If Rush Limbaugh can be black balled because his political views are not in line with politically correct orthodoxy no one is safe. If Rush Limbaugh can be thwarted economically because he’s maligned by racist words he doesn’t believe and he never uttered, no one’s economic dreams are safe–anyone can say that a person said anything and if that person believes something unpopular to the ruling class, they’re done.
Here is the hierarchy of economic safety in a politically correct charged world:
Least safe: White, middle aged, alpha-male, person of color who votes Republican, female who votes Republican
Less safe: Anybody who is white
Moderately safe: Anybody who is white and voted for Barack Obama
More safe: Anyone who is of color and voted for Barack Obama
Safer still: Anyone who is female and of color
Safest of all: Black, lesbian Obama voter (If she voted for Hillary in the primaries, she’s suspect.)
We are no longer a merit-based economy, we are a skin color and political ideology-based economy. We are exactly what Dr. Martin Luther King didn’t want: a place where people are judged not by their accomplishments, not by the content of their character, but by their color and political perspective.
And why is conservative put in brackets in the headline? Because white guys are suspect until they’re clear about their voting record. Once a white man admits that he made the “right” decision and voted for Barack Obama, people can relax…but only a little. White people are racists. They can’t help it. You just never know about white people, so it’s best to not get too comfortable.
For an alternative view, Sean Hackbarth.
…turns out that the Gates Affair is really a legal problem regarding (give you two guesses and the first two don’t count) taxes. The intrepid Dan Riehl reports the mischief.
Who says Bloggers aren’t reporters? More likely, bloggers report what reporters refuse to report.
President Obama made a very big mistake. Wow. From Backyard Conservative:
Also, it’s helpful to go into an interaction with a police officer acting superior and haughty.
Who would teach their kids such lessons? When my parents gave that talk in the context of a legal deposition my dad had to give, they said, “Answer the questions they ask. Nothing more. Do not make excuses. Be respectful. Keep a good attitude.” Because, well, police officers have the gun and the power to make a person’s life absolutely hell. But more than that, they hold an office of authority and one should respect the office.
Enter the Gates Affair.
A privileged black man breaks into his home, a neighbor calls out of concern for her neighbor, the police respond, the ID given after inside the home is not a driver’s license, the black man is belligerent and the police arrest him. The police, all of them, say the man is acting strangely. They write their report. The charges get dropped and the man shouts “racism!”
Donna Brazille and Juan Williams, both black, share that their parents teach them to be extra careful with police because black people can get into trouble. Well, it’s the same sort of trouble a white person can get into if the right attitude is not taken, or, you know, a white person is committing a crime. It’s kinda universal advice, or should be, don’t you think? Be respectful to those in authority. Sometimes its better to be more than respectful. Sometimes it’s good to be obsequious.
Word of the day: obsequious.
Go look it up. No one likes to be obsequious, but it’s a better road to go down with dealing with someone who can give you a hard time. But no. When you’re a Harvard snob, the little people should be obsequious with you. You’re special. You’re a well-known Harvard professor! How dare you! I can almost hear the British accent, “Unhand me young man!”
Meanwhile, the narrative gets shifted to all the black men in prison. Is the Harvard Professor Gates the symbol for racial profiling as he suggests? Or is Professor Gates a beneficiary of privilege and offended that it didn’t extend to this situation?
Did Professor Gates find his post at Harvard despite his gross lack of understanding of proper respect for authority? Was he intellectually stimulated but unwise in the ways of respectful interaction with authority? Can we assume that he had not been taught by his parents the proper way to interact when caught in a compromising situation by police officers?
Parents teach their children by word and deed to respect authority. If the young man, black or white, has been taught respect, he is unlikely to do disrespectful things like cheat, steal, lie, murder, do drugs, sell drugs, rape, assault, break into homes, etc.. Those behaviors are profoundly disrespectful. If the young man of any color does something stupid, say drag racing or getting drunk and disorderly with buddies or even accidental, such as breaking into ones own home, and the police enter the situation, the young man does not further endanger his plight by being disrespectful. He knows he’s caught, he cooperates. The young man does not make his bad situation worse by being rude and defiant to the police officers. He does not claim privilege.
The problem with Professor Gates is that he knows better. Or if he doesn’t, he wasn’t brought up well. It’s not about race. It’s about respect. He is not some victim of society’s racism and unfairness. It is not like he’s unaware of the rules of polite [police] society because he’s been untaught or uniformed. More than that, I’ll bet he brooks no disrespect when he’s in front of his classroom with his students. And I’ll bet they are properly obsequious lest they leave the class with a less than desired grade.
