The Redhunter

July 27, 2010

Shirley Sherrod Affair Summarized

Tony Blankley sums up the Shirley Sherrod Affair. Sherrod was wronged, but she's no saint:

BLANKLEY: Racial McCarthyism comes a cropper
The week in review is one to regret
The Washington Times
By Tony Blankley

Last week was a surprisingly good moment for American politics. It was the week that, through a confluence of bizarre and unlikely events, the vicious act of falsely accusing people of racism became a laughingstock. It went from being a career killer to a punch line; from villainy to vaudeville; from knife in the back to pie in the face.

It starts about noon Monday, June 19, when Andrew Breitbart publishes on his website an edited video of Shirley Sherrod (giving a speech to an NAACP audience this spring) that he recounts, in part, thusly: "Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn't do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from 'one of his own kind.'

"She refers him to a white lawyer. Sherrod's racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement."

The week before, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, without evidence, had attacked the Tea Parties for alleged racism in their rank and file. This is part of a running smear now about a year old, by prominent Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and legions of Democratic Party support groups that the Tea Party (now identified with by about a third of the country) is racist, Nazi, un-American, etc.

Mr. Breitbart strikes back, with evidence (in the form of the video of the audience reaction to the moment in the Sherrod speech before she talks of racial reconciliation) demonstrating anti-white racism in a NAACP audience. The story of the week is thus launched.

Notice, by the way, that he alerts the viewer, "Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help." It's in the video, and it is in the text of Mr. Breitbart's original post on the topic. Yet the mainstream media selectively edits out this exonerating fact in virtually every story about Mr. Breitbart. So the subsequent charge against Mr. Breitbart by the mainstream media that his editing was misleading is itself misleading and wrong.

In a seemingly unrelated story just after midnight Tuesday morning, July 20, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller reports on leaked e-mails from the liberal media cabal Journolist in which, when the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright first emerged during the 2008 presidential campaign, one of the participating liberal journalists, Spencer Ackerman, proposed defending Barack Obama by using a racial smear tactic:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them - Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes them sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction."

At last we have the smoking gun that proves to the American public that at least some liberal reporters are quite prepared to make false charges of racism to advance their liberal political agenda - and to conspire with other like-minded character-assassin journalists in doing so.

So far, there are just two website stories. But then, the White House panics and turns a couple of - until then - minor Web stories into one of the worst political weeks for any White House since Richard Nixon's many sad examples of terrible political weeks in 1974.

According to Mrs. Sherrod, she is forced to resign her post at the Department of Agriculture immediately under pressure from the White House, which was afraid that Glenn Beck was about to report the story of her NAACP speech. (In the Obama version of Franklin D. Roosevelt's immortal words, "The only thing we have to fear is the Glenn Beck Show itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.")

The compliant NAACP then itself apologizes. The next day, more of Mrs. Sherrod's speech becomes available, in which she describes how she overcame that first instinct of racial bigotry three decades ago and helped out the white farmer. The white farmer's wife then goes on CNN and says what a nice and helpful lady Mrs. Sherrod is.

The White House panics again and instructs the secretary of agriculture to apologize and offer Mrs. Sherrod's job back to her. The NAACP withdraws its apology and says it was "snookered" by Mr. Breitbart (even though the speech was given at an NAACP event with a roomful of its own members available to set the record straight).

Then some more of Mrs. Sherrod's speech - after the reconciliation-of-the-races section - is made available and includes the following sentences: "I haven't seen such a mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. [Murmurs of agreement.] Some of the racism we thought was buried - [someone in the audience says, "It surfaced!"]. Didn't it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn't do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black president. [Applause]" (text courtesy of National Review).

In other words, she is accusing up to 70 million Americans (registered Republican voters) of opposing Obamacare because the president is black - rather than because we disagree with the policy, as we did with Hillarycare in 1994. That is a broad-brush, bigoted attitude by Mrs. Sherrod against all of us who opposed the president's health care policy. She implicitly accuses all 70 million of us of being racist.

Then Mrs. Sherrod goes on CNN with Anderson Cooper and says she thinks Andrew Breitbart wants America to return to slavery for the blacks. And that is the last presentation of Mrs. Sherrod live and unedited that mainstream television seems to want to make. After dominating the news for the week, the eloquent Mrs. Sherrod is not invited to a single Sunday show.

Unfortunately, playing the race card is typical in American politics. In different seasons, it has been played by both political parties. It is always ugly. But it is the rank cynicism of the maneuver that was revealed to all last week. Significantly, it may be the black community (along with well-meaning white liberals) who will be most shocked at how indifferent the Democratic Party is to the due-process rights of a black employee when the race card is wild and party interests are on the line.

Here's the video of her with Anderson Cooper. Start watching 1:55 into the segment

Posted by Tom at 7:22 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 7, 2010

John Lewis, McCarthyite

Post updated at bottom

This story has been making the rounds on leftist blogs

Sat Mar 20 WASHINGTON -- Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted "nigger" Saturday at U.S. Rep. John Lewis , a Georgia congressman and civil rights icon who was nearly beaten to death during an Alabama march in the 1960s.

The protesters also shouted obscenities at other members of the Congressional Black Caucus , lawmakers said.

"They were shouting, sort of harassing," Lewis said. "But, it's okay, I've faced this before. It reminded me of the 60s. It was a lot of downright hate and anger and people being downright mean."

Lewis said he was leaving the Cannon office building across from the Capitol when protesters shouted "Kill the bill, kill the bill," Lewis said.

"I said 'I'm for the bill, I support the bill, I'm voting for the bill'," Lewis said.

A colleague who was accompanying Lewis said people in the crowd responded by saying "Kill the bill, then the n-word."

"It surprised me that people are so mean and we can't engage in a civil dialogue and debate," Lewis said.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver , D- Mo. , said he was a few yards behind Lewis and distinctly heard "nigger."

Wow. Sounds pretty serious.

Never mind for the moment that Andrew Breitbart has offered to send a $10,000 check to the United Negro College Fund if Rep Lewis can prove, by either taking a lie detector test or providing audio/video proof that the N word was hurled at him, and that the check remains unwritten. No, forget for the moment that there is absolutely no proof that the incident occurred as Lewis said it did.

Read what Hans A. von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission and now with Heritage, says about his experience with John Lewis:

In discussing the supposed hate crime that Reps. Andre Carson, Emanuel Cleaver, and John Lewis imagined for the benefit of the press corp when they marched to the Capitol to approve Obamacare, Mark Steyn sounds surprised that Rep. John Lewis would engage in such behavior. But he should not be.

The so-called "icons" of the civil rights movement who have gone into politics have proven on many an occasion that they are willing to slime their opponents with false claims of racism for political gain, including John Lewis. When I was nominated to the FEC, Lewis claimed I had "downright contempt" for the law and the "voting rights of Americans" and that I wanted to suppress the votes of black Americans. My crime? Supporting state laws that require voter identification at the polls, a requirement that the Supreme Court has found to be perfectly constitutional. In fact, I had committed the unspeakable act of publishing a law review article on the subject! (I kid you not). Yet because I held a view of the law that the Supreme Court agreed with, Lewis basically accused me of being a racist, someone in the same class as the hateful segregationists he fought against half a century ago. My experience with him and civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights is that they are willing to say or do anything, no matter how false or malicious, against anyone they perceive as their political opponents.

Well then. If Lewis will accuse someone of being a racist over this, he's at one with Joe McCarthy himself.

Ever since I could first vote I've had to show identification when I voted. It's seemed like a commonsense way to avoid fraud. Yes yes, in the past we had the poll tax, and I'm sure requiring an ID was used to prevent black people from voting. But it's 2010, for pete's sake. I'll support a law giving people free ID's if that's what it takes. But in this day and age if advocating voter ID makes you a racist, then the term has no meaning.

Thursday Update

Democrats Reek of George Wallace
The Washington Times
By Ray Hartwell
April 7, 2010

Charges of intolerance are leveled routinely at those who question the administration's policies. To listen to the accusers, one would think the entire history of racial discrimination and discord in this nation were properly laid at the feet of Republicans. History teaches otherwise.

I grew up in the Deep South, a John F. Kennedy Democrat....

The shameful politics of racial division were practiced skillfully by the demagogues of the day. They were all Democrats...Sen. Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee and other Democrats, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 57 days.

It was the Democratic Party that conceived, implemented and perpetuated the pernicious system of racial discrim- ination and preference that arose early in the last century and finally crumbled in the 1960s. They did this in order to sustain their own power. It worked for them, but not for the people. The Jim Crow system not only was morally reprehensible and responsible for much injustice over many years, but also clearly retarded economic growth. This hurt whites and blacks alike for decades.

As of 1963, the Republican Party had a long record of support for civil rights legislation - not so the Democrats. Republican support for the major civil rights legislation enacted during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson was stronger than that of the Democrats...

There was a time when majorities in both parties (even if narrower among Democrats) endorsed the equal treatment of all Americans, without regard to race...

Sadly, however, the ascendancy of "colorblind" politics in the Democratic Party was fleeting. The Democrats were the masters of racial patronage; with hardly a hiccup, they took the game to another level. Where once they played on the fears and prejudices of whites, they found new "victim" constituencies to "protect" with pledges of government largesse and favoritism.

So, blacks and perhaps Hispanics, among others, became the new and increasingly dependent beneficiaries of racial preference. Other "peoples of color," such as Indians and Asians, perceived as intent on self-reliance, generally were not among the favored. Thus, the same old game resumed, with a cynical new arrangement of pieces on the playing board. Once again, the Democrats sought gain through divisive means, playing on fear and resentment.

Then as now, opponents were attacked personally. For a Wallace supporter, it was easier to brand someone as an "agitator," or worse, than to engage in a substantive discussion about the virtues and vices of racial segregation and discrimination. Better to smear the opposition, especially when your position on the merits is weak.

Today, many Americans are unhappy that Congress has enacted, in a dramatically partisan fashion, sweeping "health care" legislation that entails unprecedented federal interference in doctor-patient relationships, an array of new and higher taxes, and unsustainable increases in government spending. Similarly unwelcome are the union sweeteners, the student loan takeover and the "expert" panels that will restrict access to medications and treatments...

In response, the Democrats revert to Jim Crow tactics: Change the subject via personal attacks. They hurl accusations of "racism," and use the vulgar sexual innuendo "tea-bagger" to assail fellow Americans who oppose the administration's aggressive expansion of federal power.

In fact, in all of the issues raised by the dissenters, there is not a trace of race. Would people be equally concerned if Hillary Rodham Clinton were in office and moving forcefully to implement the same agenda as President Obama? I think so. Or, would people march in protest if a President Colin L. Powell or Condoleezza Rice were pursuing more moderate policies? I think not.

I don't know that "Jim Crow tactics" is exactly right, but that's quibbling. Our modern-day Democrats are certainly McCarthites.

While we're at it, let's define our terms. The Free Dictionary defines McCarthyism thusly

1. The practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence. 2. The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

Seems like what John Lewis and others like him are doing.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 28, 2010

Thou Shalt Not Oppose ObamaCare!

Being busy, I'm a bit late on this, but since I saved the links it's better late than never.

Taking McCarthyism to a new level, Democrat Whip Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) says that people who oppose ObamaCare are racists who are aiding and abetting terrorism.

Ah yes, win a vote, the other side objects, and you accuse them of bring on violence. Over the past week we've seen all sorts of insane charges from the Democrats about how they've supposedly received all these threats, about how black Democrats have been called the n word, yada yada yada.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts -- and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.

The Maryland Democrat said more than 10 House Democrats have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment about their support of the highly divisive health insurance overhaul vote. Hoyer emphasized that he didn't have a specific number of threats and that was just an estimate.

TheFederal Bureau of Investigation, Capitol Police and sergeant at arms briefed Democrats behind closed doors today about the incidents of violence -- the most high profile of which have been toward Democratic Reps. Thomas Perriello of Virginia, Steve Driehaus of Ohio and Louise Slaughter of New York.

Hoyer hinted that Republicans should do more to condemn these threats of violence.

Yawn.

Not. Impressed.

Politicians, journalists, high-profile bloggers, radio-talk show hosts and the like get death threats every day. Some are serious, some not so much. All perpetrators should be prosecuted.

But it's pretty obvious that the Democrats are using this to change the subject. Their bill is unpopular and they know it. And this from t he party that never condemned the assassination chic rampant on the left when George W Bush was the target?

Eric Cantor Calls out the Democrats - by Name

Republican Whip Eric Cantor (VA) nails it when he condemned the Democrats for their tactics, saying that "It is reckless to use these incidents as a media vehicle for political gains." What I like is that he denounces Democrats by name, not content is he to just issue the standard blanket statement.

As for the bullet allegedly fired into one of his offices, neither he nor I are hanging our hates on any tit-for-tat argument, so commenters are advised not to try and waste keystrokes on that one, because I'm not falling for it.

Victor Davis Hanson reviews the hypocrisy of how a book and docudrama fantasizing about about assassinating George W Bush are excused but when the Democrats are (allegedly) on the receiving end it's suddenly all serious, and laments that

Like it or not, between 2001 and 2008, the "progressive" community redefined what is acceptable and not acceptable in political and public discourse about their elected officials. Slurs like "Nazi" and "fascist" and "I hate" were no longer the old street-theater derangement of the 1960s, but were elevated to high-society novels, films, political journalism, and vein-bulging outbursts of our elites. If one were to take the word "Bush" and replace it with "Obama" in the work of a Nicholson Baker, or director Gabriel Range, or Garrison Keillor or Jonathan Chait, or in the rhetoric of a Gore or Moore, we would be presently in a national crisis, witnessing summits on the epidemic of "hate speech."

Yup. After eight years of "Bush Lied, People Died!" a zillion references to Bush as the new Hitler by leftist bloggers ("bushitler," chimpy McHitler"), feting Michael Moore and a whole lot else, it's awfully rich for the left to start demanding civility now that their guy is in office.

John Hinderacker wonders "what was that line about the tree of liberty and the blood of tyrants?" and says that the media and Dem focus is on alleged threats against anyone who voted for ObamaCare. These are disgusting scare tactics and McCarthyism pure and simple. And this from the "Bush Lied, People Died!" crowd.

The current threats (assuming they are real, as I assume some of them are) are being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted over their adoption of a government medicine program through a series of legislative maneuvers that are in some respects unprecedented. It is important for the Democrats and their press minions to understand that there are many millions of Americans who regard Obamacare not just as misguided public policy, but as an illegitimate usurpation of power. I am one of the many millions who are outraged at the Left's attempt to destroy the private health care system that has served my family so well, and who regard Obamacare as illegitimate. ...

In large part, the current focus on threats of violence is aimed at the tea partiers, just as they were accused, apparently falsely, of racism. It is not hard to understand the Democrats' motives; the tea parties are the most vital force, and likely the most popular force, in American politics, so smearing them is mandatory. But anyone who has attended a tea party rally will consider laughable the idea that the movement somehow tends toward violence.

I've been to lots of protests in and around Washington DC; many to counterprotest and observe leftist anti-war groups such as ANSWER, Code Pink, and United for Peace and Justice. I've also been to conservative rallies such as the Gathering of Eagles, the March for Life, and a Tea Party. There are kooks on each side, but the conservative ones are definitely family-friendly where as the leftist ones are just about X rated for profanity, vulgarity, and sexual innuendos. Check out "Rallies and Protests" under "Categories" at right.

Bottom line I don't take the Democrat claims seriously as anything more than an attempt to divert attention from the issue at hand; the massive unpopularity of their health care legislation. Let them rant all they want, we'll defeat them at the polls this November and in 2012.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 11, 2010

Guide to The Politics of Offensive Statements

In the wake of Senator Harry Reid's "unfortunate comment," Pillage Idiot provides a helpful guide for anyone unable to predict the consequences of public officials who make offensive statements:

click here for larger version

What Harry Reid said:

From Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, as quoted in The Atlantic

On page 37, a remark, said "privately" by Sen. Harry Reid, about Barack Obama's racial appeal. Though Reid would later say that he was neutral in the presidential race, the truth, the authors write, was that his

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

In December of 2002, while at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott said

I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either

Republican Trent Lott was forced to resign as majority leader of the Democrats, after most, though not all, Republicans and conservatives threw him under the bus. President Obama, the "Reverand" Al Sharpton, the the vast majority of liberals have rallied around Democrat Majority Leader Reid.

"Harry Reid called me today and apologized for an unfortunate comment reported today," Obama said. "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."

Ah yes, well, as long as he's in favor of "social justice" such statements are a simple "unfortunate comment." The ends justify the...racism.

Before we go, Alvin S. Felzenberg asks the relevant question and give the appropriate answer:

Once again, the Democratic party that bought "identity politics" into the public square is about to teach the rest of us a lesson. So long as those who lead it raise taxes on the rest of us to promote social engineering, they can be as brazen as they like in their comments and as hypocritical as they dare in their public and private behavior...

Why should Reid not be allowed to keep his job? After all, his party elevated former Klansman Robert Byrd to the very post Reid now holds only a few years after the West Virginian led a filibuster (the second longest in history) against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Democrats continued to laud Byrd as recently as 2001, the year Byrd used the "N" word in a Fox News Sunday interview with the late Tony Snow. As long as he provides the 60th vote for his party, they will continue throwing bouquets his way.

Posted by Tom at 9:15 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

January 3, 2010

Tiger Woods, O.J. Simpson, and Michael Vick

It struck me recently that the Tiger Woods saga reminded me of one of the most famous and loved black Americans of the previous generation; O.J. Simpson. Before their troubles started, both were not merely admired or loved but absolutely adored and held up as idols and role models.

O.J. was the guy everyone loved. He combined what seemed to be a winning personality with sports performance in a way that few could match. Who can forget him vaulting over barriers in airports in those Hertz commercials? His charm and wit seemed transcended race. Unlike a Jesse Jackson, who made his blackness the essence of his being, O.J. was a star first, and only incidentally black. For awhile he had a relatively successful film career, and to this day I remember him in Capricorn One and The Towering Inferno.

Then, of course, there was his arrest on murder charges, and it became immediately clear to everyone that he was guilty. That the jury found him not so was more farce than justice. That he was found guilty in the civil trial somewhat satisfied the vindication many people wanted.

Suddenly the public realized that O.J. was not the man we thought he was. Far from being the warm, charming, good guy that we saw on TV, he was mentally disturbed in some way, even if we couldn't quite put our finger on the diagnosis.

The saga of Tiger Woods follows this same general path, even if we're not quite at the point of writing him off entirely.

As with O.J., Tiger wasn't just a star athlete, he broke records and made it look easy. They were "in another league" as the cliche goes.

And as with O.J., Tiger seemed to have a winning personality. Finally, he, too, transcended race. He was a black man (or "Cabalasian," with a diverse ethnicity) in what was traditionally a white person's sport. But no one cared, because he was good and he was cool. Tiger made golf popular again.

When we first heard the news of his weird car accident outside his house, most people figured that odd as it sounded some rational explanation would emerge. Over the next few days, as as we learned the truth about his numerous extramarital affairs, it became clear that Tiger was not the man we thought he was. Tiger has taken a break from golf, and many sponsors have dropped him.

Tiger did not have just one or two extramarital affairs, but with at least 14, probably many more, and he did this to a wife whom most people would regard as strikingly attractive.

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has resumed his football career partially because he seemed truly repentant for his crimes, and also because before them his personality was not known, and wasn't a household name. He fell from mid-level, whereas O.J. and Tiger fell from Mount Olympus. Vick is therefore somewhat of the odd man out in this trio, both because prior to his troubles he was nowhere near as famous as the other two, and because he has somewhat rehabilitated himself.

It was clear from the beginning that O.J. never would, regardless of the outcome of his criminal trial. O.J. denied his guilt, internalized, and became the dark psychopath the brutal murders would suggest. He only added to the bizarreness with the release of If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer, with the "If" reduced in size. Tiger may as yet rebound, but I think the key is whether he is truly repentant and tries to make up for the harm he did through charitable works, funding marriage-counseling programs, or the like. On the other hand, if he internalizes what he did and only makes pro-forma statments of apology, his days as an American hero are over.

Posted by Tom at 5:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 30, 2009

Obama's "Teachable Moment"

This evening we had our first "beer summit"

Reuters photo
Left to right - VP Biden, Professor Gates, Sgt. Crowley, President Obama

Earlier today, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that "...it's our hope that, as the president said, this can be part of a teachable moment..."

There may indeed be something to learn from here, but I hope he didn't mean from our president, because he is just about the last person I'm interested in hearing from about race. Someone who went to a racist church for 20 years, listened to a kook hatemonger preacher, and left only because it was politically expedient to do so, has nothing to tell me.

Yes I know, Obama's attendance at Trinity United is "old news" and we're supposed to just forget about it. Well, I'm going to forget about it. If the left wants to talk about race, fine, let's talk. But let's talk about both sides of the equation, not just one.

Otherwise, I second what Tom Sowell has to say about Obama and this incident.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 27, 2009

Cambridge Police Speak From the Heart as they Support Officer Crowley

This video has been going around the Internet lately. I saw it first over at Neo-Neocon, so my hat tip is to her. Watch it fast before it disappears from the CNN website. This is so damaging to Obama that someone there is likely to think the better of it and send it down the memory hole.

Maybe Allahpundit says it best

God only knows how much heat she and Sgt. Lashley will take from the "authenticity" police for this; Crowley's a spectacularly lucky guy to have friends like them. In fact, I'm thinking that beer date at the White House to discuss "tolerance" might not be such a bad idea if Crowley gets to bring Kelly King along. Skip Gates and The One might just learn something.

If you're looking for postracial America, you've found it.

Ditto that. Not much "post-racial" about our president or country that I can see.

Most interesting is the response of Officer King. She's she's bright and articulate and speaks from the heart. Obama has let her down tremendously and she's quite pained about it. There's not anyone more bitter than a spurned lover, and given his cult-like levels of support, if he lets them down they could turn on him and fast. If Obama doesn't get his act together his slide downward could accelerate.

I wasn't there when Officer Crowley arrested Henry Louis Gates, so I don't know what happened. My guess is that the officer didn't need to arrest Gates, but that Gates acted like a jerk and is claiming racism where there is none. What I do know is that it was entirely inappropriate for President Obama to weigh in, especially after admitting that he didn't know all of the facts.

Via TWS, here's the transcript of King's remarks:

Q: What did you think when you heard about these charges against Sgt. Crowley?

King: "I was appalled. I know Jimmy...I know him to be a good police officer, a good man with character, and I knew these charges were bogus. There has been a tremendous rush to judgment, and I think the thing to be learned first and foremost from this is to look at all of the evidence, to consider all, to weigh all.

I think Prof. Gates has done a very good job of throwing up a very effective smokescreen, calling race into this. It had nothing to do with it.

Q: And, the President?

King: "It's unfortunate, I supported him. I voted for him. I will not again...I think it's admirable that he would speak on behalf of his friend, but he should have recused himself. He should have stepped back, and he should ahev said, "I support my friend, but I don't ahve all the facts. I won't weigh in yet.'"

Q: What do you have to say to people who may have already made up their minds about Sgt. Crowley?

King: "Keep their minds open and realize that we would not support someone who we felt wronged someone else. We took this job to do the right thing. We all took this job to do the right thing.We would not support anyone in blue doing the wrong thing.

Posted by Tom at 9:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 19, 2009

Are We "A Nation of Cowards" on Race?

On Wednesday Attorney General Eric Holder delivered some remarks at the Department of Justice African American History Month Program. Following is the controversial section, which I will quote with context (emphasis added):

Every year, in February, we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. It is a worthwhile endeavor for the contributions of African Americans to this great nation are numerous and significant. Even as we fight a war against terrorism, deal with the reality of electing an African American as our President for the first time and deal with the other significant issues of the day, the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures. One cannot truly understand America without understanding the historical experience of black people in this nation. Simply put, to get to the heart of this country one must examine its racial soul.

Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and given our nation's history this is in some ways understandable. And yet, if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us. But we must do more- and we in this room bear a special responsibility. Through its work and through its example this Department of Justice, as long as I am here, must - and will - lead the nation to the "new birth of freedom" so long ago promised by our greatest President. This is our duty and our solemn obligation.

Of all the thing's I've written about, race is the most dangerous topic there is.

In fact, for reasons stated below I hesitated before decided to write it. But since we must be brave, I will go on.

Reading the rest of Holder's speech, he offers no specific policy prescriptions. All he does is "urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters."

Really? So people are supposed to approach someone of a different race and strike up a conversation about race? Yes, that sounds awkward and I'll tell you why; normal people treat other people like human beings and ignore their race. That's what I do.

Not to mention that such discussions will inevitably cause division. Most people don't randomly talk about sensitive subjects like race, politics, or religion with people they don't know for just that reason; they don't want to create bad feelings. Isn't that the way it's supposed to be?

So what does he want us to talk about? The speech offers few clues. He does say that

...if we are to make progress in this area we must feel comfortable enough with one another, and tolerant enough of each other, to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.

One wonders if he really means it.

Conservatives tend not to believe such assurances because we know that to say anything other than the approved party line is to risk being called a racist, or at least "racially insensitive."

Later Holder allows that

There can, for instance, be very legitimate debate about the question of affirmative action. This debate can, and should, be nuanced, principled and spirited. But the conversation that we now engage in as a nation on this and other racial subjects is too often simplistic and left to those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest. Our history has demonstrated that the vast majority of Americans are uncomfortable with, and would like to not have to deal with, racial matters and that is why those, black or white, elected or self-appointed, who promise relief in easy, quick solutions, no matter how divisive, are embraced.

So there can be debate, and it can be spirited, but we can't be simplistic and must avoid "those on the extremes." Isn't that a contradiction? And what in the world does it really mean? Apparently someone who wants to end preferences, like Ward Connerly (quoted below) is "divisive" and on the extreme.

I'm one of the simplistic ones; no racial preferences for anybody. Is this a "narrow, self interest?"

A Nation of Cowards?

After rereading the speech I'm still not entirely sure by what he means when he says we're a nation of cowards. The closest I can figure is that he thinks we don't talk about it enough.

This, I think, is a lot of hooey. From my perch we talk incessantly about race. The mere fact that we have something called "Black History Month" proves Holder wrong. That's one whole month that every public school and college in the country has to talk about it. Jonah Goldberg points out that we have "endless courses in colleges and universities, chapters in high school textbooks, movies, documentaries, after-school-specials and so on are devoted to discussing race." and

...to the extent we don't talk about race in this country the primary reason is that liberals and racial activists have an annoying habit of attacking anyone who doesn't read from a liberal script "racists" or, if they're lucky, "insensitive."

Yup.

Further, there's no evidence that his boss, President Obama, wants to open that can of worms. To his credit, so far Obama has not shown any sign of using racial politics. Perhaps he will let his subordinates do his bidding for him. Only time will tell.

Ward Connerly points out that

...it is difficult to have such a discussion when some with differing views are harshly and publicly attacked for their views. For example, when asked about my initiatives to end race preferences, candidate Obama labeled them as those "divisive Ward Connerly initiatives." Such characterization is hardly consistent with the view that we should openly put our views about race on public display.

Connerly is one who would know. A brave man, he.

Some Possible Subjects

But if AG Holder really does want to just "talk," then here are some topics for the agenda:

• How is it that Al Sharpton, who has been at the center of a whole series of ugly racial incidents, is now mainstream in the Democrat party, and indeed in America as a whole? What can be done to marginalize him?
• Why have black leaders not adopted the recommendations Bill Cosby and Dr Alvin Pousssaint set forth in Come On, People! On the Path from Victims to Victors
?
• A few years ago die-hard liberal Juan Williams can wrote a book with the title of Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It . He shares the same thesis as Bill Cosby, that only individual responsibility can pull black people up from where they are now. Do you agree?
• Following up on these books, how can we combat a culture of victimology?
• Much if not all "Gangsta Rap" music is vulgar, demeaning to women, and promotes a violent criminal lifestyle. Why won't more leaders, black or white, speak out against it? What can be done about it?

Update

Heather MacDonald Nails It

Is he nuts? Leave aside for a moment Holder's purely decorative call for a "frank" conversation about race. The Clinton-era Conversation also purported to be frank, and we know what that meant: a one-sided litany of white injustices. Please raise your hand if you haven't heard the following bromides about "the racial matters that continue to divide us" more times than you can count: Police stop and arrest blacks at disproportionate rates because of racism; blacks are disproportionately in prison because of racism; blacks are failing in school because of racist inequities in school funding; the black poverty rate is the highest in the country because of racism; blacks were given mortgages that they couldn't afford because of racism. I will stop there.

Not only do colleges, law schools, almost all of the nation's elite public and private high schools, and the mainstream media, among others, have "conversations about . . . racial matters"; they never stop talking about them. Any student who graduates from a moderately selective college without hearing that its black students are victims of institutional racism--notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of black students there will have been deliberately admitted with radically lower SAT scores than their white and Asian comrades--has been in a coma throughout his time there.

Education bureaucrats maintain an incessant harangue on white racism because they see the writing on the wall: most students are indifferent to race and just want to get along. If left to themselves, they would go about their business perfectly happily and color-blindly, and the race industry would wither on the vine. Thus the institutional imperative to remind black students constantly about their victimization and the white students about their guilt. Last month, the elite Phillips Academy at Andover proudly announced a student presentation on White Privilege: A History and Its Role in Education. Would the student have come up with such a topic on her own without the school's educators deliberately immersing her in such trivial matters? Of course not.

Bingo.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 22, 2008

"The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud"

Of all the editorials I've seen on Senator Barack Obama's recent speech, Charles Krauthammer's is the best. Writing on The Washington Post on Thursday:

The beauty of a speech is that you don't just give the answers, you provide your own questions. "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which"controversial" remarks?

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (Obama says he missed church that day. Had he never heard about it?) What about the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it? Or that the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence and (b) white guilt.

(a) Moral equivalence. Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.

Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one's time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?

(b) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

But Obama was supposed to be new. He flatters himself as a man of the future transcending the anger of the past as represented by his beloved pastor. Obama then waxes rhapsodic about the hope brought by the new consciousness of the young people in his campaign. Then answer this, Senator: If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright's rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?

Exactly right.

Posted by Tom at 9:08 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

March 18, 2008

Obama's Big Speech

So Senator Obama gave a speech today in an attempt to do some damage control. The Senator, you see, has a "pastor problem", and the situation is threatening to get out of hand.

A few months ago I could not have imagined this would have happened. I figured that he might get tripped up saying something stupid about foreign policy, or that Sen McCain would best him in a debate. At most there will be a few controversial people on his staff, and there would be the usual story of the week but that would be that. I did not imagine that it would be revealed that for 20 years he sat in the pews of a church listening to a pastor saying the types of things that we have heard his pastor say.

I used to like Barack Obama, and have said so several times on this blog. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, sincere if wrong. But with this incident I now see him in a different light, and it's not a good one.

I think at this point we've all seen or heard the good Rev. Jeremiah Wright, recently retired as pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, in action. If not, you can start here and here.

Some months ago Mitt Romney gave a speech in which he addressed the issue of religion. Some will try and draw a comparison between Romney's speech and Obama's, but it's a false one. Romney's issue was akin to that of then-Senator John F Kennedy; there were and are people out there who didn't like him simply because he chose a religion different than there own. There was some "aren't Mormon's kind of weird?" stuff out there and he had to show otherwise.

But this was different. What Rev Wright said was downright hateful. The man spewed forth one nutty conspiracy theory after another. He went on and on and on. And the crowd loved it.

In his speech today Senator Obama somehow needed to convince us that 1) What Rev Wright said was a one-time thing, and/or that 2) he managed to attend this church for 20 years without knowing about Wright's true beliefs. Did he succeed?

I'm not going to go through his entire speech, but there are a few key parts that caught my attention.

First, though, what is notable is that Obama spent most of the speech not discussing the subject at hand; his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He goes on and on about the subject of race, slavery, the founders, poverty, economic opportunity or the lack thereof, the immigrant experience, and of course, "change". All in all, he spends very little time discussing Wright. I think what he tried to do is hide the issue of Wright in the midst of all a lot of rhetoric and hope that we forget about him.

As such, most of the speech was simply irrelevant. Apparently we're all supposed to be so impressed with his soaring rhetoric that we just won't worry about who he's been listening to for 20 years.

Cutting out all of the fluff here are some of the critical parts

...we've heard my former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation -- that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice.

Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

He says he's condemned the views of Rev Wright. Ok, I accept that. I'll take him at his word here. And he's certainly right that the Rev Wright's views are "profoundly distorted".

The attempt at equivalence, though, "just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed." is absurd. We're not talking about how to fund social security, or your views on abortion, Senator Obama.

As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive...

Ah "divisiveness". I've noticed that this is a favorite of liberals, to claim that people who disagree with them are "divisive". And in this sentence Obama seems to be saying that being "divisive" is worse than being wrong.

Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?

Finally, the real question gets asked. Let's see what he has to say.

And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

That's where he lost me. I don't buy the notion that he sat in those pews for 20 years and never heard Wright say the things he has said in the videos in question.

And of course the videos are played a lot, Senator. If the left had equivalent video or audio about a Republican running for president, don't you think they'd play it over and over too?

Next we have the "but Mussolini makes the trains run on time" justification.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.

He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

It is invalid to justify what Wright said because he did good elsewhere. It doesn't work that way.

Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear.

Uh, that wasn't the issue, Obama. I think we all know that religious worship in most black churches is different than that in most white churches. We all accept cultural differences. But once again Obama is trying to hide. The issue is that the audience was cheering Wright on as he said awful things. What he said was no surprise to them, because they've heard it before.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother -- a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

If he had disowned Wright he could have gotten at least a partial approval from me and others. But despite all of his soaring rhetoric, in the end he couldn't do it. And why not?

Shelby Steele, writing in the Wall Street Journal, has the best take, I think, on Obama and the issue of race. Be sure to read the whole thing, but here's a snippet

The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

The invaluable Victor Davis Hanson, writing at National Review, also, echoing my theme at top that Obama spent most of his time not talking about the issue at hand.

Obama chose not to review what Wright, now deemed the "occasionally fierce critic." said in detail, condemn it unequivocally, apologize, and then resign from such a Sunday venue of intolerance -- the now accustomed American remedy to racism in the public realm that we saw in the Imus and other recent controversies.

Instead, to Obama, the postmodernist, context is everything. We all have eccentric and flamboyant pastors like Wright with whom we disagree. And words, in his case, don't quite mean what we think; unspoken intent and angst, not voiced hatred, are what matters more.

Rather than account for his relationship with a hate-monger, Obama will enlighten you, as your teacher, why you are either confused or too ill-intended to ask him to disassociate himself from Wright.

Here's the bottom line

We are not talking about a few offhand comments that Rev Wright made during a sermon. Nor are we talking about a simple lament over the plight of black people in the United States. This man has gone off on a long-winded rants in which he espoused one crackpot left and right-wing conspiracy after another.

There is no way that for 20 years he preached the love of Jesus and then one fine day changed his tune and decided to talk about other matters.

Let's also be clear that we're not talking about a minister somewhere who happened to endorse Sen. Obama. We're not even talking about someone who's endorsement Obama went after, or about someone he had recently hired for his staff. All of this is forgivable. If Obama had recently hired Wright without vetting him, that may open him up to the charge of incompetence, but that's about it. You can't be held responsible for what all of your advisors and supporters say.

But the facts as I understand them are that Barack Obama went to this church for 20 years. Wright married him and Michelle. He baptized their children. Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, is taken from a Wright sermon. Wright is (or was, I'm not sure if he's resigned or not) Sen Obama's spiritual advisor for the campaign.

There is no way he was unaware all these years of Rev. Wright's views.

Therefore, most of his speech today was simply irrelevant. At this point I'm not interested in hearing from him about the history of race relations in this country or what he thinks we need to do to make them better. And no we can't simply "move on". I am interested in hearing how he went to a church for 20 years and did not know the views of the pastor.

He did not answer that question today, nor did he even seriously try. The reason he didn't is that he can't. He knew.

Let's also get this out of the way; two wrongs don't make a right. This affair is not what some white minister said somewhere, so let's not try and use that as an excuse. Obama has held himself up as a new type of politician. He's the one who put himself on the pedistal.

We'll end with Juan Williams lowering the boom on Obama.

Posted by Tom at 10:00 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 20, 2008

Book Review - Come On, People!

On the 17th of May, 2004, Bill Cosby delivered a speech to the NAACP on the 50th Anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education that rocked the Black community, and indeed the country at large. Known as the "Pound Cake speech", he pointed out negative social trends within the Black community, and said point blank that "we cannot blame white people."

In the speech, he focused on the high crime rate, lack of parenting, "50 percent drop out rate", bad English, focus on multimillionaire sports figures that "can’t write a paragraph", and other social pathologies that plague the black community. Cosby was later criticized for his remarks, but refused to back down.

Come On, People! On the Path from Victims to Victors is the book that resulted from this speech. To write it, Cosby teamed up with Dr Alvin Pousssaint, who is a Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Cosby draws the readers, and my guess is that most of the writing was done by him. Dr. Pousssaint leads intellectual weight to the book, so that when they write "studies show that..." you can be sure they are not blowing smoke.

The book is written in a casual, easy-to-read style. It is unfootnoted (although there is an excellent bibliography at the end), as it is meant to be more a call to action than an academic treatise.

What Cosby and Poussaint do not do in the book is prove through a mass of statistics and academic data that the black community is in trouble. This is taken as a given. Nor do they spend their time relating the history of black people in America, and how we got to our current situation. Rather, this is more of a self-help book than anything.

Cosby and Poussaint do not deny that racism plays a role in America today. To do so would be unfactual, and they would lose all credibility. But neither do they dwell on it. Racism gets a few lines here and there, but their message is clear: Most of our ills are not the result of racism, and are things that we can and need to set right ourselves.

The intended audience for Come on, People! are the very people that they are trying to help; black people who are caught in a cycle of poverty and violence. They are also trying to reach black community leaders who can turn things around.

As such, much of the book consists of common-sense advice for black people. There are chapters on prenatal care, parenting, eating properly, managing your finances, how to get a good education and use it to seek gainful employment, and much more. Here is a small sample taken at random:

Go to a doctor early and often for prenatal care

Don't let your kids watch too much TV

Be a good role model for your children

Proper English is a must

Slow down on the fast food

If you're going to have children, get married and stay married

Stop charging anything you don't absolutely need

Whatever you do, graduate from high school

Community colleges have many great courses that can lead directly to a job

Walk away from a fight

Shield your kids from what's on the Internet

The best way to avoid diabetes is to keep your weight under control.

Intersperced throughout the book are "call outs"; most of which are brief stories of black people who faced overwhelming odds yet made it. Others are those of successful black professionals who have useful advice. All are valuable and interesting.

The overwhelming message is that values matter. Come On, People! reminds me as nothing so much as Laura Ingraham's Power to the People, in which she discussed various social ills that are the result of bad value values.

Cosby and Poussaint are all about advancement through education. Unlike too many elies, who obsess over how many CEOs or professional football coaches are black, they look to action that will help the average black person. High profile black success stories in sports and entertainment world are simply not meaningful to the average person, as the chances that he or she will achieve such fame and riches are slim. As such, their advice, as illustrated in the above list, is designed to move people toward obtaining basic degrees at average colleges (they especially stress community colleges) that lead to concrete careers.

I'm not quite sure how much Cosby's message has resonated within the black community, as surely he has faced much resistance from elites for refusing to blame everything on white racism. Yet he and co-author Poussiant are not alone in their quest. For example, NPR Senior Correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams, a black man with impeccable liberal credentials, wrote Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure that are Undermining Black America, and What We can Do About It in 2006, and between the three of them perhaps they can turn the debate around.

Cosby, Poussiant, Williams, and for that matter Ingraham, have picked up on the fact that there is only so much the government can do. Ending blatant racism was good and a must, but clearly this isn't enough to truely liberate black people. Create all the enterprise zones you want, Jack Kemp, but until you change values and attitudes you're whistling dixie.

To me, the question is not whether Come On, People! is a useful book. It is. The question is how to get it into the hands of the people who need it the most. I suspect that many or even most of the people who buy it are people like me; white guys who live comfortably in the suburbs. I'd buy a hundred books and donate them to a black church uptown if I thought they'd hand them out, but such an act would be seen as condescending, I suppose.

Much of the solution, then, is going to have to come from within the black community itself. But there are things that we can do also, like stop buying "gansta rap" music, and cleaning up our own culture. Because ultimately we're all in this together.

Posted by Tom at 9:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 2, 2005

Racism is OK if You're a Maryland Democrat

This story from the Washington Times is just about unbelieveable. Liberals in Maryland have sunk to a new low:

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

I don't think that any comment is really necessary.

Friday Update

Today's Washington Times reports that the Democrat candidate for governor, Benjamin L. Cardin, says that he will not personally use racial epithets against Republican Michael S. Steele in their race for governor, but he will not repudiate fellow Democrats who do.

However, other black Democrats in Maryland say that they will try to put a stop to such tactics.

"I have never in my entire life brought race into what I do in life, and it is not going to come in now, at this stage," said Mr. Cardin, a 10-term congressman who could face Mr. Steele in the contest to replace retiring Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes. "I don't think race has any place in this campaign."

Even as Mr. Cardin declined to criticize fellow Democrats, members of the Congressional Black Caucus said Baltimore lawmakers in the General Assembly should "cease and desist" from making racial comments about Mr. Steele -- the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland.

"My plan is to meet with them and ask them to stop this at once," said U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Baltimore Democrat and former Black Caucus chairman.

Rep. Albert R. Wynn, a black Prince George's County Democrat, admonished Baltimore lawmakers and even described Mr. Steele as "a likable guy."

"I think the comments and the attacks were outrageous and reprehensible. It does a disservice to the African-American community, and it creates a herd mentality that whatever the Democrats say we should repeat," Mr. Wynn said.

My hat is off to Representatives Cummings and Wynn for doing the right thing.

Posted by Tom at 8:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 18, 2005

Race and Katrina

I think we've all seen the various statements made by liberals and assorted Democrats claiming that the delayed action by the Bush Administration during and immediatly after the Hurricane was due to racism, so I'm not going to republish them here. There are many news sites and various blogs and such which have posted them, so knock yourself out if you're in the mood for self-torture.

You know who we are talking about; people like Howard Dean, Jesse Jackson, Randall Robinson, Rep Elijah Cummings (head of the Congressional Black Caucus, no less), Rep. Diane Watson, Rep Cynthia McKinney, on and on. Others such as rapper Kayne West count also, since there are people who do listen to and believe rock stars and other entertainers.

Also, to me it is self-evident that the charge is absurd, so you won't find a "no Bush is not a racist" argument here.

Rather, I want to look at why we had such charges in the first place.

Yes, there is racism in America. But most of it is not white racism. It is black racism. It pains me greatly to type this, but there it is. Certainly most of the hate speech that I see on matter of race comes from the left in general, and liberal black leaders in particular. Former NAACP head Kwazi Mfume comes to mind in this regard.

The simple fact is that significant(hint; key word there) white racism is a thing of the past. If you don't believe me, look at how the left defines racism today; they claim it is "institutional" or "unconscious". In other words, we can't find any individual cases, in fact we can't prove anything at all, but we're going to claim it anyway.

It gets worse. It is bad enough that Al Sharpton is feted by mainstream Democrats, who have forgotten all about Freddies Fashion Mart, let along the Tawana Brawley affair. With the last election cycle we have seen that the Democrat party is so in bed with extremist groups like Moveon.org and America Coming Together, and individuals such as Michael Moore and George Soros, that they are utterly unable to sound reasonable on most issues at all (More on this when I review Byron York's latest book)

Back to the Hurricane.

What we saw in New Orleans, and the race-baiting that followed, is the result of forty years of liberal social programs.

It is absurd beyond reason to say that this country has not worked it's collective butt off to make life better for it's underclass from at least 1933 on. And it defied comprehension how anyone could say that we have not tried beyond trying to make the lives of black people in particular better since the mid-fifties, with the trend accelerating greating from 1964 on. Trillions of dollars, program after program, quota after quota(excuse me, "diversity").

So at this point we are entitled to ask a question:

If white racism is as big a problem as the left says it is, and they allege it runs all the way up to the president, then what does that say about all the liberal social programs to alleviate all this that we've followed?

I'll spare you the typing and answer the question myself; your policies have failed. The liberal welfare state, and the modern "diversity" and "multiculturalism" that have been forced on us, have not worked. Not nearly as much as their sponsors claim, at any rate.

The black citizens of New Orleans who were so impoverished that they didn't own cars, or have the money to get out, were not victims of racism. They were victims of the failed liberal welfare state.

And why do so many buy into the notion that federal government failures were the result of racism? I'll spare you the typing on this one too; because liberal leaders have done nothing but preach the gospel of victimhood to them.

We will no doubt hear that "both sides need to come together", that conservatives need to "reach out", blah blah blah. Sorry, but after listening to the insanities coming from the left on the issue of race after Katrina, I'm not in much mood for "coming together" with the likes of Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, or, while we're at it, the NAACP. I have had it up to here with them.

Compassion? You bet. But it's going to be on the individual level, which for me means targeted donations and church mission/work trips. But these "leaders" have got to go.

P.S. I hated writing this post. This entire affair pains me greatly, and so wish things weren't as they were. But some things have to be said.

Update

Thank you to the Watchers of Weasels blog for considering this post worthy of inclusion in their weekly contest. I did not win, but that's ok. I urge everyone to visit their site and read the posts that were submitted, as they are all very good.

Posted by Tom at 8:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack