Fellow conservative Mychal Massie and I agree on many things, including a distaste for Republicans “courting the black vote.” If you think I’m hard-hitting, check out his latest column :
The guarantee of opportunity must be understood in context. It is not the guarantee of success, but rather the guarantee of opportunity to succeed as defined by the skills, preparedness and determination of the individual so inclined. The battle for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as accorded by the Constitution has been won.While I am unapologetic in my contempt for race divisionists – I have the utmost respect and admiration for the civil-rights warriors who fought so gallantly to secure the freedoms of our Constitution for all. But it is important to note that history is replete with examples of great warriors, generals, militiamen, etc. who did not recognize when the battle was over and the war had been won.
Such is the case with far too many who are respected in the civil-rights movement. America needs them to refocus on the 21st century. Unlike the progenitors of immiseration and division, they must not fall victim to fighting for that which has been won. As I have often stated, the problems that concern America today are not color sensitive – they are American sensitive. (Emphasis added)
Mychal argues that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to all Americans, not black Americans. He asks, “Is home ownership, retirement income, education, health care and homeland security a black concern or an American concern?”
As Mychal knows, some people are in the business of making sure others remain distrustful and dependent. As long as their livelihood depends on someone else’s misery, the tired, 60s-era civil rights industry will continue to thrive.
(Hat tip: Booker Rising)
Related: Why Courting the Black Vote Won’t Work, Gates and Race Politics…
I like the comments regarding “continuing to fight a battle that is already won”. Why? It side tracks us from the real issues at had, AIDS on the rise, poor education choices, violent crime, etc., which so many stated in two of your previous post as major problems in the “Black community”. Continuously fighting a battle that is already won has caused a great majority to lose the two things we had that held everything together, and kept the devastation we are now seeing at bay:
Faith in Jesus Christ and the traditonal family nucleus.
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 8:15 am
I am such a dope. I read “Courting black vote a bad idea” and was thinking to myself how the article was 100 percent on the mark, and then I scrolled to the top of the page to see who wrote it…
I am such a dope.
Comment by Ralph — 03.09.05 @ 8:29 am
That is funny Ralph. It was that article that led me to wonder “Who is La Shawn Barber?” LOL
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 8:31 am
Courting the vote is a silly concept, no matter who is the courtier and who is the courttee (is that a word?).
Nuts to that. Do what’s right, do it with conviction, and the voters will join in.
Republicans courting the black vote, as opposed to earning it, is disingenuous and self-defeating.
But at the very least, the Republicans are generally supporting opportunity and independence as a way to attract voters, while the Dems offer only despair and negativity as their way to keep their voting base intact.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.09.05 @ 8:41 am
I agree with what La Shawn wrote entirely.
Unfortunately some people believe Republicans should be doing more to entice blacks or tailor their message to Blacks.
That is the way of Democrats (generalizing) to tailor messages to one group or another.
I believe Republicans should have a principled message and have the same message of opportunity and hope for ALL americans. If the individual LISTENING to the message finds the message appealing then they will vote for that Republican…… which people have been doing in more and more percentages across this country thanks to writers like La Shawn.
Comment by Baklava — 03.09.05 @ 8:59 am
If you will accept that “Courting” is an implicit statement of valuing a person or group, I’m willing to concede that “Courting” Black Americans is reasonable. I “Courted” my wife and was fortunate in that she responded and joined me in this life journey. I continue to love and value her. Courting is a way of saying “Come join my vision for life.”
All that said, in the political life, it *does* seem that the courting works out as using rather than valuing voting groups. Sadly, it seems that we choose between major parties that are less evil rather than truly better.
Comment by Dan — 03.09.05 @ 8:59 am
I don’t like the idea of courting, any vote. More so, I don’t like the idea of courting black votes. I like the idea of presenting our values, and inviting people of like mind, without regard to color, to support you.
I offer two beliefs.
One, conservativism offers a path forward. It offers a vision based on American values that succeds when it is tried. I, for one, could care less the demographic of any person who shares and supports this vision.
Two, the black population is in too large of a part wedded to cult of victimology. Too many simply can not or well not see past the idea of being a victim.
We all as empowered free individuals have the power of choice. Any person is free to see himself as a victim, and it simply beyond human power to force him abandon his belief. Such is his divine right to so believe.
At the same time, I belive that no individual, or group, can succeed if he views himself as a victim. Victims are losers and losers don’t succeed. I’d welcome anyone to shed his belief in victimhood, but that is his choice to make and not mine.
That is my piece.
Comment by David L — 03.09.05 @ 9:48 am
Wow, I LOVE that guy!
Thanks for introducing us to him.
Comment by Daddy — 03.09.05 @ 10:25 am
Republicans should not court the Black vote becasue Republicans don’t want what Black voters want.
Take, for example, Prince George’s County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, DC.
The county is overwhelmingly Democrat–roughly 90%–and the majority of the voters are Black.
The elected County Executive is a Black Democrat.
The County Council has 9 members–all Democrats, 5 Black, 1 Hispanic.
The county has 8 state senators–all Democrats, 4 Black.
The county has 23 state delegates–all Democrats, at least 12 Black and 1 Hispanic.
With an all-Democrat, majority Black government, you would think that Prince George’s County would be a paradise for Blacks and Democrats.
But . . .
The county has the highest number of murders in the Washington, DC, area–more than Washington itself, and more than all other Washington suburbs combined. The vast majority of both killers and victims are Black.
The county also has the highest number of car thefts in the DC area–more than all other suburbs combined and half of all car thefts in Maryland. The vast majority of both thieves and victims are Black,
The county has the worst performing schools in Maryland. The head of the schools system is a Black Democrat, and most teachers and short-changed students are Black.
And the county has the second highest tax burden in Maryland and in the Washington, DC, area.
Several years ago, there was some Republican representation in the county government, the murder rate was lower, and the schools were better than absolute last.
As the voters have moved away from two-party government into an all-Democrat government, crime has increased and schools have deteriorated.
And every election, the percentage of Democrat votes has increased.
The most logical explanation is that the Black voters in the county are happy with their all-Democrat, high crime, poor school government. They certainly keep rewarding their Black and Democratic politicians in charge.
Since Republicans generally oppose crime and want good schools, why would they want to court those Black veters who so obviously prefer failure?
Comment by Diane C. Russell — 03.09.05 @ 10:29 am
I’m confused. Didn’t the “architect” Karl Rove make calculated efforts during the 2004 campaign to reach out to envangelical voters both black and white? Was that not courting that paticular voting blocs vote? The black vote for President Bush increased from 8% to 11%, correct.
So my confusion lies in the notion that courting a particular group’s vote is somewhat distasteful. Is it all in the wording? Perhaps outreach is more appropriate?
Help me out.
Comment by Tiffany in Minneapolis — 03.09.05 @ 10:32 am
Race is a sensitive and divisive issue, given its history in the US specifically and the world in general. Appealing to racial suspicions or fears is different than appealing to someone’s pocketbook, sense of financial security, code of moral values (call it “religion,” if you will), etc. The whole point of the civil rights movement was to remove race from the equation, particularly where the government is concerned. Appealing to someone’s concern for decent education, for example, is intrinsically different than playing to racial animonsity or offering a set of entitlements and perks to a whole group based on skin color.
I can’t explain it any better than that, at least not at this moment. If people don’t understand why using skin color to gain anything is odious, they’ll never understand me or what I stand for.
Not that it’s all about me.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.09.05 @ 10:42 am
I like that explanation La Shawn. You couldn’t have said it more plainly
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 11:08 am
I guess no matter how you look at it…
rich or poor, Atheist or Catholic, educated or uneducated….
all those things are circumstances and can be changed….
Unless you are Michael Jackson (pun intended), you can not change your race/color no matter how hard you try
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 11:14 am
“The battle for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as accorded by the Constitution has been won.”
Specially if you’re a credit card company.
Comment by actus — 03.09.05 @ 11:24 am
Ya gotta luv those credit card companies…
Something should be done about them putting guns to our heads and making us go into all that debt and keeping us from the dream
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 11:57 am
“Something should be done about them putting guns to our heads and making us go into all that debt and keeping us from the dream ”
Putting a gun to our heads and making us get sick or lose jobs or enter divorces, which accounts for over half of bankruptices. Or putting a gun to the credit card companies heads that keep them making all those easy credit loans with automatcially balooning rates.
Guns are all over the place.
Comment by actus — 03.09.05 @ 12:30 pm
Someone needs to do something about us not learning how to read the fine print…
Making us enter divorces…that’s a new blame game there
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 12:32 pm
“Is home ownership, retirement income, education, health care and homeland security a black concern or an American concern?”
Well, La Shawn, the real problem is they are not concerns of the Republican Party, nor, from reading most conservative blogs, the concern of most conservative bloggers either.
I link to the best interactive liberal, conservative, and centrist blogs I can find, and it is very instructive these days, to go read exactly what they are writing about. If you do, you will see what I mean, even if you don’t agree with what I say.
Comment by Joseph Marshall — 03.09.05 @ 1:22 pm
“Well, La Shawn, the real problem is they are not concerns of the Republican Party, nor, from reading most conservative blogs, the concern of most conservative bloggers either.”
Joseph, I’m confused by your use of the word “concern.” Perhaps the problem is that we define that word very differently, but I can guarantee that this conservative is very “concerned” about home ownership, retirement income, education, health care and homeland security. I’m also “concerned” whenever someone makes a blanket statement that accuses most conservatives of a lack of “concern.”
Comment by RedBeard — 03.09.05 @ 1:38 pm
Well, putting aside my inability to write HTML straight (!), all I can say is that, clearly, the most prominent of the interactive Conservative blogs do not write about these things, or become involved in policy decisions concerning them, and the best of the interactive liberal blogs do.
The “culture wars”, “spreading democracy abroad”, and Foxhunting wayward journalists, are clearly more important to LaShawn and to most of her more prominent ideological fellow bloggers, than any of the above issues.
If you don’t believe me, go read them–you can step over and run down my blogroll quickly to get started.
Comment by Joseph Marshall — 03.09.05 @ 1:55 pm
We believe you, Joseph. We believe you!
I like you. You’re my favorite Buddhist, but you’re walking dangerously close to the telling-me-what-to-write-about line. This is why America is great: freedom of expression. With millions of blogs in existence, I’m certain everyone can find something to their liking. If not, they have the freedom to start a blog of their own.
I write about what interests me, and I write about it when it suits me.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.09.05 @ 2:19 pm
Exactly when was the battle won?
Stan returns. I guess the banished just can’t stay away from this blog. - Admin
Comment by stan — 03.09.05 @ 2:28 pm
If you have to ask…..
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 3:01 pm
I would never dream of telling you what to write, LaShawn. For one thing, I want my cohorts to be the most important force for framing those other issues in 2006 and 2008. For you can only “spread democracy” so far and the culture wars were settled long ago–this is a pluralist society and it will remain so.
For another, I enjoy your blog just as it is. If you wrote about what didn’t interest you, it wouldn’t interest me either.
Comment by Joseph Marshall — 03.09.05 @ 3:19 pm
The idea that republican “courting” of black voters is somehow bad or misguided are , IMO, naive. Politics is not some idiological game where one makes heroic stands only to be dashed on the rocks.
The republicans are slowly turning into the big tent party, while the democrats have evolved into a party of many competing small tents.
The more folks we can congregate into the big tent, the better off the party and the country will be. The methods may be distasteful to some, but we live in a social environment we are born into, not the one we would like to have.
Comment by Howard — 03.09.05 @ 3:19 pm
La Shawn Barber on Redefining Civil Rights
La Shawn Barber’s Corner - Redefining the Civil Rights Battle I hate to see any politician trying to court votes as it insults the audience. If Republicans want more of any “group’s” votes they need to do a better job…
Trackback by Broken Masterpieces — 03.09.05 @ 4:09 pm
Actus, for all the leftist lies crammed to his head and clouding his judgment, remains a thoughtful and intelligent person. Yeah, our standard of living, in real terms, has held mostly pat since, say, 1972. Furthermore, that it has not dropped precipitously mainly because of the availability of easy credit, taking the form of credit cards and mortgaging the hard-earned equity of our homes.
If we broaden our scope to the national level, we see the same “easy credit” mentality at work with unfunded, massive Federal programs and staggering debt. We mortgage this, not on our houses, but on the future: our childred and grandchildren (for those of us lucky enough to have such).
And, for all of their talk of being the party of “smaller government”, the Republicans have led this nation down this path to a greater degree than have the opposition.
To be a party of both “Black” and “White”, the Republicans must take charge of this issue, since it hits all of us where we live and effects our futures and those we love. (I like how I tied all this together, if I do say so myself!)
Comment by Mark Slater — 03.09.05 @ 5:49 pm
It’s somewhat of a semantical argument, but I take it that when LaShawn refers to “courting” voters, she’s talking about the old vote-for-us-and-we’ll-give-you-a-government-check routine that Democrats have practiced for so long with blacks. (Or its converse, “vote for us or the evil Republicans will take away your government checks”.) I totally agree with that.
That’s not the same as saying that Republicans should be doing a better job of trying to pitch the message to blacks. As long as everyone stays on message, and it doesn’t devolve into saying whatever one thinks the audience wants to hear at the moment. In defense of some of the GOP campaign strategists, I will say that some of them have concluded over the past decade that it’s a wasted effort, as in the example that Diane gave of Prince George’s Co. in Maryland. If you are a GOP Presidential campaign manager, and you have $4M to spend, you might look at PGCo and conclude “it’s a lost cause; this money will be much better spent in Cincinnati”. I think this has led to a tendency for some in the GOP to write off black districts in general. I think that’s defeatist. I would prefer to look more for areas where blacks are being mis-served by the Democrats, and make an effort to target the message to them. I’ve seen some articles recently where Republican strategists are thinking that they have a real opportunity to make headway with black voters in a number of the mid-America swing states such as Ohio and Wisconsin who have grown tired of the Democrat shuck-and-jive, and I’m all for making more of an effort there. That doesn’t mean being condenscending (just the opposite); it means taking the basic message and making an effort to get it heard in those areas.
(BTW, I haven’t been there in a while, but back in the ’90s I used to travel up to that part of Maryland a lot to attend meetings at NASA-Goddard Space Flight Center. At that time, Prince George’s Co. was notorious among NASA travel people for having among the highest hotel room rates in the U.S. It was nearly impossible to find a room at the government-permitted rate, and many times we had to stay in places in Montgomery Co. because it was cheaper.)
Comment by Cousin Dave — 03.09.05 @ 5:55 pm
“Well, La Shawn, the real problem is they are not concerns of the Republican Party, nor, from reading most conservative blogs, the concern of most conservative bloggers either.” comment by Joseph
What do you want, someone to lead you by the hand and say this is the way. We are Republicans and we care. The democrats do that all the time and where has it gotten people, they threw and still want to throw Billions at the war on poverty and education and what has been the result …. We still have poverty and the Educational system is in the worse shape ever and getting worse.
When Schools are mandated to show results the answer is well we work with ‘outcomes’ but there is no success in that either.
And why is it the government has to do everything for people, this used to be a country of Individualism, but yet it is now demanded that Votes have to be courted in other words .. The people are demanding that their votes be bought.
This is sad because we as Americans are losing our Identity as individuals and are becoming exactly what Hillary Clinton thinks we are nothing more than a bunch of automatons waiting with baited bredth for her next pearl of wisdom..
NO thanks
Mark
Comment by Mark — 03.09.05 @ 5:59 pm
Sorry if I was harsh, Joseph. My response was a bit over the top.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.09.05 @ 6:08 pm
Lashawn,
Did not Rev Jesse Paterson say black and white want the same things for their families. I lived at home and attended the Univ of MD, College Park, and thought I knew Prince George’s County very well back then. Of course that was forty years ago! What has changed? It was very middle class back then. NASA’s computers for the moon trip were in Greenbelt, MD. Where I worked for the Army is now the Univ of DC. It was the Bureau of Standards.
JMB
Comment by James M. Barber — 03.09.05 @ 6:09 pm
Renee,
I posed a simple question. Mr. Massie said that the battle to extend the benefits of the Constitution has been won. I’m wondering when this happened and who won it. When Pete Wilson was CA governor, he said that 30 years from the Civil Rights Act was enough. How about you?
Comment by stan — 03.09.05 @ 7:59 pm
For those who need other men and other men’s laws to prove to themselves that they are free, I would say Pete Wilson will never be right because there will always be the need for another law, another man’s approval, etc., etc….