Now, there are bad cops. There are racist cops. There are even bad, racist professors. Still, a parent does not train the child for the exception, he trains the child for the principle: respect authority. It is not good for the child to doubt and wonder and be suspicious of every person who is meant to look out for his welfare. So parents teach general respect. On the rare occasions where someone is rogue, well that’s another situation entirely.
Are we to believe that Professor Gates didn’t know the rules of decorum when a police man entered the situation? Are observers supposed to excuse his disrespectful rantings at a guy who was just doing his job? I’m guessing that Professor Gates knew that authority was to be respected, he just figured that he should be the most important authority in that situation. He was wrong.
More from Just One Minute: Why no one wants to release the tapes.
Ann Althouse asks if Gates is an utter fool.
Mark Steyn talks of roses and race.
Lynn Sweet’s question about the Henry Gate’s arrest (white officers arrested a black Harvard scholar breaking into his own home) at the press conference seemed coordinated and purposeful and at first glance, strange. The press conference was regarding nationalized health care, why would a reporter talk about the Henry Gate’s arrest? As Yuri says over at the National Review, normally, a president would say:
It’s the kind of question to which a president would normally reply with something like: “That’s a local police matter, I don’t know the details and I know it will be worked out responsibly,” and move along. Obama gave a lengthy review of the facts, called the police officers involved stupid, and implied they are also liars. Very odd behavior for a president.
My take was that President Obama wanted to talk about race in a grand way. He wanted to remind the country that his presidency was historic and historic changes (i.e. health care legislation that is a human right like racial equality is a human right) needed to happen for a historic time. While I believe the president choosing to talk about this was an error in judgment, I certainly don’t believe the topic was accidental or a simple “gaffe”.
The Politico’s Ben Smith sees a pattern but I think he missed the big idea that Obama was trying to convey:
His dryness was all the more striking by contrast with the press conference’s conclusion, when he suddenly re-engaged with a question that he’s spent much of his life mulling — race, in the form of the arrest of a black Harvard professor.
The appearance was striking by its absence of a move that’s long characterized Obama’s political career: When in trouble, go big. Faced with a crisis of confidence or with a political furor, he’s repeatedly shown an ability to rise above the storm and to broaden the playing field, as when he turned a flap over his pastor into a meditation on race in America.
Now, facing his hardest test as president, Obama chose to go small.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25320.html#ixzz0M5sZOcek
President Obama intended for this last question to be big and general and capture a huge theme. I’m quite sure the president wanted to start a discussion of race. I’m quite sure President Obama is furious about what he perceives as systemic injustice–both with regards to race and to health care.
Americans are not fully realized. Fully realized and civilized people recognize that socialized health care is a right, just as fully realized and civilized people recognize that all people are equal regardless of skin color. He’s making the juxtaposition but it was an oblique one because most people don’t view health care as a birth right. They view it as a benefit. They view health care as a pain to deal with that needs to be fixed–not some grand human rights issue.
President Obama also took the opportunity to focus on race specifically before knowing the facts. Clearly, he was affronted by what he perceived was a wrong that happened to his friend. Evidently, he hadn’t read the police report now scrubbed from the Boston Globe. It seemed a strange diversion at the end of a health care conversation to be talking about race, but for another professor, it was a teaching moment.
When all the facts are revealed, the event could well be a racially-motivated. Moe Lane comments:
But the encounter is anything but over. Some of Gates’s outraged colleagues said the run-in proves that even in a liberal enclave like Harvard Square, even with someone of Gates’s accomplishments, a black man is a suspect before he is a resident.
Bolding mine, and there to highlight my sardonic observation: what do you mean, “even?” Not to be rude about it, but there ain’t no racist like a Bostonian racist*. Which is not necessarily a knock on the cop; it’s a knock on the neighbor who called the cops on Prof. Gates in the first place.
Does racism exist? Yes. Does elitism exist? Yes. (As in, “Do you know who I AM?!”)
But that all didn’t seem to be the point of President Obama’s answer. It was a broader answer,”We have lots of work to do.” That is, America is still rather a stupid place that needs to be made better by smart people. And when the smart people are listened to, racism will magically go away and health care will be perceived as a civil right and America will finally be a place to believe in.
The unintended consequence of the President’s answer to the question was that he framed himself as the black man who is President rather than the President who happens to be black, talking about health care. He started the press conference saying, “this isn’t about me” and in the end, made it all about him. And worse, made it, again, about how America is a bad place for men like him.
Is there a more pathetic creature than a liberal white male bathed in the identity-politics undermining his own credibility by damning white males? Exhibit “A”: Craig Crawford. It makes sense for Maureen Dowd to hide behind her persecuted vagina, but why would a man do the same thing?
Why would one middle-aged white man deride other white men for having the temerity to ask Sonia Sotomayor a tough question? Oh, right. It’s not that the old white male asked the question, it’s how he asked the question. Because, you know, older white men shouldn’t get uppity. It’s not their place to question a Wise Latina. Really, no one should. She deserves a position on the Supreme Court because she has a vagina, tawny skin, a compelling life story and most importantly of all, she’s a liberal.
It’s clear that the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor has nothing to do with her ability and everything to do with her ethnicity, gender, and leftist credibility.
Matt Lewis also has an interesting take on identity politics. Tread carefully Dems, lest you be hung by your own rope.
Yes, young, black Republicans exist. I think of a scripture, and I’m going to paraphrase it here, “The fields are black with harvest, if only there were enough workers.” The Black and Hispanic communities are naturally conservative. Voters, enough to swing elections, are waiting to hear and be convinced of the conservative message.
That the majority vote Democrat shows the power of homeostasis. Once a body finds a comfort zone whether individually or as a group, change is challenging.
Ironically, Barack Obama’s success in capturing the presidency changed the energy around Blacks in positions of political power. A Black activist group here in Houston, the Raging Elephants, is calling for the “second emancipation“. It is time.
Here is a video you absolutely must watch. Republicans and conservatives need to stop writing off the African American community. The conservative movement needs to cultivate relationships and build on the conservative values of the Black and Hispanic communities. Moreover, as much the Republican party needs new voters, disenfranchised conservative minorities need the strength and power of the conservative message.
If America is going to remain strong, vibrant and growing, a socially liberal, socialistic philosophy needs to be confounded by the truth. That truth is that liberty doesn’t come from government, it comes from God. The truth is that the government cannot guarantee happiness, it can only leave us free and safe to pursue it. Generations of an ever-intrusive government have not made a happier, more secure populace. Just the opposite has occurred. These messages will ring true to minority populations, some of whom have lived under the harsh master of a supposedly “caring” government. These messages will ring true to hard working minority populations who have succeeded by their own hand with no help from the government.
Anyway, here’s the video. Watch the whole thing!
The future is now. It’s time to reach out and bring back these minorities communities to their natural home.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
I watched this video yesterday and got sick to my stomach. You can watch the whole thing, too, to get an idea of what is being taught at say, Harvard University. Professor Lani Guinier, at the State of the Black Union jams so many false premises and wrong-headed thinking in 10 minutes that it’s impressive. Here are a couple highlights:
“We need to redefine merit. Within each ethnic group talent is equally distributed among all people. All people have merit.”
“Diversity in problem solving groups trumps individual ability.”
Professor Guinier recommends that rather than hiring smart people, employers should look at hiring people who are dumb but answered the questions the smart people got wrong.
Since some people can’t “make the grade” the solution, then, is to make grades have no meaning. Since some people are stupid, then the goal is to find the few times they are actually smart and endure them the rest of the time–because every once in a while, they might have a novel solution.
This ten minute video encapsulates liberal philosophy. While the Professor talks about the importance of critical thinking skills, she displays an astonishing lack of them herself. Ken Blackwell says:
Guinier goes on to insult hard working students and diminish their academic success in explaining her rationale, saying, “the reason that I’m calling it racism is because it is a state of mind that is indifferent to the fact that these tests, whatever you think about them, are having a disparate impact on different populations and violating that first principal that talent is equally distributed among all groups.”
The audacity in this assertion is exceeded only in its staggering absurdity. Different people perform differently on standardized tests because people are, well, different. I may score high on tests involving history or language, but fear my expertise in higher mathematics is woefully lacking. The same holds true for those in vocational fields. An aptitude for auto mechanics doesn’t automatically translate into great skill in dental hygiene, welding, or any other trade. The facts are simple; talent is not, never has been and never will be “equally distributed among all groups,” as Guinier preposterously claims.
I had to laugh at one point. Professor Guinier disparages Barack Obama’s A+’s (assuming he got any, but whatever) saying that a person’s grades don’t guarantee how he’s going to lawyer. Well, that’s true, indeed.
What Professor Guinier aims to do is to remove all forms of defining achievement so that everyone is an achiever. She’s like Syndrome from the movie The Incredibles:
“Oh, I’m real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I’ll give them heroics. I’ll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I’m old and I’ve had my fun, I’ll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone’s super–
[chuckles evilly] –no one will be.”
Success in America will be when everyone is defined as successful…then no one will be successful.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
The Obama presidency thus far has been anything but post-racial. Rather, Americans have been reminded by Obama’s representatives that anyone feeling “over” the subject lacks courage. At the Huffington Post, Rinku Sin posits that Americans prove Eric Holder’s point when the deny that America is racist:
Smartly, Holder noted that our goal should not be to move beyond our racial past, and for the press to turn a blind eye to racial realities is the wrong way to go. He focused instead on raising the question of whether the nation’s attitude toward its diversity will give us strength or take us down. I especially loved his note about how we manage to get along in the workplaces, but as soon as we can, we retreat to our racial corners on the weekends. That’s because the diverse people of this country hold unequal power, which often dictates where and how we live.
I’m not sure I accept this premise. But let’s examine what she says anyway. About 12% of the population is black. The vast majority of Americans are white. I would say that it would take effort for black people to “retreat to [their] racial corners”. Every corner in America is white, number-wise except where minority people decide to gather in that corner. Why aren’t blacks living in every corner?
If a black were to live in every corner, there is a great likelihood that he would be living in a white community. And this is, in fact, happening more and more.
Also, as intermarriage and the adoption of minority children increases, it belies the fact that people are going to their corners. Well, they might be going to their corners, alright, but they end up married and with kids:
In 1960 there were about 150,000 interracial married couples(1) in the United States. This number grew rapidly to more than 1.0 million in 1998. In 2000, they numbered 1.46 million.
Integration happens more and more and will continue to increase. Still, there are natural divides in America along cultural and ethnic lines because we are, and continue to be, a nation of immigrants. It is not racist to live in a neighborhood where Italian is still the main language because the neighborhood was built around Italian immigrants.
Every major city has a Chinatown, Vietnamese area, …name the minority, there’s a neighborhood. Are all these people racist? Do they lack courage?
No doubt, some Americans are racist. Some people lack courage to encounter people outside of their comfort-zone. That’s to their own loss, then. It’s a free country. People are free to deprive themselves of the culture around them.
To say that America is racist is to impugn the integrity of people who have been over racism for years. At The American Thinker, Larrey Anderson writes:
In short, I am a racist because I am not a liberal. I am a racist because I do not agree with Eric Holder’s politics. Not only am I a racist, Mr. Holder informs me, I am also a coward because I don’t want to talk about being a racist.
Mr. Holder wants me to pony up, be a man, and finally face my cowardice — and the inner hatred I may have of human beings that have a skin color different from mine.
Mr. Anderson continues:
My son is married to a very good-looking young white woman. They have two (soon to be three) beautiful sons.[ii] Maybe my daughter-in-law carries the brunt of the racism. I called her the other day, told her I was writing this article, and asked her how bad the racism surrounding her marriage was. What was it like to walk into a store with a black husband and two little mixed race sons. Was she ever threatened? Was she ever afraid?
She just laughed at the questions. (She tends to laugh at me — must be a daughter-in-law thing.)
“Never,” she replied in one word.
“Never what?” I asked.
“Racism. Never. Not once … well, my ninty-year-old great grandmother didn’t like the idea of me dating a ‘colored man.’ I remember she really hurt my feelings. But, other than that, I can’t think of anything. It just doesn’t happen. People love my husband. They respect our family. We just don’t have those problems. I don’t think people have those problems.”
She then told me about some of the mixed race marriages of some of her friends. None of them have problems either. When these couples get together, they don’t even talk about racism — because there isn’t any.
Sorry, Mr. Holder, it isn’t cowardice that keeps Americans from discussing racism — it is the fact that there is nothing to talk about. The racist America that you are talking about started to disappear at least thirty years ago.
I have black friends, intermarried friends, and all sorts of friends. Like Mr. Anderson, I don’t find this to be anything that makes me special. I’m mundane. I’m a white American with all sorts of friends. Big. Deal. That’s America now.
Maybe that’s not Eric Holder’s America, but the problem isn’t Mr. Holder’s skin color, it’s the color of the filter he sees the world through. Seeing racism and prejudice suits his political agenda and so, he sees it. He doesn’t seek to unite America or get past race. He seeks to cause discontent and and division, because divided and bitter, Americans lose but race-baiting politicians win.
America is not a racist country. But there are still racists. Far from being post-racial, Mr. Holder and President Obama’s administration seems to be race-centric. To find the closest racist, Mr. Holder need only to look in the mirror.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews