become unnerved when they see portrayals of themselves with which they are not comfortable. Some will feel uneasy about “race mixing”, even as the mixing proportions increase. Some will assume the worst motives are behind simple mistakes, while others see positives in the same situation. Some will disbelieve what are demonstrable, yet uncomfortable facts, about themselves.

The trouble, however, is not in the portrayals; it is in the underlying truths that cannot be easily dismissed. So, the questions is: when “Mirror, Mirror” on the wall asserts that a person or group is NOT the fairest of them all, will folks get a grip on the truth, or get mad at the mirror?

The Futility of Reparations, for Slavery or Anything Else

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Atlantic, chicago contract buyers league, Gen William T. Sheman, Lloyd's of London, radical republicans, reconstruction, slavery reparations, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Thaddeus Stevens, The Case for Reparations

Comments: 6 Comments

Published on: June 25, 2014

America’s first slavery reparations attempt proved unintended and unsuccessful.

Union General William T. Sherman issued Special Field Order #15 in January 1865, seizing about 400,000 acres of Southern coastal land and giving it, in 40-acre parcels, to newly freed slaves. No whites could live there, apart from assigned military personnel. A later order authorized loaning mules to black settlers.

Though Sherman’s orders likely created the “40 acres and a mule” idea that many consider the U.S. Government’s “promise” to former slaves, that was not Sherman’s primary intent. His March to the Sea created thousands of black refugees who followed his army; the orders ended Sherman’s responsibility for their support and protection. They also punished Confederate rice planters for their role in the war. But after President Lincoln’s assassination, President Johnson overturned Special Field Order #15, the land returned to its previous owners, and the reparations attempt failed.

Subsequent attempts during Reconstruction were more intentional, but not more successful.

Radical Republicans in Congress like Thaddeus Stevens worked to secure freedoms for former slaves granted under a newly ratified 13th Amendment, and drafted early 14th Amendment versions. Stevens pursued “40 acres and a mule” reparations, proposing to redistribute the land of Southern whites, owning 200 acres or more, to blacks. Stevens considered the South conquered territory and wanted to eradicate the foundations of Southern society through federal governance. However, Stevens’ preferences did not happen.

After U.S. Reconstruction, three 20th Century reparations attempts occurred:

The Treaty of Versailles

• The collapse of the Nazi Regime, which fully revealed the atrocities committed against Jews by Germany and other countries, and

• The internment of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

How did they fare? Briefly:

• Holocaust Reparations: 1) were not popular in Israel, called “blood money” by many; 2) compensated a government that did not exist when the atrocities occurred, instead of individuals who directly suffered; and 3) were paid only by West Germany, which was least like the Nazis (East Germany ignored reparations calls), and

• The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 did not compensating internees until 1990. The $20,000 given to survivors was worth $2,494.26 in 1942, when the average house in the U.S. cost $6,827; many other survivors received only 1/4 that amount. Internees lost not only 5 decades, but also 60% and more of the value of their confiscated goods.

Nevertheless, and at the start of every U.S. Congress since 1989, Rep. John Conyers, D-MI introduced legislation, House Resolution (H.R.) 40, with this formal title:

To acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 American colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of these forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes.

Saying he wants to “heal this nation”, Conyers vows to continue introducing this bill until it becomes law:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVPQ7IqpFsM[/youtube]
After a quarter century, apparently no one believes it will “heal” anything; H.R. 40 has never to come to a vote, even when Democrats held the majority in Congress. Perhaps they see the poor record of reparations and find there is no benefit in their consideration.

Nevertheless, reparations supporters have advocates other than John Conyers, and forums outside the U.S. What they do not have is more success:

Accra Declaration

World Gross Domestic Product in 1999 was $30.2 Trillion

• In 2004, descendants of American slaves sued Lloyd’s of London for insuring slave ships in the 1800’s. The lawsuit, and subsequent appeals, failed,

• Also in 2004, Rastafarians in Jamaica claimed Europeans should pay £72.5 Billion to resettle 500,000 of them to Africa. The British government and rejected the claim, denying accountability for wrongs committed in earlier centuries,

• In 2007, Guyana’s president called for European nations to pay reparations for slavery. They did not,

• In 2011, the Caribbean island state of Antigua and Barbuda took to the U.N. to demand reparations from former slave-owning countries. The demand remains unmet,

• and so on…

Adding to this litany of frustration and failure is Ta-Nehisi Coates’ recent essay in the Atlantic, The Case For Reparations, which states, in its subtitle: “…Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole”…and that is a problematic assertion.

Because morals and money are like apples and oranges, neither comparable nor fungible. Money neither creates nor corrects erase immorality, and money neither determines nor measures a person’s, or situation’s, morality.

Which, in part, explains: why reparations backfire (World War I); how poor a remedy they provide (Japanese internment); and the resistance to throwing money at troubling, even tragic, events which cross both time and international boundaries, especially when offending, as well as the injured, parties are dead.

Coates, instead of keeping morals and money separate, or recognizing the historic failures of reparations attempts, simply repeats the flawed proposition presented before: harm occurred, therefore someone must pay, even if all involved are dead. Still, Coates’ essay does something unique, if unintentional: without specifically addressing them, Coates demonstrates the failings of those he puts forth as victims. Further, he does so in a way that weakens his “case”. Consider the account of Chicago’s Contract Buyers League.

Coates’ describes an unscrupulous system of exploiting blacks, in 1950’s and 1960’s Chicago, through “buying” homes on contract, a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting—while offering the benefits of neither:

“In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full—and, unlike with a normal mortgage, [the buyer] would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his…down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.”

The FHA, which opted not to discourage racial discrimination in its housing policies, left blacks to the Chicago thieves who would rob multiple families with a single property, serially evicting them for failing to make inflated monthly payments on an overpriced house. No doubt those whites engaged in this scam were at fault; they set traps which they sprung, reset, and sprung again, to blacks’ detriment.

But there is something interesting in the words of the black buyers. From the essay:

“We were ashamed. We did not want anyone to know that we were that ignorant,” (Clyde) Ross (one of the blacks who “bought” a home on contract and would later join the Contract Buyers League) told me… “I’d come out of Mississippi where there was one mess, and come up here and got in another mess. So how dumb am I? I didn’t want anyone to know how dumb I was.

“When I found myself caught up in it, I said, ‘How? I just left this mess. I just left no laws. And no regard. And then I come here and get cheated wide open.’ I would probably want to do some harm to some people, you know, if I had been violent like some of us. I thought, ‘Man, I got caught up in this stuff. I can’t even take care of my kids.’ I didn’t have enough for my kids. You could fall through the cracks easy fighting these white people. And no law.”

Could Ross avoid the contract buy scheme? Not if he wanted a house. But did Ross have to “buy” a house? Had he not, his children might have fared better:

“The problem was the money,” Ross told me. “Without the money, you can’t move. You can’t educate your kids. You can’t give them the right kind of food. Can’t make the house look good. They think this neighborhood is where they supposed to be. It changes their outlook. My kids were going to the best schools in this neighborhood, and I couldn’t keep them in there.”

Had Ross walked away from his contract, he would have lost every dollar paid to the seller. But how much more did he lose by staying, and at what cost to his children, according to his own word? Many gave up their lives ending slavery and Jim Crow segregation that hurt them and the next generation of people they would never see or know; is it therefore unreasonable to think a father should give up a house that hurt him and his children?

Mattie Lewis and Ethel Weatherspoon, like Clyde Ross, became members of the Contract Buyers League. Coates spoke with them as well:

In 1958, [Mattie Lewis and her husband] bought a home in North Lawndale on contract. They were not blind to the unfairness. But Lewis, born in the teeth of Jim Crow, considered American piracy—black people keep on making it, white people keep on taking it—a fact of nature. “All I wanted was a house. And that was the only way I could get it. They weren’t giving black people loans at that time,” she said. “We thought, ‘This is the way it is. We going to do it till we die, and they ain’t never going to accept us. That’s just the way it is.’

“The only way you were going to buy a home was to do it the way they wanted,” she continued. “And I was determined to get me a house. If everybody else can have one, I want one too. I had worked for white people in the South. And I saw how these white people were living in the North and I thought, ‘One day I’m going to live just like them.’ I wanted cabinets and all these things these other people have.”

Coates quotes scripture at the beginning of his essay, Deuteronomy 15:12-15. However, heeding another scripture might have protected Lewis:

2 Corinthians 10:12 (ESV)

Measuring one’s success by comparing oneself to others, even one’s oppressors, is poor judgment. The essay continued:

Whenever [Lewis] visited white co-workers at their homes, she saw the difference. “I could see we were just getting ripped off,” she said. “I would see things and I would say, ‘I’d like to do this at my house.’ And they would say, ‘Do it,’ but I would think, ‘I can’t, because it costs us so much more.’ ”

I asked Lewis and Weatherspoon how they kept up on payments.

“You paid it and kept working,” Lewis said of the contract. “When that payment came up, you knew you had to pay it.”

“You cut down on the light bill. Cut down on your food bill,” Weatherspoon interjected.

“You cut down on things for your child, that was the main thing,” said Lewis. “My oldest wanted to be an artist and my other wanted to be a dancer and my other wanted to take music.”

When blacks strive to be like white people, not out of need, but simply to emulate whites…
When emulating whites makes them volunteer for scams…
When volunteering for scams means children’s aspirations get set aside…

That is beyond poor judgment; that is a moral failing, and not just that of a depraved oppressor, but also that of a willing victim.

In the end, fewer than 20% of Chicago’s Contract Buyers League members kept their homes, and their lawsuit failed. But slavery did not cause those losses; choosing to “get cheated wide open” did. Are reparations due for that?

Coates made the effort to tie all of the 20th century ills of blacks to the 17th through 19th century phenomenon of slavery, a common tactic of blacks and others who are, politically, left-of-center. However, this denies the fact that there has not been slavery in the US for 150 years; it denies that those who owned, and those who were, slaves are all dead; it denies that each generation makes its own decisions and its own way, like former slaves who formed a majority in South Carolina’s legislature during Reconstruction, or Madam C.J. Walker, the daughter of former slaves who became America’s first self-made female millionaire; it denies that compelling descendants to bear, and also monetize, the misdeeds of their ancestors is wrong (Ezekiel 18:20).

And it denies the lessons of history regarding reparations: they do not work. One could argue, at 40% of U.S. welfare recipients, blacks already receive reparations of a kind, as they have since the War on Poverty was declared a half century ago. How much of the trillions spent made it to blacks is hard to measure, but these things are not:

32% of black men, and 26% of black women

61% of blacks were married

• Black Illegitimacy stands above 70%, more than 3 times pre-War on Poverty levels,

• “From 1973 to 2012, abortion reduced the black population by 30%, and that doesn’t even factor in all the children that would have been born to those aborted a generation ago”, and, though less than 13% of the U.S. population, blacks account for 30% of U.S. abortions, as blacks accepted left-leaning political ideology, including that they should be paid for evils done (though not to them personally) in the past.

Neither have the effective reparations from the War on Poverty done much to correct poor economics for blacks: in 2012, the black poverty rate (36.7%) was about 70% higher than the national rate of 21.8%, and roughly double that of whites (18.5%). If giving blacks money to correct the sins of the past, which was clearly among the aims of LBJ’s Great Society, worked, then the current condition is hard to explain.

Unless one accepts the lessons of history, and human nature’ bent, which both say reparations do not work…neither can they. Giving people money they did not earn does not create success. Else, every public assistance recipient would remain above the poverty line, and every lottery winner would thrive.

Blacks seeking success, despite the ravages of history, might heed Booker T. Washington and, “Cast down your bucket where you are!” rather than seek another’s bucket. To all who “help” blacks by giving him a check for past injustices, Frederick Douglass’ words remain wise:

In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us…. I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! … Your interference is doing him positive injury.

In looking to settle “moral debts” from the past, history teaches that the time for reparations has not only not come, but that it will never arrive.

The “Buy-In” Is Worse Than The “Sell-Out”

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Clippers, donald sterling, Mark Cuban, naacp, nba, racism, sellout, sharpton, Stephen A. Smith, uncle tom

Comments: 6 Comments

Published on: May 24, 2014

The NBA’s Donald Sterling debacle made some blacks look bad and, as it drags on, is making others look even worse. Start with the young black men, millionaires only because they can play a game, turning their clothes inside out over what a white man said to his side chick during a conversation that was none of their business:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HRrSiO-10Q[/youtube]
It was not a good look.

Other NBA players, however, did a “buy in”, threatening to boycott playoff games unless Sterling received severe punishment, and willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. Hard to say how meaningful those consequences would be, given that their contracts are guaranteed. So, a bunch of black millionaires were willing to disrupt the incomes of others, while their money continued to flow.

If THAT is what a “principled stand” looks like, then that, also, was not a good look.

Then, of course, the race shakedown artists appeared, not even waiting for them to haul Donald Sterling’s corpse from his owner’s suite before making demands. Interestingly, among those demanding change from the NBA was a group who had taken Sterling’s money for many years, and publicly acknowledged the “racist owner’s” support of blacks.

Another case of bad optics.

Consequently:

B) NBA players (blacks) can threaten to disrupt owners’ (whites) income, while their salaries from the owners remain guaranteed?

C) Other, unaffected blacks should demand white owners reform their behavior, despite accepting money from misbehaving owners?

To the extent there is a “Yes” answer to those questions, then blacks cannot seem principled, fair, or without hypocrisy. However, many see those blacks who would answer “No” as “Oreos”, “Uncle Toms”, or “Sell-Outs”. Case in point: consider Mark Cuban’s recent comments:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72g3MpXb3UM[/youtube]

So interesting how many blacks heard Cuban say “black kid”…”hoodie”…”late at night”…”I’m walking to the other side of the street”…and missed his statements about bald and tattooed white guys, and prejudice in general. Cuban was honest and accurate; he was just not politically correct.

Stephen A. Smith’s initial reaction to Cuban’s comments was negative. Then he stopped accepting second-hand accounts, listened to Cuban’s words, and considered the comments not racist, but illustrative:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbbPImYHDA[/youtube]

Apparently, that was the wrong view for a black man to take, in the view of some. Even more apparent: Smith was not only unwilling to modify his view, he was more than willing to help his critics change their views:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3_81iiBU0[/youtube]

There is no middle ground between Smith’s sentiments, expressed while defending himself and in articulating his take on the “American Dream”, and those of blacks who see race the same way some see winning:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMgWOSrDb0[/youtube]

For those fixated on race, which includes an uncomfortably large percentage of blacks, this is clear: you are either someone who is a “Buy-In” to their ideology, or you are a “Sell-Out”. While “Sell-Out” is a harsh label, as Smith can attest, it is still less painful and demeaning than being among those who “Buy-In”.

And Smith did not “buy in”. Instead, he was a “sell out” to the notion that he could work himself out of poverty and mediocrity…and he is foolish enough to believe others can emulate his success…if they first emulate his effort. He was not a “buy in” to the idea that public assistance, tied to government-supported illegitimacy was a long-term solution for economic viability, as some apparently are:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWDhFc6nN1Q[/youtube]
Instead, Smith was a “sell out” to pursuing higher education and internships and building a career, which generally delivers a better standard of living than anything a government provides for “free”.

Consider that Smith describes himself as someone who grew up poor and was held back in the 4th grade. Had he been among those who “buy in” to the myth that prison planners use elementary school reading scores to predict inmate populations, then he should be behind plexiglass, not on the other side of an LED screen, and wearing an orange one-piece, instead of well-tailored suits. A fair question might be, “which is a better look for a black man?”

Consider Smith’s salient point about the music and sports stars whom many blacks see as achieving the American Dream: “…I don’t consider them the American Dream; I consider them to be a fantasy turned (to) reality…”

Simply put, everyone is NOT equal; some folks are special, and possess gifts and abilities others will never receive. That many blacks yet “buy in” to the notion that such have achieved the “American Dream” is both self-defeating and is a perversion of the term.

The American Dream is not unique because special people achieve it; it is unique because there is a special place, America, where anyone can achieve it. And there is no “buy in” to the American Dream; whoever would achieve it must “sell out”, abandoning everything that would hinder success, including the opinions of friends, confidants, and peers. Unfortunately, among black people, there are too many who “buy in”:

To the notion that today’s blacks suffer the after-effects of a slavery they have never experienced, and deserve “reparations” from those who did them no harm,

To the notion that blacks cannot be racist, even though the entire nation, it seems, disagrees, and

To the notion that the self-inflicted wounds of crime and ignorance can be bound up by politicians, or police, and not by those blacks who hurt and get hurt

to ever achieve the American Dream…

The sad thing is, while “buy in” blacks claim the victory of the Civil Rights Movement, only “sell out” blacks live that victory. For many “buy in” blacks, We Shall Overcome remains a song about the future; while for “sell out” blacks, it speaks of daily challenges conquered…and they have greater reverence for a different tune:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l49N8U3d0Bw[/youtube]

So, the “buy in” black looks ahead to what he hopes will be a brighter day, while the “sell out” black looks back on a wondrous and unfinished journey. It should be easy to determine which is a better look for black, or any, people.

The Numbers Make No Sense, But Things Are Better?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Money, ... 'bout Politics

Tags: 0.1% gdp growth, 1980 vs. 2008 economy, April 2014, blacks hurt by obama, consumer and public debt at record highs, corporate income high, employee share low, Empowerment Zones, labor force participation, minimum wage increase, obama, Obamacare, promise zones, Reagan, stock market high, unemployment, War on Poverty

Comments: 1 Comment

Published on: May 10, 2014

The economic indicators are a jumbled mess…and that may be on purpose.

The financial markets soar, but fewer stocks have rising prices. Corporate profits reach all-time highs, but employees receive their lowest share of it 1947…as they struggle to reduce consumer debt that hit a record high in 2012.

The employment picture is even more confusing.

The U.S. economy added 288,000 in April 2014, and the headline unemployment rate declined from 6.7% in March to 6.3%. Additionally, upward revisions for the two prior months mean 713,000 people found work from February through April. That seems positive, even hopeful…until one learns 806,000 people left the workforce in the month of April alone and that the exodus from the workforce, not the number of people finding work, accounts for the decrease in April’s unemployment rate. Interestingly, people leaving the workforce since 2009 account for all the unemployment rate decline during the Obama administration, and for dropping the labor force participation rate to a 35-year low.

Despite this, the press says the job market is improving, going so far as to say leading indicators signal the pace of U.S. economic growth is poised to snap back. How, or even when, that might occur when First Quarter GDP growth for this year was 0.1% – yep, ZERO-POINT-ONE…PERCENT – is mystifying. Equally mystifying is how the experts conclude weather caused the poor growth growth, but did not affect stock prices. More mystifying still is how the president concludes an economy, absent of growth, is improving.

So, stock markets are high, but not that many stocks are rising; businesses make more money, but employees see less of it, while consumer and public debt are at all time highs, here and abroad. Some find work, but even more give up looking; the economy does not grow, but we hear it is getting better. Yep, clear as mud.

The mixed messages don’t stop there. The president says of “income inequality”: “I believe this is the defining challenge of our time”: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRgU2B1pe0[/youtube]
Yet, his policy “prescriptions” may only exacerbate the disease:

CBO

Chairman of the Federal Reserve

The president wants Obamacare implementation “follow through”, though the CBO has determined it will cut work hours by the equivalent of 2,000,000 full-time jobs, and

Obama’s “Promise Zones” sound like Clinton’s “Empowerment Zones”, which made poorly validated claims of helping the poor, and like the “War on Poverty”, which has cost $15 Trillion (perhaps more) over the last half-century, with the Census Bureau reporting a higher poverty rate now than in 1966. (Reflect on that: We have spent the rough equivalent of the current national debt on a project that has missed its mark for the last 50 years. One can only wonder where the economy might be had that money remained in the private sector.)

It is hard to see how any “income inequality” challenge would be met by reducing the number of available work opportunities, or by doubling down on policies that have not worked for decades.

Today’s U.S. economy is a modern retelling of the Emperor’s New Clothes, complete with a media chorus that works to explain away the nakedness much of the public has already seen.

Simply put, things are not better for U.S. economy. The number of people in the workforce, as a percentage of the working population, has not been this low since 1979. Some may recall that the Jimmy Carter economy is what led to the Reagan Revolution in 1980, and that Ronald Reagan won re-election in 1984 by helping to put Americans back to work after the Carter years: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY[/youtube]

Unfortunately, though Americans considered jobs and the economy their top priority 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, the federal government maintained a different perspective. Instead of focusing, the president has instead “pivoted” to jobs and the economy so many times that he resembles a whirling dervish: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwn4dJcl08[/youtube]
The result from all that “spin” is 11.3 million people out of the workforce, against approximately 4.1 million jobs added since 2009. Add to that, a great number of the jobs gained are part-time, not full-time. Add to that, median income for U.S. households is down since the Great Recession ENDED.

For all the confusing and conflicting economic news, one thing is quite clear: America has failed to do, from 2008 through 2014, what she accomplished from 1980 to 1984, even though — with double-digit unemployment, inflation, and federal interest rates — the 1980’s began with a much more troubled economy.

What seems most odd is that all the bad information about the economy is even worse for blacks, who voted 95% for Obama in 2008, and 93% for Obama in 2012. Despite “depression level” unemployment, higher poverty rates than any ethnic group, and losing ground “in every single leading economic indicator category”, many blacks remain willing to defend Obama against (imagined) racial attacks on him (something the president encourages), but not willing to defend themselves against the economic attack of his policies on them.

A telling quote is this:

“Still, 61 percent regard the economy negatively, including a majority of all age and income levels, most independents and 80 percent of Republicans. Only among Democrats, people with a postgraduate education and blacks do a majority regard the economy as good.”

So you have to be either a Democrat, highly educated, or black to believe the economy is doing well, even though it is not doing well. That is a strange collection of people who simply do not believe that “fat meat is greasy”.

As long as such people ignore the essential facts to support an ideology, there will always be an ideological struggle. As long as the nation allows those who share such an ideological view to hold elective office, there will always be unnecessary economic struggles…and people purposely contorting data to make things seem better than they are.

And until the clear thinking among the American people either purge or abandon a government containing such ideologues, we may never see “Morning in America” again.

The Disturbing Donald Sterling Episode…

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: adam silver, collectivist thought, donald sterling, elgin baylor, individual liberty, Jesse Jackson, kareem abdul-jabbar, kevin johnson, magic johnson, naacp, nba, political correctness, privacy rights, racism, sharpton

Comments: 269 Comments

Published on: May 2, 2014

Showing himself a “strong leader”, and setting himself apart from his predecessor, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver acted: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w_AB_YJA08[/youtube]
The move is praised by pundits, [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niaeYK8ilRg[/youtube]
former players, [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H91ou_RAOC0[/youtube]
coaches, [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWSyRhrmTQM[/youtube]
and politicians, as well as other interested parties.[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaFC75vlE0s[/youtube]
Judging by the social media reaction, one might decide this the most positive occurrence in the United States in many years. However, the action against Sterling is more problematic than satisfying, particularly for those who value individual liberty.

First, there is the problem of acting against Donald Sterling at all. The NBA has known of Sterling’s racism for many years:

Then there are the lawsuits:

Commissioner Silver, while announcing the lifetime ban, acknowledged that he has known the Clippers’ owner for more than two decades. It is difficult to believe that the audiotape, which revealed sentiments agreeing with public rumor and public legal record, surprised Silver.

It is surprising, however, that the NBA ignored decades of Sterling’s inappropriate public actions, only to ban him now for private statements.

Silver was questioned about that during the news conference:

Jovian Wei of Fox News asked, “Should someone lose their team for remarks shared in private — is this a slippery slope?”

Silver responded, “Whether or not these remarks were initially shared in private, they are now public, and they represent his views.”

Which is, of course, chilling. First of all, privately-held racist, or any other, views are neither illegal, immoral, nor unethical; those characterizations are reserved for public behavior… which, again, in Sterling’s case, the NBA ignored.

Next, there is the matter of punishing people for what they think that is no one else’s business. Much is made about the statements coming to light, and that therefore it is appropriate to act upon them. However, that is an odd notion.

Private communication generally cannot be used to convict a person of a crime. If it cannot be used to take away a person’s liberty, then how should it be the basis to take someone’s property, especially when criminality is not even alleged? Should Sterling indeed go down, will the Orlando Magic owner, who donated private money to support traditional marriage, also lose his team, especially after the NBA gushed so publicly over Jason Collins?

The question is this: not whether private statements or actions might become public but, even if made public, whether a person’s noncriminal private deeds should be used to deprive them of benefits from properties and investments?

While the answer is, and should remain, “No”, the NBA now works to legitimize the authority of “thought police”, or political correctness, to punish people, materially, for “inappropriate” private beliefs, not inappropriate public actions, individual liberty consideration be damned.

Of course, Sterling’s history includes many appropriate actions, including: making millionaires of scores, if not hundreds, of young black men over the course of 33 years; hiring and keeping a black vice president of basketball operations for 22 years, despite a losing record and only one playoff series win during that span; donations to many charities, who are deciding what to do with the money.

And it includes longtime support of the Los Angeles Chapter of the NAACP. Shortly before Sterling paid a multimillion dollar settlement in the Justice Department’s housing discrimination suit against him in 2009, the Los Angeles NAACP presented Sterling with a lifetime award. They were scheduled to fete Sterling again, this month, before the Sterling audiotape surfaced. None of that matters now.

In another unsurprising move, the head of the Los Angeles NAACP, a man with a past as scurrilous as Sterling’s, has resigned…but the NAACP’s integrity, or lack thereof, is another matter entirely.

Sacramento Mayor and former NBA Player Kevin Johnson made a telling statement in his remarks:

“I believe that today stands as one of those great moments: where sports, once again, transcends, where sports provides a place for fundamental change on how our country should think and act.”

Of course, the NBA did not identify any inappropriate action, on Sterling’s part, against either the NBA or its players. So is Mr. Johnson looking to control thought? Through sports?

Magic Johnson said, of Sterling’s remarks, “…there is no place in our society for it…” and, of Sterling, “…he should stand up and say, I don’t want to own a team anymore…”

Hmmm…

So, a sports league should dictate to the nation: how it should think and act; what things do, or do not have a place in society; and who should be allowed to invest in what…based on how they feel about what others may think, which is none of their business?

If that does not subject individual liberty to collectivist thought, then it is difficult to say what does.

Not surprisingly, the race pimps have appeared. Jesse Jackson is already looking to coax cash from Hewlett-Packard, so he’s busy. However, Al Sharpton and the NAACP (you cannot make this stuff up) want to shake down the NBA regarding diversity…perhaps they will demand more white players?

One thing is certain: the push for “what we think” over “what is right” will continue, so long as you have thinking like this in the black community: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgKiMRpufoM[/youtube]

The Non-Case That Won’t Be Going Away…Anytime Soon

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: betrayal, bridgegate, Chris Christie, Christie 2012 RNC keynote speech, Christie Obama hug, Hillary Clinton, Hoboken mayor, New Jersey, obama, Port Authority, Romney

Comments: 5 Comments

Published on: February 6, 2014

Here’s the deal: This past August, a governor’s close aide e-mails one of the governor’s appointees, saying “traffic problems” should occur in a specific city. The appointee makes some calls and, on September 9th, voila, problems emerge. The city’s mayor contacts the governor’s administration to complain. The appointee e-mails the aide and another official, misleading them about what caused the problem.

An appointee of the neighboring state’s governor then orders the problem stopped. In the midst of this, the governor is re-elected by a wide margin. After joking about the incident, the governor says he knew nothing about its cause.

And then it all blows up for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie…

Since October, all manner of things continue to swirl about: subpoenas, hearings, impeachment threats. The appointee who made calls to cause the traffic problems resigned, and Christie fired the aide who sent the “traffic problems” e-mail. The appointee who resigned recently said Christie knew about the lane closures when they occurred…as though traffic could halt on the world’s busiest bridge and Christie – and a few million other people – would not know.

Add to that, Hoboken’s mayor accused Christie’s administration of bullying her over Hurricane Sandy relief funds, but her story doesn’t add up, and there is no corroboration. Now, concerns about her diary entries pertaining to a 2013 wrongful termination suit damage her credibility, including the fact she was accused of perjury in that case.

The DNC ran a Superbowl online ad about the re-inventing drama of the governor’s troubles, reading in part, “And it’s only the first quarter. It’s going to be a long game.” That could be true for Christie’s attackers as well: as Democrats and the press yell “Fire!”, it is not that easy to see even smoke in this “scandal”. As ABC News notes, “there has been no evidence linking him directly to the scandal.”

So why is the press spending so much time on what they admit is a non-story, especially when we have more Obamacare train wrecks occurring, “traitors” nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and a Texas Democrat struggling with the truth about her own life story?

Because none of those other items pose a threat to the presidential aspirations of one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A UK publication said it, straight out: Republicans can’t blame Clinton for Benghazi while absolving Christie of Bridgegate. How that statement could be made with a straight face goes a long way toward explaining the liberal mind, and not only in the US. Somehow:

It is unlikely that many reasonable people will see an interstate traffic jam as equal to an international terror attack, but the effort to show equivalence be made. If it is not, then how can a woman who lost to Barack Obama in 2008 prevail against anyone who would hang her involvement in his failing presidency around her neck, as Christie might?

Therefore, the strategy Obama employed against Mitt Romney in 2012 comes against Chris Christie in 2016…even though it is only 2014…and even though the party presidential primary elections remain 2 years away…and even though neither Christie nor Clinton have announced their candidacy for the nation’s highest elected office. The “Kill Romney” strategy irrelevancies and deceptions to distract people from the Obama record and focus them on an illusory version of his opponent’s history. The strategy was arguably effective, but the 2012 election was closer than many might think.

However, Democrats may believe the margin was narrow because they did not seek to “Kill Romney” soon enough. To correct that error, they seek Christie’s blood nearly two years before the presidential primaries, and are employing a full-court press. At the state level, New Jersey Assembly Deputy Speaker John Wisniewski, a Democrat has issued subpoenas and launched investigations. At the federal level, Obama’s HUD Inspector General is looking into whether Christie misused Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Interestingly, Republicans are tacitly on board for Christie’s demise, running their own investigation of Christie.

It’s not difficult to appreciate the Democrat motivation for attacking Christie; they seek the “Clinton Coronation” they failed to deliver in 2008. Six years ago, Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign: she knew the issues, had good messaging, the best political strategists, and made no mistakes. All things were ready for her to win…except the fact that Democrat voters, wanted someone else, and leading Democrats jumped off the Clinton bandwagon. Now, the party wants to make up for its “betrayal”.

The Republican motivation for killing Christie may not seem obvious until you remember the Obama praise and “bro hug”

Bro Hug

(which Christie says did not happen), which get credit for helping the president win re-election. Before that, there was Christie’s keynote address at the 2012 Republican National Convention address, which appeared to support his own presidential aspirations more than support the party’s nominee, Mitt Romney. At least in the eyes of the GOP establishment, Chris Christie simply is not as “part of the family”.

Consequently, the issue of betrayal will keep “bridge-gate” with us for some time to come. Republicans will use it to punish Christie for his betrayal in 2012; Democrats will use it to whitewash their betrayal of Hillary Clinton in 2008 and, in the Democrats’ calculus, no Christie means Hillary can’t lose.

So, the long knives are out for Christie on the Democrat side, and revenge-minded Republicans have a few stilettos of their own. The political class does not want a Chris Christie presidency: the Democrats want to apologize to Hillary Clinton for 2008 by nominating her in 2016, and the GOP…well, no one knows who they want…but it ain’t Chris Christie.

However, if Hillary Clinton couldn’t beat Barack Obama with a near-perfect campaign in 2008, who can she beat in 2016, when she has to answer for Obama’s policies?

And Now, Football Must Die…

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Money, ... 'bout Politics

Tags: AFL, American Football, APFA, Colin Cowherd, concussions threaten football, Ed Reed doesn't want his son to play, football builds character, football glory, football isolates players, football players isolated from communities, football politically incorrect, football under attack, how money changed football, NFL, Super Bowl I

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: January 29, 2014

American Football is quintessentially…American. Unlike soccer (what the rest of the world calls “football”), where participants can’t use their hands as part of the “beautiful game”, Football requires full-body participation in repeated outbursts of violent energy. Also unlike soccer, Football is a game of testosterone; women and young children can neither play it well, nor with the requisite emotion and camaraderie…

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XYN2xss88Y[/youtube]

American Football is men, combining their individual might, speed, guile, bludgeoning, and force of will with that of other men, as a committed unit to physically complete against another group of men. It is simultaneously the height of rugged individualism and the ultimate expression of team. Football models achieving the American Dream: personal sacrifice and perseverance, teamwork, a hero’s rise, the breakthrough moment, full commitment, win or lose, in pursuit of an unwilling objective. Football elevates some and humiliates others, yet remains egalitarian; it exposes every man’s weaknesses – and that man will either be made better, or be made to go away, by the revelation.

However, Football is losing its place in the country that invented it (After all, how long can you support a professional expression of hyper-masculinity in a culture concerned with a “war on women”?). This teacher of basic truths struggles in an American society increasingly comfortable with complex lies. Unless that changes, this politically incorrect game will die.

The National Football League (NFL) began as the American Professional Football Association (APFA) in 1920, with four Ohio teams, in a Canton automobile showroom. By 1927, after franchise fits and starts, the NFL trimmed 22 clubs to 12, cutting financial dead weight and shifting its center from the Midwest to the East Coast. A de facto ban on black players in 1933 was overcome after World War II. In 1946, the NFL headed West, with the Cleveland Rams relocating to Los Angeles.

In 1960, Texas oilmen, kept from NFL franchises, launched the American Football League (AFL), sparking a competition that led to Super Bowl I in 1967 and an explosion in player salaries. Along the way, Football replaced baseball as America’s favorite sport. The two leagues merged, in 1970, into the modern NFL.

Today, the NFL’s 32 teams span the country. A sport once ignored after the Midwestern Fall now rivets the nation’s attention year round. Yet Football is both under attack and in decline, with few realizing the situation, though the signs are visible.

Before the NFL, Football brought glory and built character, but no one played for any real money. Football was a vehicle to launch young men’s careers; it was not itself a valid career choice. The professional league did not immediately change even the best players’ minds on that. The 1935 Heisman Award winner was the first player chosen in the NFL’s 1936 inaugural draft. But Jay Berwanger never played in the NFL, opting instead for a manufacturing career.

And the young NFL was not immediately a big money career. In the NFL’s early decades, most players had jobs or businesses. Football players had to WORK, not just work out, during the off-season. However, that prepared them for life after Football, even as they played, integrating them, socially and economically, into their communities. But the big money, which began with the AFL-NFL competition for players, brought big changes.

Big salaries isolated Football, creating players who are much larger, and richer, than the people among whom they live, leaving them with little physically, economically, or socially in common with their communities.

The source of Football salaries created another form of isolation. Most people generate their incomes from their local economies. Football players…not so much. Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans’ economy, cutting off local jobs and incomes. Yet Saints’ players still got their checks, without interruption…because the NFL, not the cities, pays most of player salaries.

NFL teams generate about, $51 Million from annual ticket sales; NFL payrolls, in 2012, ranged from $91.9 Million to $118.3 Million. The league provides what teams cannot from TV and other revenue.

Another, and worse, form of isolation is of players from education. Before the NFL, Football was an education vehicle; players left the game in their twenties to compete in the fields of business, education, and politics. Even after the game went pro, early NFL players were likely to be college graduates. However, by 1989, only 1 in 3 NFL players had college degrees. By 2004, the number rose to 46%, however the damage was already done.

Large NFL contracts isolated players from college degrees, lessening their marketable skills once their playing careers ended. When an All-Pro defensive lineman admits he was functionally illiterate in college, yet was an upperclassmen; when the Number 1 pick in the 2006 NFL draft files for bankruptcy protection in 2014, that is not integrating men into society. That is destroying men within society.

Now, there is “chicken little” talk of concussions and players safety; some surmise it may end football, as parents, including NFL players, grow wary of seeing their sons play Football, though the science is not settled. And the NFL wants to head off the issue with a monetary settlement, which is stalled in court.

However, in truth, concussions and CTE will likely be the feather that knocks over a weakened sport. The real damage to Football began long before people showed concern for how many times a player “got his bell rung”.

When American Football went professional, it began turning from a game that integrated young men into society as educated, aggressive, and disciplined leaders, and into a sideshow of well-paid, large-bodied characters who are likely uneducated or undisciplined entertainers.

Without the NFL, this outburst:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPD_Lgq7IyI[/youtube]

is harmless exuberance from a 20-year-old kid. Instead, it is from a 25-year-old kid (big difference, right?), who makes a half million per year, and causes a national uproar. Seriously?

Without the NFL, this foolishness:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZNBN1GO_h4[/youtube]

is unconscionable, along with the support of the group that led to this idea in the first place.

If there were no “next level”, which paid folks to play, then a free education, and the connections that come with it, would be appreciated, rather than sniffed at. Football players as college employees? Do they wish to pay taxes on those scholarships and stipends?

Football no longer has giving men with uncommon drive a path to societal greatness as its primary function. Too often, it simply prepares a small minority (there are less than 2000 active NFL roster spots each year) to play a game for pay, extending their adolescence well into their 20’s and 30’s, and leaving them unmarketable and broke when done.

If Football provides nothing more than money, while crippling those who play it, then who could blame a reasonable society for turning away from such an enterprise.

It is time to return Football to what it did well, before a great game goes away.

So, How Much WORSE Can It Get…?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: 129 million can lose group health insurance, 16 million can lose private health insurance, administration knew website not ready, administration predicted cancellations, EHR problems, gop ahead generic ballot, medicare advantage patients losing doctors, obama apologizes for broken promise, obama blaming others for obamacare, obama promised to lower premiums, obama says he is not stupid enough, obamacare increases insurance premiums, obamacare trainwreck, obamacare unpopular, obamacare website not yet built, obamacare website problems, pre-existing condition insurance problems

Comments: 39 Comments

Published on: November 22, 2013

“I just see a huge train wreck coming down“

That is what Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) told Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in April 2013, about the Obamacare rollout, then less than six months away.

Baucus would later say, some two weeks before the rollout, that he longer expected a debacle and that his April statement was a wake-up call to the administration, “That was the whole point of it and we got their attention and worked to try to straighten things out.”

It will be a train wreck…It won’t be a train wreck…Senator, as the old folks say, “Always go with your first mind.”

Obamacare’s problems are now myriad, with more, different, and more devastating items than most imagined. In May 2013, Institute for Policy Innovation resident scholar Merrill Matthews saw not one, but four impending train wrecks for Obamacare:

So far, two of those wrecks have occurred; does anyone seriously consider a problem with EHR and with insuring those with pre-existing conditions unlikely? Everyone should have seen these problems coming; the Obama administration certainly did.

Candidate Obama repeatedly promised Americans that his health care reform would lower health insurance premiums for American families: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4[/youtube]

Obamacare in hand and seeking re-election, the promise of premium reductions became a story of reducing total health care costs.

Then, four months after the 2012 election, HHS Secretary Sebelius let the cat out of the bag: insurance premiums could rise and not fall at all. Recently, the Manhattan Institute predicted rates would double for young men and increase 62 percent for young women. By then, Obama had changed his tack to taking credit for the slowest rate of increase in 50 years.

So much for the exciting promises of dramatic decreases in premiums. Does anyone else see a problem with that one?

Then there is the HealthCare.gov website, which the administration promised to have ready on October 1, 2013: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRxNx1r6DGw[/youtube]

However, by that date, the website was neither fully built nor tested: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WzE3naHcq4[/youtube]

The president said he did not think himself “stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.” He then stated, “Clearly we, and I, did not have enough awareness about the problems with the website.”

Yet, multiple reports show that the administration, including the White House, was aware of website problems, months in advance. Is the president being truthful when he denies knowing anything was wrong, or does this fall into the category of his “Like it…Keep it” promise?

Regarding that, the president did apologize for the millions of health insurance cancellations, but did not call them unanticipated. That may be because the administration published, in June 2010, that 40% – 67% of individual health insurance policies would not have the promised “grandfather” status. We are to believe the president did not know what his administration predicted, not 90 days after Obamacare became law? No one told him? Really?

(Something is greatly amiss, as touching this man’s veracity, intelligence, competence, or any combination of the foregoing.)

Unfortunately, the carnage will not stop with the private health insurance market, estimated to eventually see some 16 million policies go away. That’s small potatoes; the next wave of cancellations will wash through the beaches of the employer-provided health insurance market and erode 68% of those policies, leaving 129 million Americans without the insurance they liked and hoped to keep.

If that was not enough, we now see people losing access to the doctors they trust, beginning in Connecticut, and beginning with Medicare Advantage patients, with UnitedHealthCare firing thousands of doctors.

As Vice President Joe Biden said: [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2yBRucRe7c[/youtube]

So big, in fact, that the administration is looking for other folks to take the fall. They are blaming insurance companies for the millions of cancellation forced by their regulations; they are blaming the GOP for not helping them fix a mess with which Republicans had nothing to do; and blaming the media for not telling Americans how good Obamacare is. CNN is even blaming Christians for Obamacare’s woes.

But CNN also blames Christians for homosexual teen suicides, for homosexuals getting beaten on the street…CNN blames Christians for a number of things, but CNN is not officially part of the administration, and I digress.

The administration, and its supporters, are in full bunker mentality mode. The troubles with Obamacare are hurting more than the president. After the government “shut down”, Democrats held a significant lead over Republicans in the generic Congressional ballot; a more recent poll saw the GOP in the lead. Expect that lead to grow as more people lose their health insurance because of a law for which only Democrats voted.

Much is made of Republican in-fighting and disarray. Even more is made of the Republican Congress being less popular than the president. But that static picture ignores some important facts.

One is that it does not matter what people think of Congress; it only matters what they think of their individual Congressman. Who cares if they hate John Boehner in California, when the people who determine if he stays in Congress live in Ohio. The second fact is Obamacare will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving problems to everyone who voted for it…which includes not a single Republican. Which means Democrats, and not Republicans, may have the worsening problem.

How much worse can it get? Well, if 129 million Americans lose their health coverage before November 2014, then Max Baucus’ Obamacare rollout concern will be midterm election prophecy, and Democrats may, after the pools close in 2014, call 2010 “the good ol’ days”.

Beware the Presidential Pledge…

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: benghazi, boston bombing, dream act, Gun Control, hurricane sandy, jobs pivot, navy shipyard shooting, obama empty words, obama incompetent, obama without teleprompter, obamacare fix, obamacare website problems, times square bombing

Comments: 4 Comments

Published on: November 14, 2013

Among the more interesting things about President Barack Obama is his ability to use words. He is able to electrify audiences during big moments: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto[/youtube]

Or “rally the troops” to big challenges: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noNGSy67_g[/youtube]

Or sound the right tone during difficult times: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LB2YSRjc1A[/youtube]

That those are scripted moments does not diminish the president’s effectiveness with words. However, his ineffectiveness, even incoherence, sans teleprompter, is painful to watch: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc[/youtube]

There is also discomfort when the president fails vary his script, whether with monotonous evaluations of “friendly” foreign countries: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erYpXzE9Pxs[/youtube]

Or regarding the largely ineffective focus on U.S. employment: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwn4dJcl08[/youtube]

Which serves as a lead-in to a larger discussion about Barack Obama’s words. That discussion is not whether his words carry any weight; every U.S. President’s words have weight, at least when he speaks them. The discussion is whether Obama’s words lead to anything meaningful after he speaks them, especially when he says something to the effect of, “we are going to do everything in our power…”

Consider the recent Navy Shipyard mass shooting in Virginia: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PY5GK7-HxQ[/youtube]

The president indicated “we will do everything in our power” to hold the shooter accountable. Of course, the Obama team did not need to do much, after the fact, since the shooter was among those who died. However, if Obama sincerely desired to limit/prevent mass shootings in the U.S., then why did Marines at the Navy Yard not have live ammunition in their weapons? In this case, the president’s policy, before the incident, had greater impact than anything he said once the shooting ended.

One could look to immigration, which was an important factor in the 2008 campaign and afterward. Candidate Obama made it clear that passing the “Dream Act” was something that could be done immediately and would be a “top priority”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GwNVo7siFA[/youtube]

However, despite large majorities in both Houses of Congress during his 1st two years as president, Obama not only accomplished nothing immediately on immigration legislation, he accomplished nothing at all, prompting this assessment, during his re-election campaign: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBVLiqU2gTg[/youtube]

Hmmm…

On another domestic front, the president clearly promised an all-out, expedited federal aid effort to the victims of Hurricane Sandy: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gTP4c8aTRY[/youtube]

However, a New Jersey woman whom Obama hugged, on camera, and promised to help: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wamAkUzYIKo[/youtube]

received no assistance, more than a month after the president’s pledge: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykNLy8cAbA#t=34[/youtube]

More than a year after the storm hit, the lack of money and urgency from the federal government extends the tragedy for those in New York and New Jersey.

Regarding a different tragedy, the president spoke after the Sandy Hook shooting which killed 20 elementary school children and implored Congress to pass gun control legislation, telling an assembled audience, “we have an obligation to try”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLOIR390zyE[/youtube]

While the president expected opposition from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, the Democrat-controlled Senate failed to support the measures. Though 4 GOP Senators voted in favor, 5 Democrat Senators stood in opposition, and gun control failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate by 8 votes.

Anyone beginning to see a pattern?

Those concerned about anti-American terrorism, domestic and foreign, certainly might. Following the failed 2010 Times Square Bombing attempt, the president reiterated his administration’s commitment to do “everything in our power” to protect the American people: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlTt7IekMZ4[/youtube]

The president credited federal and local law enforcement, and ordinary citizens, with foiling the attempt. Somehow, he did not credit the real cause of the bombing’s failure – Faisal Shahzad’s incompetence; he fashioned a device that ignited but did not explode.

He also said the government would look into Shahzad’s possible connections to terrorist organizations, then gave Miranda protection to Shahzad, so that he need not say a word. Was that consistent with “doing everything in our power” to protect Americans from terror? Or was it the reason the president would, later, pledge to “get to the bottom of” another domestic terror incident: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS4ya_01jig[/youtube]

Who can say that the ease with which America was attacked at home did not embolden terrorists abroad? Clearly, killing bin Laden did not deter Al-Qaeda in Benghazi. And once again, the president pledged action, saying “justice will be done”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDSHYlv5gSk[/youtube]

However, more than a year after those attacks, the U.S. government can neither find nor arrest a man who the international media interviews with regularity: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okx0-0PT7Zc[/youtube]

It appears the more this president says about a matter, the less likely what he says may actually occur. Which brings us to: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUpJDzyRnY[/youtube]

Well, there are at least 5 million Americans (and growing) who, looking at their individual health insurance cancellation notices, might take issue with the president. That, by the way, is in addition to roughly 4.5 million who lost employer-sponsored insurance within 18 months of Obamacare being signed into law.

An overpriced, under-performing website took the blame for the cancellations, which brought yet another pledge of (swift) action from the president: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMD_4F6sR88[/youtube]

However, one month after its opening day debacle, there was no fix in sight. Even after calling in high-tech heavyweights, the president’s Chief Technology Officer Todd Park was unwilling to commit to November 30th as the date the website would be ready.

This is more than a pattern; it is a mode of mode of operation.

Today, the president said, again, “we will do everything we can to fix this problem”: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwCugL0_PQ4[/youtube]

referring to the millions of canceled health insurance policies, but offered a fix that simply shifts the responsibility to state insurance commissioners and health insurance companies, leaving out the fact the administration’s implementing regulations made those cancellations predictable and necessary. The president did not indicate what, if any, changes might be made to those regulations.

Once again, the president has pledged to do something about a problem. Given his track record, it is difficult to believe anything meaningful will occur. It seems the best way to guarantee inaction from the federal government is to have this president pledge to take action.

Consequently, a true “fix” for Obamacare is unlikely, and those who have lost and will lose health insurance policies they liked have little more than a snowball’s chance of seeing that coverage again.

Religious Pedophiles: Bad…Education Pedophiles: ?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: catholic church, New york's rubber rooms, pedophile priests, pedophile teachers, pedophilia outrage, public schools, school pedophilia bigger problem than catholic pedophilia, sexual abuse in US schools, sexual abuse of children, teachers support pedophile colleague, unions support pedophiles

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: November 2, 2013

The Catholic church paid a heavy price for its pedophilia scandal. In the U.S. alone:

Eight dioceses declared bankruptcy

More than 700 priests and deacons left the ministry, either voluntarily or perforce. Even a U.S. bishop went down.

Of course, regard for the church eroded. As the priest-shuffling scandal reached its heights, the public did not hide its disdain:

and the Catholic Church was political cartoon fodder:

By the time Pope Benedict XVI resigned, 3/4 of U.S. Catholics surveyed were ready for him to go, his handling of the pedophile scandal being a major factor.

It was a sorry episode in which the blatant disregard for the welfare of more than 15,000 children outraged the public…

However, now the public can read of:

A California teacher feeding his bodily fluids to blindfolded elementary school children

A Michigan teacher in a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old boy

HIV-positive teacher in Georgia indicted for sex with a teenager

teacher who slept with four of her male students

Oklahoma teacher buying beer for students, then sexing one of them at her home

Female teachers makin’ it happen in Florida

Principals

assistants

So much more

Unfortunately, it does not end with a few select news accounts:

American Association of University Women report

6% to 10 % of public school children are victims of sexual abuse

9.6% of all students experienced some form of sexual abuse

Since annual U.S. public school K-12 enrollment is 50 million children (and growing), those small percentages produce staggering numbers.

Over a 13-year period, more than 650 million children pass through U.S. public schools. A 6% abuse rate produces more than 39 million victims; a 10% rate, more than 65 million. Divide those numbers by 13, and there are 3 million to 5 million child victims of sexual abuse, in U.S. public schools, every year…and the average U.S. school year is only 180 days.

It took the U.S. Catholic Church more than 50 years to violate some 15,000 children; abusing, on average, less than one child per day. If that is reprehensible (and it is), then what is the proper adjective to describe U.S. public schools’ sexual abuse of, on average, 17,000 and 28,000 children, every school day?

To say the Catholic Church was slow to respond to its pedophilia problem would be, well, understatement; but it did respond. Despite missteps, there have been apologies, even recently, with the last pope doing so publicly in 2010:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPLthTU-bEg[/youtube]

By comparison, there seems little by way of contrition or apology from U.S. public schools. It seems absent from teachers:

wrote letters to the judge

…absent from school districts:

$40,000 back pay settlement from the Los Angeles Unified School District

“The State’s current teacher dismissal framework makes it extremely difficult to terminate unfit teachers like Berndt, thus requiring the District to find other viable options to ensure the safety of our students”

…absent from teachers unions:

New York City spends $22 Million

Roland Pierre

kill legislation to remove child molesters from classrooms

National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) oppose a bill to keep criminals, including sex offenders, out of schools

One could argue it is also absent from the country’s parents and guardians as well; there is a reason images like this one are popular on social media:

However, at least as interesting as the relative lack of concern from schools regarding their behavior is the relative lack of rage from the public. Outrage over Catholic pedophilia was strong, leading to priests being killed in Poland, in Massachusetts, and a Canadian priest, convicted of pedophilia, committing suicide. However, aside from the community reaction to Michigan teachers who supported their convicted pedophile colleague, there appears to be little national outrage at what schools are doing to the nation’s children.

If the wave of Catholic priest pedophilia victims made people’s head spin, then the tsunami of US public school pedophilia victims should make those same heads explode. However, apparently, it does not. In fact, at least one leading intellectual, Richard Dawkins, does not consider it a big deal, though he himself was abused. One can only wonder whether his experience influenced his outspoken atheistic stance.

When one teenager, recently, died under tragic circumstances, the nation mustered this reaction:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYigIN-XG_M[/youtube]

So, when will the streets fill for the more than 17,000 children and teenagers who are sexually abused every day that a school bell rings?

And if, the nation will not take to the streets, might it at least withdraw the taxes that support, and protect, such blatant and defiant pedophilia, at least until U.S. public schools do as much about their pedophile problem as the Catholics did about theirs? Unless the message is, as Richard Dawkins implied, pedophilia is not a concern, as long as God is kept out of it.

«page 3 of 7»

ARTICLE ARCHIVES