For those who take their marching orders from the Lord Jesus Christ, they are already free and the battle was won the day they accepted him.
There you have it
Comment by Renee — 03.09.05 @ 8:23 pm
On P.G. County….
The county has the highest number of murders in the Washington, DC, area–more than Washington itself
False.
The county has the worst performing schools in Maryland.
False. That goes to Baltimore.
And the county has the second highest tax burden in Maryland and in the Washington, DC, area.
False. P.G. county actually has a tax cap that prevents the rising of property taxes. It’s tax burden is less than D.C. Additionally, I believe Montgomery County may be more.
Several years ago, there was some Republican representation in the county government, the murder rate was lower, and the schools were better than absolute last.
Define several years ago. It has been Democrat controlled for more than 15 years. Next, schools got worse from a combination of white flight and forced “integration”.
And every election, the percentage of Democrat votes has increased.
The percentage of Republicans running for office has fallen.
The most logical explanation is that the Black voters in the county are happy with their all-Democrat, high crime, poor school government.
The poster ignores the parents who sued to get forced bussing ended in the country. The poster ignores the parents who sued to get more neighborhood schools built and more magnet programs in the school system.
The poster ignores P.G. citizens who are working within the system to solve the problem of car thefts.
The poster, lied.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.09.05 @ 8:30 pm
In P.G. county, 2 local elections past, a Black church invited politicians to address the citizens in the area. After the election when a Republican got creamed by a Dem., the Republican stated that he was bringing charges against the church because Republicans weren’t invited.
The next day, another Republican said that the person complaining was wrong because he was there. The pastor of the church provided the invitations sent to all candidates including the Republican candidate who said he would file a complaint. It turned out that the Republican turned down the offer.
The Republican had to recant and apologize.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.09.05 @ 8:34 pm
And the point about this story of the rude Republican is…?
Do you remember several months ago when I asked you to qualify some of your “drinking the Republican kool-aid” type of remarks? I think you need to do that again. Are you counting me among the kool-aid drinkers?
Comment by La Shawn — 03.09.05 @ 8:53 pm
If a poster is looking to persuade me, saying someone lied is much too strong and accusing someone so easily causes me to doubt the credibility of the accuser. Especially when the accusation of lying refers to statistics which we all know are subject to the whims of compilation and interpretation. [Once when I tried to report a motorist dry-firing a gun at me, the policeman I talked to dissuaded me from filing a formal report. Later, I reflected, that the mayor at that time was intent on proving that he had reduced crime.] I know anyone can say anything they feel like but if, by any chance, the goal is to persuade, name calling and hasty accusations are likely to fail.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 03.09.05 @ 9:28 pm
And the point about this story of the rude Republican is…?
It was a continuing response to the poster who commented about PG County. The purpose was to point out that if Republican representation in PG County lessened, maybe it did so because some Republicans didn’t do basic electioneering.
Are you counting me among the kool-aid drinkers?
No.
But don’t overlook that I’ve also written that I don’t drink the Dem kool-aid.
Here’s a question for you: is it possible to point out that Republicans aren’t clean and still be considered “off the plantation”?
Comment by DarkStar — 03.09.05 @ 9:33 pm
I have a diiferent take on why blacks should look at supporting Republican candidates; and that is that, in spite of the Democratic meme to the contrary, it is the Republican Party that HAS been supporting one standard of opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race. That Republicans are now asking blacks to take note of the evenhanded nature of their philosophy, does not equate with some unsavory “courting”, but is a call for the Party to receive its proper share of credit. And, if once blacks see that Republicans have set out one standard for all, and then see that the Democratic “solutions” have failed to achieve the desired result, if they then decide to give a Republican a listen, it seems a prudent move.
LaShawn writes:
“Mychal argues that Republicans must do a better job reaching out to all Americans, not black Americans.”
Which misses the point, Republicans have been promoting one message for all Americans, it has been the black voters who have been unwilling to listen.
Borrowing a metaphor, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
Comment by Richard — 03.09.05 @ 9:34 pm
Which misses the point, Republicans have been promoting one message for all Americans, it has been the black voters who have been unwilling to listen.
This is proven to be false pretty easily. Before the current election cycle, advertisement for Republican candiates in the Black media has been close to nil.
Basic electioneering.
When BET had talking head shows, Republicans were asked to appear and consistantly turned them down. Armstrong Williams had said as much and had said it was wrong for Republicans to not even try. Jack Kemp said the same thing.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.09.05 @ 9:45 pm
DS, I’m not a Republican apologist or lackey. I am an independent conservative and Christian. I am not a member of nor am I beholden to the Republican party.
The answer to your question is obvious.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.09.05 @ 9:51 pm
I also skeptically ask, why is it that when a Republican seeka vote from a black person it is called “courting the black vote”, and not called courting an American’s vote?
Mr. Massie notes:
“history is replete with examples of….who did not recognize when the battle was over and the war had been won. ”
Isn’t the insistence on seeing this issue in terms of blacks and whites an example of failing to acknowledge that the war is won? Mustn’t there come a time when everyone sees themselves as American, without reference to color, in order to achieve a truly color blind society? Those who must see themselves as part of the collective first, what do you fear? Could you not look at all alternatives, as an individual, an American, and then decide for yourself what is best for you? Regardless of from which Party that idea, or opportunity comes.
Comment by Richard — 03.09.05 @ 9:57 pm
The answer to your question is obvious.
To me, yes it is obvious.
To others, I don’t believe so. Just consider the exchanges I’ve been in when I pointed out Republicans who agreed with my thoughts about the Southern Strategy.
I know anyone can say anything they feel like but if, by any chance, the goal is to persuade, name calling and hasty accusations are likely to fail.
Please remember that when others respond to me.
Especially when the accusation of lying refers to statistics which we all know are subject to the whims of compilation and interpretation.
You can’t misinterpret the number of peopled killed in a jurisdiction. The numbers reported are the numbers reported. The tax burden of jurisdictions in the area mentioned are easily compared. In fact, politicans in PG complain every year about the relatively low tax burden of PG county. The school performance for the state of Maryland is determined based on Maryland state government stats and everyone recognizes that Baltimore is at he bottom. Addtionally, Baltimore is at the top in the murder rate in the state of Maryland.
If you live in the general area, which I do, the stats mentioned are well known and not subject to such misstatement.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.09.05 @ 10:14 pm
Mired
LaShawn takes a very disappointing position. Fellow conservative Mychal Massie and I agree on many things, including a distaste for Republicans “courting the black vote.” What is this “black vote”? Why does that not read, “courting the” Americans w…
Trackback by The Black Republican — 03.09.05 @ 10:49 pm
Mychal Massie says some interesting things. “Get the National Education Association, liberals and the radical homosexual agenda out of education so real learning can take place.” That is a very interesting comment. He is suggesting that there are three groups of Americans who are inhibiting “real learning” in some undefined way. NEA? Liberals? Homosexuals? How are these groups preventing real learning from taking place? What subjects? Algebra? Geography? Spanish? History? Can Mr. Massie support any of this with statistics? Are test scores higher in states where the governorship and state legislature are controlled by conservatives compared to states where the governorship and state legislature are controlled by liberals? Are test scores higher in states or cities that have passed amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage than in states or cities that have not done so, or have actually passed some “gay-friendly” legislation?
What is the “homosexual agenda” anyway? Most gay people I know just want to be treated like anyone else. They want the same sorts of rights that married people have, for example: to express their love with their partnes as they see fit, without threat of law enforcment action; to compete for employment, and rent or purchase property without discrimination; to have hospital visitation rights and speak for their partners’ medical wishes when their partners are unable to speak for themselves; and to have the same tax advantages in inheriting property.
If the so-called “homosexual agenda” were fully guaranteed, and even if (gasp) every state in the United States went far beyond that and provided for same-sex marriage, there would be negligible effect on “real learning.” Algebra, geography, Spanish, and history test scores would be about the same.
Does Mychal Massie seriously believe that test scores are low because teachers, instead of teaching algebra, geography, Spanish, and history, are instead teaching about (gasp) liberalism, or (gasp) the Homosexual Agenda? What utter nonesense.
You know, if a liberal pundit had written, “Get the Heritage Foundation, conservatives and the radical religious right agenda out of education so real learning can take place,” conservatives would be all over that pundit.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 3:12 am
Mr. Massie I believe, is dead-on in his contempt for racial divisionists. I TRY not to think in terms of race, but I DO think in terms of culture and ethinicity. I mean, don’t we all really want the same things? Some may want more of them than others and some but I think we would all rather be free to acheive and live in safety and in peace. Race is an artificial division of the human family anyway. Having said that, I’d be the happiest man on the planet if the extremists on both sides were willing to see each other seriously. The battle for equality has NOT been won in this country. Laws may be on the books, but where is the proof? Until this country lives up to its creed, there will be major problems. The answer isn’t in having the gov’t give away things folk should work for nor is it in maintaining and strengthening (or shoring up) the status quo. I’ll say the same thing to Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians and everyone else: learn what THIS means, “I will have MERCY and not sacrifice.” Love, the kind of love Jesus died for is the ONLY answer to this mess we find ourselves in. Love will get the truth out of you. Love will cause you want to help the down-trodden. Love will empower you to teach those that need to know what you know. Following donkeys and elephants will cause you to have to tap dance to avoid stepping in their dung. Too bad Hezbollah is so evil because what we actually need in this nation is a Party of God. Lord knows I am tired of being pandered to and patronized by both major political parties.
Comment by Rafael Daniel — 03.10.05 @ 6:14 am
On P.G. County.
The county has the highest number of murders in the Washington, DC, area- more than Washington itself
False. P.G is only #2
The county has the worst performing schools in Maryland.
False. That goes to Baltimore, Again P.G.is #2
And the county has the second highest tax burden in Maryland and in the Washington, DC, area.
False. P.G. county actually has a tax cap that prevents the rising of property taxes. It’s tax burden is less than D.C. Additionally, I believe Montgomery County may be more. “We are talking about all tax, not just property tax”.Think telephone tax .
Several years ago, there was some Republican representation in the county government, the murder rate was lower, and the schools were better than absolute last.
Define several years ago. It has been Democrat controlled for more than 15 years. Next, schools got worse from a combination of white flight and forced “integration”. Why does white flight make schools worse?????
And every election, the percentage of Democrat votes has increased.
The percentage of Republicans running for office has fallen. “And what is your point.”
Comment by Tom — 03.10.05 @ 7:48 am
Why does white flight make schools worse?????
The question of the ages, Tom. Tell the truth, and you run a high risk of being called a racist.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.10.05 @ 8:11 am
Tom, the short answer is nothing white people fleeing to the suburb’s to send their children to “better” schools have their own pathological problems to contend with (i.e. Columbine High, Pear High). White parents are even taking their kids out of those public schools and sending them to private institutions. Thomas Sowell, wrote a paper titled, “The Education of Minority Children”, which states,” Back in 1899, in Washington, D. C., there were four academic public high schools– one black and three white. In standardized tests given that year, students in the black high school averaged higher test scores than students in two of the three white high schools.
This was not a fluke. It so happens that I have followed 85 years of the history of this black high school– from 1870 to 1955 –and found it repeatedly equaling or exceeding national norms on standardized tests.” And what’s interesting the parents of these children were not very well educated…”51 were laborers and 1 was a doctor”. To find what happen to Dunbar High and P.S. 91 in Brooklyn, New York and what Sowell calls the “Politics of Education” read that paper.
By the way, I live in Bowie (Prince George County) where the mayor is white, and 4 out of 6 on the city council is white. Accordingly in 1990, 37.6% of the residents who live in Bowie have a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher vs. 26.5% for the State of Maryland vs. 25.5% for Prince George’s County. Accordingly in 1997, Bowie median household income was $68,000 vs. $49,906 for Prince George’s County but only $45,907 for the State of Maryland WOW!!! Accordingly in 1998 the average disposable income in Bowie was $53,100 vs. $49,906 for PG but only $45,907 for the State of Maryland WOW!!! MD School Performance MSPAP results showed that Bowie elementary schools perform at 48.4 vs. 43.8 for the State of Maryland vs. 31.1 for PG.
Not bad coming from Prince George County. Once again as a black republican male, Dark Star I like your critical thinking!!!!
P.S. Prince George County Police force is only 41% black Americans so the other 59% is….You guest it.
Comment by gkp — 03.10.05 @ 10:55 am
“Courting the black vote” is a ridiculous political ploy by Republicans. If you want my vote, represent the things I believe in! What happen to the Republicans that were for small government, less regulation, and fiscal responsibility?
The mere names of the parties are supposed to define their beliefs:
Republicans - defenders of the Republic (this country is a republic, not a democracy), belief responsibiliy of the individual in social and financial matters, rights given to each INDIVIDUAL by the Creator and the rule of law as defined by the Constitution. A governemnt that can only perform the tasks specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Our Republican President has not missed one opportunity to increase the size of government, take away rights, and be fiscally irresponsible. (see defintion of Democrat)
Democrats: Believers in the “greater good”, majority (or mob) rule, in other words, democracy. Beliefs that a few know what is of the greater benefit to society as a whole. If 51% of the people think it is best, it should be imposed on the rest of the 49% regardless of any violation of the minority’s rights. People that legitimately believe that a Utopia can be legislated and actually have a plan for it. Not these present day “I disagree with you just because your not me”, spineless clowns in Washington now.
Now, someone please tell me what “Republican” do you know fits the description of what a “republican” should be? That is the one that will always get my vote without having to “court” it.
When I look at our current elected officials, all I see are left wing, centrist, and right wing members of the Bureaucratic Party.
Comment by M. Woodward — 03.10.05 @ 11:10 am
“Courting the black vote” is a ridiculous political ploy by Republicans.
That’s one thing we agree on. In my opinion, the Repubs have succumbed to the conservatives-don’t-care-about-blacks line.
We’re all individuals, and no two people have the same path in life. But no one had to “court” me. I realized that what liberals stood for, at least the ones in Washington, was antithetical to everything I was beginning to believe in. It was a gradual process, but the more I lived and learned, the more I realized I was right-leaning. After I became a Christian, my position was solidified.
Wooing people to your side based on ideas and tangible benefits is not the problem. “Courting” people based on their race is disgusting to me, and that’s the only person I claim to speak for.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.10.05 @ 11:18 am
LaShawn:
I agree and I certainly understand your perspective. I am just sick of the “lesser of two evils”. The lesser of the two is still evil. For the P.C. police, I use “evil” metaphorically, not Micheal Moorishly, I know President Bush is not evil.
I just want, in this country, to really vote FOR someone, not just vote AGAINST someone else. As an independant that leans right, but, believes in the fundamental Republican ideals of small government, the rule of law and the Constitution, and fiscal responsibility, where do I turn?
Comment by M. Woodward — 03.10.05 @ 11:31 am
Well, given man’s fallen nature, I’m afraid that’s all there is. But I suspect all will be well when Christ returns.
Until then, we share the Gospel, discuss the issues and do our best to be decent and upright citizens.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.10.05 @ 11:36 am
Isn’t that basically it in a nutshell? Man’s unwillingness to admit to his fallen nature and looking at “other” fallen men to provide a “fallen” answer?
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 12:09 pm
Dear La Shawn,
You wrote, “Until then, we share the Gospel, discuss the issues and do our best to be decent and upright citizens.”
I hope you agree that Americans (and citizens of other lands) who do not share the Gospel can also do their best to be decent and upright citizens — and that most Americans (and citizens of other lands) actually succeed in being decent and upright citizens.
For example, only about 1% of Japanese are Christian, and I believe that most Japanese Christians and most Japanese non-Christians do their best to be decent and upright citizens, and most of them succeed in being decent and upright citizens.
Also, those who share the Gospel can be liberal or conservative; those who do not share the Gospel can also be liberal or conservative.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 12:37 pm
I was actually talking to M. Woodard (and other Christians). I’m a grown, reasonably intelligent woman, and I know that unbelievers can be decent and upright citizens. But salvation through Jesus Christ is what we ultimately need.
I have no clue why you singled out the Japanese, but OK.
I appreciate the sermon, though.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.10.05 @ 12:42 pm
Unfortunately if Republicans do not “court” the Black vote, they are left confirming in the minds of many, the stereotype the Left and the media have perpetuated, that they do not care. It’s a catch-22. I would think it depends on how they “court”. If they promise bread and circuses, then that would be an insult. But if they focus on an awareness of the things many (if not most) Black people feel are issues they in particular are concerned about, that seems to be a way of “courting” with out patronizing.
Comment by Jack Lewis — 03.10.05 @ 12:42 pm
Decent and good in who’s eyes Anomalocaris ?
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 12:58 pm
Dear Renee,
I would hope that you and I and most readers of La Shawn’s weblog share a great deal of common ground on what it is to be a decent and upright (or good) citizen. Decent and upright citizen don’t steal, don’t assault others, do drive carefully, don’t litter, do pay their taxes, and attempt to raise their children to also be decent and upright citizens.
La Shawn,
Why did I single out the Japanese? North and South America and Europe are predominantly Christian, and Japan was the first country I thought of that has few Christians. That’s all.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 1:24 pm
You and I? And how often will that change? From day to day, week to week, year to year? Summer Winter?
That’s the fallacy with the “But I am a good person” concept. Ever changing, never the same.
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 1:42 pm
So since I say I don’t want Planned Parenthood telling my child that it is ok to have sex outside of marriage…
do we agree?
Is it ok in your mind that they come into the schools and teach what I tell my child they should wait until marriage for…
and then they are no where to be found when the rampant AIDs hits the community?
Didn’t they mean well? Were they not and those who believe that fallacy trying to be “decent”?
Just curous A.
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 1:53 pm
Someone wrote, “The poster, lied.”
I hate when that happens…
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 2:55 pm
Someone wrote, “Here’s a question for you: is it possible to point out that Republicans aren’t clean and still be considered “off the plantation”?”
Who was asserting that Republicans are clean? Nobody…
That means there is a false premise (lie) in your question..
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 2:57 pm
Someone wrote, “Just consider the exchanges I’ve been in when I pointed out Republicans who agreed with my thoughts about the SS.”
Off the deep end again….
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 3:02 pm
Dear Renee,
Thank you for your comments. I will try to disentagle them and respond.
La Shawn said “I know that unbelievers can be decent and upright citizens.” I agree with her. Evidently you have a problem here. You seem to be concerned that maybe there are some Americans who appear to be decent and upright citizens, but have some covert indecent agenda. I think we need to analyze separately our conduct as citizens and our conduct as members or non-members of faith communities. The rightness or wrongness of sex before marriage is a matter of faith, not a matter of citizenship. The great majority of Americans had a “wedding night” before they were married. Most of these folks are decent and upright citizens, even though they be sinners in the context of their faith, or yours.
Your comments about Planned Parenthood may be relevant to some topic, but they are not relevant to La Shawn’s statement “I know that unbelievers can be decent and upright citizens.” Planned Parenthood is not contributing to the spread of AIDS. Planned Parenthood is not teaching children to be promiscuous. Planned Parenthood is not trying to make your children indecent.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 3:39 pm
Ano wrote, “Planned Parenthood is not contributing to the spread of AIDS. Planned Parenthood is not teaching children to be promiscuous. Planned Parenthood is not trying to make your children indecent.”
Nobody said that PP is teaching children to be promiscuous but there is ground between teaching abstinence and promiscuity. PP isn’t teaching abstinence and Renee objected to PP telling her child it is ok outside of marriage. So arguing the opposite side of the spectrum wasn’t helpful there.
PP is in some people’s opinion trying to make children indecent if they aren’t teaching the values that they were trying to teach their children. SO… your last judgment was incorrect depending on the eyes of the perceiver.
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 3:55 pm
Like I said …
Decent in the eyes of who? If it is fallen man, and other fallen man, there is only one who decides “decent” for me
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 4:03 pm
That would be me?
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 4:09 pm
jk. But I know it ain’t ano…
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 4:14 pm
We are talking about all tax, not just property tax”. Think telephone tax .
The telephone (cell?) tax exists in D.C., Montgomery County, and Howard County. The tax, when included, does not bump up the burden that much.
If you mean land line phone tax, that exists all over the state and, again, the local portion does not bump up the burden that much.
The question of the ages, Tom. Tell the truth, and you run a high risk of being called a racist.
In the case of PG county, the tax base when down through the floor. The number of new schools being built went to zero because the population was shrinking. As the population rose, the desegregation court orders were in place which made it difficult to build new schools without getting court approval.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.10.05 @ 4:15 pm
Who was asserting that Republicans are clean? Nobody
Ummm….
Saying that my comments about SS, backed up with other resources, are “unproven allegations” isn’t saying the Republicans are clean?
Interesting.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.10.05 @ 4:17 pm
Wooing people to your side based on ideas and tangible benefits is not the problem. “Courting” people based on their race is disgusting to me, and that’s the only person I claim to speak for.
Avoiding people based on race should also be disgusting to you. That is what Republicans did.
And now they’re doing the opposite. If you recall, I blogged about this very subject just a few minutes ago. - Admin
Comment by DarkStar — 03.10.05 @ 4:19 pm
Dear Baklava and Renee,
Again, La Shawn wrote about “decent and upright citizens.” I agree with her.
The decency of premarital sex between consenting adults, not in exchange for money, is a religious question. It is not a citizenship question.
Renee, I agree with you. Nobody should decide for you what is decent behavior for you and your children in the context of your faith.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 4:19 pm
ROFL
Baklava you are killing me
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 4:21 pm
Again. Nobody said that Republicans (conservatives don’t control them) are completely clean.
But in general the conservative message stands on principle and applies to all individuals (citizens) in the U.S.
You can either agree with the message or not but you keep avoiding the message (for what reason?)
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 4:23 pm
“The decency of premarital sex between consenting adults”
Again….
In who’s eyes? LOL
This is too much fun.
Comment by Renee — 03.10.05 @ 4:30 pm
Dear Baklava,
Please forgive me, I am afraid I do not understand your question.
You wrote, “But in general the conservative message stands on principle and applies to all individuals (citizens) in the U.S.”
Sure. And with equal truth, in general, the liberal message also stands on principle and applies to all individuals (citizens) in the U.S.
For example, liberals believe that all children should have adequate and safe food, housing, clothing — and a quality education — regardless of the affluence of their parents. And that it is an important role of government to work toward these goals. (One may debate if specific liberal or conservative policies have advanced America toward these goals.)
What message am I avoiding?
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 4:39 pm
Ano wrote, “Sure. And with equal truth, in general, the liberal message also stands on principle and applies to all individuals (citizens) in the U.S. ”
No Ano, it applies to groups. It caters messages to groups with special messages. Enviro-nuts -(not based on science) we hear you and will fund you more. Blacks - we want to have preferential treatment for you. Here in CA to illegal immigrants - we want to give you legal drivers licenses…. poor - we will tax the rich even more and oppose any tax breaks (The bottom 50% of income earners only pay 4% of the federal income taxes because of this long standing message).
But you don’t have to agree. I’m just stating my opinion based on what I see.
Ano wrote, “For example, liberals believe that all children should have adequate and safe food, housing, clothing – and a quality education – regardless of the affluence of their parents. And that it is an important role of government to work toward these goals. (One may debate if specific liberal or conservative policies have advanced America toward these goals.)”
Ano, liberals have feelings. And they want to do good. They are well intentioned usually. Unfotunately liberals do not look at the RESULTS of their “well-intentioned” policies and can’t admit the failures of their policies/law/legislation they wrote. And IN THE PROCESS liberal leaders attack conservatives as being not well-intentioned and as being “mean-spirited” (plenty of leftist leaders have used that phrase) and not having a heart but the BIG PROBLEM IS ANO liberals just don’t seem to be understanding of Economics 101 and or the facts.
Can I hear an Amen?
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 5:12 pm
But in general the conservative message stands on principle and applies to all individuals (citizens) in the U.S.
I can point to the “liberal message” and say the same thing.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.10.05 @ 5:57 pm
When conservatives attempt to say what liberalism is, beware. Baklava alleges that liberalism is about “groups” not about “individuals.” To the extent that there is a distinction, it’s a distinction without a difference. For example, we now have curb cuts on our sidewalks so that wheelchair users can cross the street. Whether you consider wheelchair users as a group or as individuals, they are entitled to cross the street just like people who walk.
Attitudes about immigration, legal and otherwise, cut strange paths across the liberal-conservative spectrum. Liberal Dianne Feinstein is one of the strongest voices in the Senate for tighter border control and tougher action on illegal immigration. And most people, liberal or conservative, whether they favor easier or tougher action on immigration, do so because of sincerely-held beliefs, not because they want to curry favor with some group.
The purpose of environmental protection is environmental protection — to preserve God’s bountiful garden for future generations. It is not to provide benefits for a small group or class of people. Quite the contrary, it is the anti-environmentalists who want to provide benefits for a small group at the expense of everyone else. For example, allowing more mercury in the environment allows polluters to save money they would otherwise have to spend, and it endangers everyone’s health.
Funny you should accuse the environmental movement of not being based on science. Quite the contrary, it is the anti-environmentalists who abuse science through and through. Sources:
The Junk Science of George W. Bush
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&c=1&s=kennedy
excerpt:
Today, flat-earthers within the Bush Administration–aided by right-wing allies who have produced assorted hired guns and conservative think tanks to further their goals–are engaged in a campaign to suppress science that is arguably unmatched in the Western world since the Inquisition. Sometimes, rather than suppress good science, they simply order up their own. Meanwhile, the Bush White House is purging, censoring and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the profits of the Administration’s corporate paymasters or challenges the ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda. Indeed, so extreme is this campaign that more than sixty scientists, including Nobel laureates and medical experts, released a statement on February 18 [2004] that accuses the Bush Administration of deliberately distorting scientific fact “for partisan political ends.” . . .
The Bush Administration’s first instinct when it comes to science has been to suppress, discredit or alter facts it doesn’t like. Probably the best-known case is global warming. Over the past two years the Administration has done this to a dozen major government studies on global warming, as well as to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its own efforts to stall action to control industrial emissions. The list also includes major long-term studies by the federal government’s National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences, and by scientific teams at the EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, and a 2002 collaborative report by scientists at all three of those agencies. . . .
Last November the EPA cut a private deal with a pesticide manufacturer to take over federal studies of a pesticide it manufactures. . . .
Led by the President, the Republicans have gutted scientific research budgets and politicized science within the federal agencies. The very leaders who so often condemn the trend toward moral relativism are fostering and encouraging the trend toward scientific relativism. The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have now institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America’s federal agencies.
/excerpt
That’s not just some lunatic liberal. That statement was signed by 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 135 members of the National Academy of Sciences. See:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1335
And I can cite numerous other articles that establish that the Bush administration not only subordinates science to politics, but overturns scientific fact. For more citations, write to me at my name followed by @earthlink.net.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 6:52 pm
Baklave writes, “the BIG PROBLEM IS ANO liberals just don’t seem to be understanding of Economics 101 and or the facts.”
What would you say about someone who got a Ph.D. in economics at MIT, was on the faculty of the economics departments of Yale, Stanford, and MIT, and now Princeton, has written 18 books and hundreds of academic articles on economics? Would this person know the material in the introductory undergraduate economics course? Yes, I believe that liberal Paul Krugman understands that material.
What about someone who received his B.A., summa cum laude from Harvard, and also his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, all in economics, then became an professor of economics at Harvard? I believe that Jeffrey Sachs understands introductory undergraduate economics pretty well.
There are plenty of liberal economists, including some some Nobel laureates.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.10.05 @ 7:04 pm
Again. No. Liberals pander to groups. Their message does not apply to all individuals.
What is preferential treatment? A message for all to rally around? No. It’s a message tailored to one group..
Comment by Baklava — 03.10.05 @ 7:20 pm
Conservatives “pander” to Jewish voters with the support of Israel. Conservatives “pander” to the “religious right”.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.10.05 @ 9:33 pm
GEORGE WILL: Almost Everything Designated a ‘Civil Rights’ Problem Isn’t
The Civil Rights Movement has no reason to exist any longer. But that doesn’t keep the corpse from reanimating every business day….
Trackback by Whither The Fool? — 03.11.05 @ 9:53 am
DS wrote, “Conservatives ‘pander’ to Jewish voters with the support of Israel.”
Interesting accusation. But this country through multipe administrations has supported Israel, Eqypt, Japan, and many other countries. The amount of foreign aid given to Arab countries is equal to or greater than the amount of aid given to Israel depending on the year.
There are vocal liberals however who have been upset with our support of Israel and call Israel all kinds of names and level all sorts of accusation and then DS comes along and says it’s a conservative “principle” to pander to Israel.
DS wrote, “Conservatives ‘pander’ to the ‘religious right’.”
That’s a funny allegation DS. My interpretation is that liberals are openly hostile to Christians and trying to expunge religious anything from anything. The problem for liberals is that conservatives understand the constitution and it says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
If the conservatives principled message of understanding the constitution and defending the constitution is “pandering” to you then this conversation is LOST and it isn’t because of conservatives messsages and principles it’s because of your view of them.
Comment by Baklava — 03.11.05 @ 11:40 am
Paul Krugman HA HA HA Don’t get me started. He doesn’t understand the big picture about economics anymore than 1/2 of america.
He actually thinks and states openly that Bush’s tax cuts were the reason that the economy was in recession and jobs were being lost.
Economics 101 buddy. It only requires a little common sense and understanding that when the government doesn’t take as much from the private sector it is beneficial to the private sector. The recession started in the year 2000 before Bush came into office and tax cuts were NEEDED to help consumers and businesses have more money. When consumers have more money and they spend it more goods and services are purchased. When more goods and services are purchased businesses do better and need to have the manpower to provide the goods and services so they hire. When the economy and businesses do well the tax revenues into the government go up again (as opposed to when the economy and businesses don’t do well and the revenues into the government drop).
Paul Krugman would have a heart attack reading that last paragraph and anyone with common sense would say AMEN!
Sure there are liberal economists. It doesn’t mean they understand capitalism or supply and demand nor the Laffer curve or any other cause and effect of government policies and the private sector.
Comment by Baklava — 03.11.05 @ 11:49 am
Ano wrote, “we now have curb cuts on our sidewalks so that wheelchair users can cross the street.”
The conservative message is equal opportunity and to the extent that it makes sense (not an access ramp to the grand canyone) we should provide equal opportunity to provide access to people in wheelchairs. It made sense, the ADA was passed by Bush in 1991. There are some grumblings because lawyers are using the ADA inappropriately but equal opportunity for all is not pandering.
Ano. You should be ashamed at yourself. You tried to come across “respectfully” even signing your letters that way. Your dissemination of accusations and flat out propoganda about the environment cost you ALL of your credibility points by readers here. You went through one accusation after another. I don’t know one conservative who is “anti-environment”. We try to get to the bottom of the story. We try to determine facts. Liberals through all of their emotion and bashing and accusing want to actually believe that the 52% of america that is conservative is actually against the environment. You excerpted a piece that was HORRIBLE. They/You act as if you know what Bush’s first instict is and you don’t. Sentence after sentence was laden with incorrect facts and assertions that aren’t true.
Try this 95 page .pdf to round out your liberalism and false assertions:
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/enviro/04_enviroindex/Enviro_2004.pdf
In it is this text:
The dominant political theme of 2002 and 2003
from the political environmental organizations was that the Bush administration was engaged in
an ìassault on the environment.î With the turn of the 2004 new year, the news is now official:
ìGeorge W. Bush will go down in history as AmericaÃs worst environmental president.î So sayeth
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the pages of that pre-eminent environmental journal, Rolling Stone.1
This will come as a relief to Ronald Reagan, the previous undisputed champ of environmental
ruin. Consider this excerpt from a report from a consortium of the major environmental
groups issued in 1982 on Reagan and the environment:
During his first 14 months in office, he and his appointed officials have
simply refused to do the job that the laws require and that Americans
expect of their governmentóto protect the public from pollution and to
use publicly owned resources and lands for the public good. Instead, the
Administration officials are handing over to private use the clean air
and water, forests, grasslands, coal and oil that belong to all of us.2
That sounds pretty much like todayÃs standard complaint about the Bush administration. In
fact, you can consider side-by-side the complaints made about Reagan 20 years ago with the
complaints made about Bush today, and you canÃt tell the difference without an official scorerÃs
program.
And this text:
There are serious arguments to be had over the Bush administrationÃs environmental policy,
but the fervency and style of the most publicized arguments suggest something simpler than honest
policy disagreement. The real complaint is that a Republican occupies the White House.
Many environmentalists were unhappy with the Clinton administration, but did not make a commensurate
public fuss.
And this text:
Last year the EPA produced its first ever national
composite picture of the U.S. environment, the Draft
Report on the Environment.22 The Draft Report is
everything that this annual Index has hoped for in
such a report, with trend information on many of
the same categories this Index has always covered:
air, water, land condition, toxic chemicals, and
human health. Together with the Heinz CenterÃs
State of the NationÃs Ecosystems (profiled in last
yearÃs Index), the release of the Draft Report is
another sign that the effort to develop meaningful
environmental indicators is gaining traction.
If the EPAÃs effort to develop and report consistent
indicators is continued, it might render this
annual report obsolete. However, this looks
unlikely at the moment. An 11th-hour textbook,
inside-the-Beltway, 6-4-3 double-play (disgruntledbureaucrat-to-reporter-to-the-public) cast an
undeserved shadow over the Draft Report. Days before the Draft Report was scheduled for release, the New York Times broke a story on the front page charging that the White House had pressured the EPA to change the reportÃs findings about climate change.23 Ultimately EPA decided to leave out substantive discussion of climate change, which prompted some disgruntled EPA staffers to run to the Times with a purposely embarrassing leak. Broadcast media sensationalized the story further. CNBC led with the plug ìWhat the White House doesnÃt want you to know about global warming.î Editorial writers lambasted the administrationÃs ìcensorshipî and ìrevisionist historyî conducted by ìknow-nothing underlingsî covering up ìinconvenient truths.î And the Palm Beach PostÃs cartoonist showed readers the EPA Draft Report before (ìAs for global warming, the news isnÃt good when it comes to the future for you and your familyî) and ìafter it was edited by the Bushiesî (ìGlobal warmingÖ is goodÖ for you and your familyî).
It also sounds like you could take a long look at Bjorn LomborgÃs book The Skeptical Environmentalist. He used to be a member of greenpeace and is a scientist.
As well as the over 15,000 scientists who signed the letter trying to make sure the U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto treaty and the 95 Senators (0 voted against) for the resolution to not pass the Kyoto Treaty and many other facts that people like you do not like to consider, I’d find it wise for you to consider all of the facts before you propagandize and libel people and act like you know anything on the environment.
Comment by Baklava — 03.11.05 @ 12:50 pm
Ano wrote, “For more citations, write to me at..”
Sorry Ano, But give that last citation I wouldn’t go to you for any citations on any other topic now ………………………….. Mr. Libel
Comment by Baklava — 03.11.05 @ 12:58 pm
But this country through multipe administrations has supported Israel, Eqypt, Japan, and many other countries. The amount of foreign aid given to Arab countries is equal to or greater than the amount of aid given to Israel depending on the year.
Latter first. The U.S. gives Israel the most money than any other single country. You’re not comparing apples to apples.
There are vocal liberals however who have been upset with our support of Israel and call Israel all kinds of names and level all sorts of accusation and then DS comes along and says it’s a conservative “principle” to pander to Israel.
1. There are conservatives who have done that as well.
2. I did write that conservative principle is to pander to Israel. I wrote:
The 2 things are different. It’s pretty clear what I wrote. Your spin is “telling.”
Now, to the point:
http://www.thehill.com/news/033004/jewish.aspx
While President Bush won only 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, Republican candidates garnered 35 percent of the Jewish vote in 2002, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
The growing allegiance between the GOP and leaders in the Jewish community is due largely to Bush’s strong support of Israel and refusal to negotiate with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Republican aides and Jewish lobbyists say.
…
Meanwhile, Republicans on Capitol Hill, led by Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.) in the Senate and Deputy Majority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) in the House, are aggressively courting Jewish interest groups, citing their own and President Bush’s strong support of Israel’s security policies.
…
Later in the day, the Jewish interest groups met with Republican senators in a
meeting chaired by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Santorum.
“Both sides are clearly jockeying for political advantage,” said a lobbyist for a prominent Jewish interest group.
The Conference, a coordinating body that represents 52 Jewish organizations such as the American Jewish Congress and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, organized twin meetings.
…
“On the GOP side they’ve been very aggressive in courting the community,” said Nathan Diament, director of public policy at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. “The point person on the Senate side is Rick Santorum. Over the past two or three years they’ve been working the community and having a lot of meetings.”
Diament said Barbara Ledeen, the director of coalitions for the Senate Republican Conference, initiated the efforts.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who is Jewish, has also been active. He has traveled around the country “stumping in Jewish venues trying to convey a sense of why Republicans are more deserving of support,” said Diament.
On the House side, Cantor, the only Jewish Republican in the House, has led the GOP outreach effort.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.11.05 @ 4:55 pm
DS wrote, “The U.S. gives Israel the most money than any other single country. You’re not comparing apples to apples.”
Don’t need to. Israel is surrounded by countries who want Israel wiped off the map. This isn’t my opinion. This is stated over and over. We are working with 1) a Jewish country 2) a democratic country (used to be the only one in the Middle East) and 3) a country that is in the position of having to protect itself from neighbors. My point WAS that this has been the position through MULTIPLE administrations. While Conservatives and moderates agree with it there are LIBERALS who are vocally against it because they do not think Israel has the right to exist or something.
Your point with the rest of the quotes assures me that yes, Republicans (not conservatives) are doing what La Shawn and others wish they wouldn’t do and try to talk to specific interest group leaders.
Conservatives have a message. If the leaders of these groups like the conservative message they can come with us and lead the political party in THAT direction. I as a conservative understand the predicament that Israel is in but liberals seem not to. If that understanding makes DS want to lie and say that I pander to Israel then so be it. But it’s not. It’s a principled message that is about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in my eyes, life doesn’t include allowing the destruction of an entire country or set of people by mad islamofacists who are bent on returning this world to the 8th century.
Comment by Baklava — 03.11.05 @ 6:23 pm
You mix things.
Republicans have an organizational party who tries to get more and more votes and may or may not stand on principle.
Republicans are slightly to the left of center on most topics.
But DS…. Your quote was, “Conservatives ‘pander’ to Jewish voters with the support of Israel.”
Again. No. Generally conservatives (you can point to one or two who doesn’t) support Israel’s right to survive and moderates as well have understood that the U.S. should support Israel but it is based on principle that we believe that Israel should be supported. It isn’t an attempt by conservatives to hope that Jewish people become conservative.
Republicans on the other hand repeatedly point out to Jewish voters that it is suicidal for them to keep voting Democrat when there is a strong base of liberals in the Democrat party who doesn’t sympathize with Israel’s right to survive amidst a surrounding sea of countries who would eradicate Israel if they could. When Republicans point this out DS, it may be offensive to you but guess what, it’s true. And this is why there have been radical changes in the voting patterns of Jewish voters due to the conservative message…
Comment by Baklava — 03.11.05 @ 6:36 pm
And this is why there have been radical changes in the voting patterns of Jewish voters due to the conservative message…
Radical?
Jewish people voting Dem has gone from 85% to 75%.
Okay.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.11.05 @ 6:55 pm
Strike 85% to 75%. It’s 80% to 75%. But that was the presidential election. I haven’t seen the overall break down.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.11.05 @ 6:56 pm
Baklava doesn’t merit a Dear today, because Baklava is being silly.
It only requires a little common sense and understanding that when the government doesn’t take as much from the private sector it is beneficial to the private sector.
No, a little common sense and understanding reveals that when the governments takes less from the private sector, coupled with the cuts tilted toward the most affluent, and at the same time finances a war with now-predictable expenses off-budget, the result is record deficits, which are not beneficial to the private sector. Our $600 non-Social Security deficit is financed partly by the Social Security surplus and the rest by foreign and domestic purchasers of Treasury securities, every dollar of which has to be paid back with interest.
With common sense and understanding, we know that it is the (ahem) Private Sector, that is, us, and our children, and our grandchildren, that have to pay back those loans.
With record budget deficits and record trade deficits, both financed by foreign purchase of U.S. securities, comes the prospect that countries like China might decide that it’s not a good idea to buy $100 billion in Treasuries every year. When they stop buying and start selling, Economics 101 kicks in. Supply and Demand? What happens when there’s selling pressure on bonds? The price goes down. Lower prices for bonds correspond to higher interest rates. Higher interest rates are never good for the private sector, but they are particularly alarming now, because of massive household indebtedness and record housing prices in many communities, pushed up in part by the availability of easy mortgages. Mortgage rates up leads to reduced demand, leads to a crash in housing prices, leads to foreclosures and bankruptcies. None of this is good for the private sector.
The Laffer curve? There is germ of truth there, but only a germ. If the income tax rate is 0% or 100%, either way, tax receipts are zero. 0% of any income is 0 dollars, and 100% tax leads to zero incentive to work, or at least zero incentive to work “above the table.” This leads to the conclusion that there is some income tax rate that maximizes tax receipts, and that increasing taxes above that rate would actually reduce revenue. That’s the Laffer curve. Arthur Laffer suggested back in the Reagan administration that tax rates were already at or above the level to achieve revenue maximization. There is abundant evidence to contradict this suggestion. If it were true today, then Bush’s tax cuts would result in increased income tax revenue. The opposite is true. So Laffer is not apropos, and never was.
Notice the contradiction between Baklava’s two points. First Baklava suggests that revenue reduction (”when the government doesn’t take as much”) is good for the private sector. Then Baklava invokes the Laffer curve, in which Arthur Laffer suggested that reducing tax rates would increase tax revenue. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Are you trying to reduce revenue, or increase it?
If anyone wants to play Economics 101, I’m happy to join you; that was my undergraduate training. Now that I’ve demolished Baklava’s argument on revenue reduction and the Laffer curve — and pointed out a contradiction between the two arguments — does anybody else want to debate economics with me? Ground rules: no namecalling, only economic arguments allowed.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.11.05 @ 7:29 pm
Doubting My Comprehension Skills
After I chided LaShawn on Wednesday for taking what I called an “unfortunate position”, she posts on Thursday on the same subject, this time I agree with her stance. Why not say “respected citizens in the community?” Who is advising…
Trackback by The Black Republican — 03.11.05 @ 7:53 pm
Oops, sorry, I meant $600 billion, not $600.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.11.05 @ 7:57 pm
The excerpt I posted before did not mention, let alone defend, the Kyoto Protocol (which requires signatories to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases). Regardless of the merits or problems with the Kyoto Protocol, climate change — global warming — is real. The sea level is rising. Polar caps, mountain ice caps, and glaciers are melting. Alaska, one of the most conservative and Republican states in the United States, is also a “hotbed” of concern about global warming, because it’s real obvious in the Arctic and sub-Arctic.
I do not accuse conservatives in general of being anti-environmentalist, or if I did, I am sorry. In fact, opinion polls suggest that that liberals and conservatives alike agree that protecting the environment is a priority. However, I do accuse the Bush administration of subordinating scientific evidence to political agendas at the expense of the environment. I provided links before, and I’ll provide more on request, just write to me at my name @earthlink.net.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.11.05 @ 8:15 pm
Whither the fool,
Believe me, George Will was never a supporter of the Civil Rights movement and he would be one of the last to know when it wasn’t needed any more. Any of his comments on the issue are totally irrelevant. I came to adolescence and adulthood during the Civil Rights movement. It amuses me to no end to see some of these white folks from way back now trying to assume the mantle of MLK, especially the southerners. Even more pitiful than Jackson and Sharpton, if that’s possible. If they’re in their 50s or older, I want to know what they were doing then (and I know what a lot of them were doing…I read the papers and watched the news daily). If they weren’t on board and part of the solution then, I’m with the Scripture…leopards don’t change their spots.
Comment by stan — 03.11.05 @ 8:56 pm
I want to know what they were doing then (and I know what a lot of them were doing…I read the papers and watched the news daily). If they weren’t on board and part of the solution then, I’m with the Scripture…leopards don’t change their spots.
Ouch. You are a harsher man than I, indeed. I guess the notion of redemption and salvation is another place where we will disagree.
Good thing you weren’t there when a man named Saul had a life changing moment.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 03.11.05 @ 11:00 pm
From Stan: “It amuses me to no end to see some of these white folks from way back now trying to assume the mantle of MLK, especially the southerners. Even more pitiful than Jackson and Sharpton, if that’s possible. If they’re in their 50s or older, I want to know what they were doing then (and I know what a lot of them were doing…I read the papers and watched the news daily). If they weren’t on board and part of the solution then, I’m with the Scripture…leopards don’t change their spots.”
Well, Stan, I’m a “pitiful” white conservative southerner in my 50s, and I’ll tell you where I was in the 1960s. I was in the street carrying a sign promoting civil rights.
Group condemnations are quite easy, but usually not very accurate, nor productive.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.12.05 @ 9:38 am
One additional comment:
I did, in fact, change my spots. In the ’60s I was caught up in the false promise of liberalism. Due to being an idealistic young man with a brain not yet fully formed, I believed that liberalism had the answers to racism, social justice and economic opportunity.
Thankfully, as I matured and the rational frontal lobes began to overpower the more primitive and impulsive parts of my brain, I was able to pull aside the veil of leftist deceit and see the error of my ways.
The solution to those social ills is not more interference by government, but less. The solution is not forced wealth redistribution, but rather promoting opportunity for all to succeed. The solution is not to divide the nation against itself by ethnicity or wealth, but to unite all of us as a nation, all rowing the boat the same direction.
Liberalism is the curse of defeatism, and conservatism is the promise of opportunity.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.12.05 @ 2:30 pm
Dear RedBeard,
Thank you for your work in the 1960s to help bring civil rights to all Americans.
When is a government program “forced wealth redistribution” and when is it just the right thing to do? There were three devastating tropical storms that hit Florida in 2004, followed by billions of dollars of “forced wealth redistribution” to help people put their lives back together. In 1991, nineteen evil men commandeered four jet planes and crashed three of them into office buildings. This was followed by billions of dollars of “forced wealth redistribution” to help people put their lives back together.
Like you, don’t believe that people should become dependent on government assistance as a way of life, but I do believe that it is appropriate to provide limited and temporary assistance to help get people back on their feet. That’s why we helped out New York after 9/11 and that’s why we have Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.
Respectfully,
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.12.05 @ 3:42 pm
Dear Renee,
Do you seriously believe that the decency of premarital sex is a matter of good citizenship? As La Shawn has pointed out, there are countries where premarital sex is considered a citizenship issue, and I don’t think any of us want Iranian-style law enforcement in America.
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.12.05 @ 3:46 pm
Yes I do
Comment by Renee — 03.12.05 @ 4:01 pm
Hey everybody, get this! Renee favors death by stoning for premarital sex! She just said so!
Comment by Anomalocaris — 03.12.05 @ 5:09 pm
Yup.
I also favor capitol punishment for unruly children
Comment by Renee — 03.12.05 @ 5:14 pm
Good for you, RedBeard, but you were in the very tiny minority. If more southerners (and northerners) were like you, the issues would have been resolved in the 19th century. But you must agree that you didn’t have to change your spots with respect to the Civil Rights issue itself. I cite folks like Trent Lott, etc. Looking back, if you lived as a white southern adult in the 50s, what would you propose to change the situation or would it have eventually worked itself out without Federal intervention? (I’m not being sarcastic. You were there, I wasn’t.)
Comment by stan — 03.12.05 @ 5:15 pm
Back in my college days there were many people getting stoned, but I believe it was for somewhat of a different reason.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Anomalocaris, we’re talking about two different things. Relief from a natural disaster isn’t the same as wealth trasfer as a normal course of daily business.
But even in the case of horrible tragedies, there is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to provide such relief. State governments are not similarly restricted, and can allocate funds to disaster victims if the citizens of the states, through their elected representatives, decide to do so. I’m quite sure the states would step up, except for the fact that we’re all so used to Uncle Sam doling out massive wads of cash that the states see no need.
This benevolence on the part of Washington is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, and is in direct violation of Article 10 of the Bill of Rights. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, stated: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” Thomas Jefferson weighed in with: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
But then, the Constitution has been manipulated, beaten, shoved, bent, twisted, mauled and trampled upon so much in the last century that the federal government’s sugar daddy status quo isn’t the least bit surprising.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.12.05 @ 5:53 pm
Stan, I really don’t know what would have happened without federal intervention. But it’s really a moot point, since federal intervention on constitutional grounds was inevitable. From Brown v. Board of Education onward, the civil rights movement was unstoppable, for two reasons. First, it had constitutional guarantees as its basis. And second, it was simply right.
Comment by RedBeard — 03.12.05 @ 6:38 pm
Ano, YOu showed your lack of economic understanding again.
You attacked/accused me of trying to have it both ways but by cutting taxes during a recession revenue to the government has a high probability of increasing. You didn’t understand what I was saying nor do you understand economics which got you into trouble. But I don’t mind. Others did underst