A liberal commenter wanted to know what I thought about yesterday’s Senate debate on the failure to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago:
The resolution is the first apology by Congress on the nation’s past deeds of “terrorism” against blacks, but senators said it was important to note that American Indians, Italians, Mexicans and Americans of other ethnicities were also subject to lynchings.“It is important that we address this issue in the United States and are honest with ourselves and tell the truth about what happened,” said Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat and a co-sponsor of the resolution. “The Senate was uniquely culpable as the House passed three bills that the Senate failed to act on.” (Source)
In light of the serious problems we face in the world and our own country, I think this apology is one of the dumbest, emptiest, most politically correct pile of rubbish I’ve heard in a long time.
We’ve got fanatics trying to kill us all in the name of their god and hiding among us. We’re being taxed to death taking care of deadbeats and criminals, while President Bush is sending even more of our money to brutal dictators in Africa. And the Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago?
A hundred years from now, I hope politicians will apologize for the lynchings that took place in Los Angeles after a jury acquitted the white cops who subdued lifelong criminal Rodney King. They should also apologize for the lynching that goes on right here in the streets of D.C., as black and Hispanic gangbangers kill each other and innocents for the most ignorant reasons. Apologize for failing to deport Hispanic thugs who jumped the border to spread their thuggery into America’s heartland. And the Senate apologizes for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago?
Perhaps Congress should apologize for decades of bloated socialist programs that caused the black family to disintegrate. Paying unmarried women to have babies is obscene, immoral, and the reason so many (too many) black children have no fathers to speak of. Treating blacks like dummies who require separate (LOWER) standards than every other race is offensive. I’m offended. Where is my apology?
Generations of blacks have been lulled into feeding from the government trough, and the damage it caused will reverberate for generations. And those numbskulls down the street are apologizing for failing to pass anti-lynching laws 100 years ago. Lord, give me strength.
I’m sick of politicians wasting time and money pandering to blacks, treating us like empty-headed children, spoon-feeding us putrid pabulum, and prostrating themselves for every perceived slight. Don’t apologize to “Black People.” Apologize to individual blacks who actually care about this mess.
Apologize for failing to protect Americans against foreign invaders. Apologize for taking our hard-earned money and giving it to people who don’t want to earn it themselves. Apologize for constantly referring to me as “African American,” implying that I’m a lesser American than everyone else. Apologize to all Americans for pushing racially divisive entitlements and preferences and insane “hate crime” laws. Thanks to your misguided paternalism, racial tension will always be front and center.
Freedom is more important than all the apologies, handouts, and excuses Congress could ever come up with. I’m living in the best country in the world, and I’d never be freer anywhere else. To blacks who grew up believing America was the most racist place on earth, if you no longer believe that and realize freedom, the right to be left alone, is the only apology you need, demand that from your senators.
Neal Boortz: “As with slavery, civil rights and the lynchings, no one stood in the way more than the Democratic party. It is the shameful legacy of the Democrats at the time, not of our entire nation. People like Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd, the current Democratic Senator from West Virginia. But in a revisionist sleight of hand, you won’t see this mentioned much in the mainstream press….Which makes it all the more confusing as to why so many black folks pledge their wholesale allegiance to the Democratic party these days.”
Join the discussion at Booker Rising.
Captain Ed: “The New York Times engages in this historical revisionism because its editorial policy supports the protection of the filibuster for its own ends, namely to keep conservatives off the appellate benches and the Supreme Court. It does its readers a disservice, and it undermines its own credibility as an objective news provider with this transparent effort to slant the history of the filibuster.”
Touche!
Comment by pajamazon — 06.14.05 @ 10:06 am
Amen. LaShawn, as always, you have hit the nail right on the head.
Comment by Tony — 06.14.05 @ 10:15 am
Well said!
Comment by Dex — 06.14.05 @ 10:19 am
Amen !!!
Comment by James Newman — 06.14.05 @ 10:19 am
Here’s an absolutely on-point link to Dr. Walter Williams’ website that exposes the silliness of all this:
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 10:20 am
La Shawn Barber has a must read column up today about the idiocy of the proposed ‘apology’ being mulled over in Congress for failing to pass anti-lynching legislation over 100 years ago. In her words: [the apology] is one of the dumbest, emptiest, most politically correct pile of rubbish I’ve heard about in a long time. La Shawn speaks of generations of pandering to blacks–citing bloated socialist programs and the disintegration of the black family caused by the welfare state–that are offensive and truly demand an apology. Be sure to read the whole thing…
Comment by Gene — 06.14.05 @ 10:46 am
Anti-Lynching Legislation
Well said, LaShawn. What happened in the past was certainly wrong, but the Senate has a lot of important current items to focus it’s attention on.
Trackback by Don Singleton — 06.14.05 @ 10:47 am
This is the country that ended slavery. Despite filibuster. ’nuff said.
Comment by Neal — 06.14.05 @ 10:50 am
La Shawn, what do you really think? Come on, quit holding back. You probably agree with Star Parker and Thomas Sowell (as do I). Great post.
Comment by Pat'sRick© — 06.14.05 @ 11:01 am
Did anyone not vote for the apology?
Comment by actus — 06.14.05 @ 11:01 am
Many Not Impressed With Senate Apology
The Senate has made an apology for allowing Democrats to successfully filibuster anti-lynching legislation. LaShawn Barber is not impressed. I’m sick of politicians wasting time and money pandering to blacks, treating us like empty-headed children, spo…
Trackback by Just Some Poor Schmuck — 06.14.05 @ 11:14 am
Interesting. “100 years” ago? The last time the legislation was raised was in 1949. Lynchings occured through the 60s.
“Pandering to Blacks” is interesting since whites were also lynched.
Hey, but pandering to Jewish people, Christian people, Hispanics, Japanese, it’s all kosher. Blacks? Never, no way no how.
And I want to know when people will start complaining about the farm subsidies, that costs all of America hard earned money?
Again, sickening.
Phooey.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 11:24 am
To be fair, DS, I cannot recall La Shawn ever being a fan of pandering to any demographic.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.14.05 @ 11:27 am
I don’t think any image conscious Senator would vote against the apology as they would be tarred with the label of racism at worst and insensitivity to the horrors of lynching at best.
Your disingenuous question implies that no decent Senator could oppose such a noble sentiment and the fact that none did only confirms its righteous nature. This is nothing more than feel good sentimentality that provides good PR for the Senate, particularly the Democrats who were the very party that opposed the anti-lynching legislation.
Comment by nobody important — 06.14.05 @ 11:28 am
Vote for “Anti Lynching Bill” 100:1
Vote to lynch Black conservative female judge -
less than 60%.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.14.05 @ 11:28 am
The “apology” goes back to the first piece of legislation, DS. And I don’t care if the lynchings in question happened 100 years ago or last week. CRIMES are committed all the time, everywhere, against everybody. I’m still waiting for an apology and heads to roll over 9/11. The Senate apology was misguided, nonsensical tripe.
And you’ve done the “pandering to Jewish people, Christian people…is all kosher” routine to death, and I’ve answered it each time.
Find a new tune.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 11:35 am
Anti-lynching laws? Isn’t that what they call “murder”? We don’t need it. It’s already on the books. And doesn’t Robert KKK Byrd know about lynching in the 20th century?
Comment by RepJ — 06.14.05 @ 11:36 am
nobody important, IIRC there was no rollcall. Those that didn’t want to be a part of this nonsense simply abstained or didn’t show up. That in turn enraged the activists since they’re not happy with this result and are demanding a roll call so that those who were against can be identified. Fortunately I think this is now a dead issue and congress has moved on with the exception of those who wish to continue beating a dead horse.
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 11:37 am
Forget the apologies–empty words. Rather the proof in the pudding would be to act to change the problems La Shawn cited. IOW, repentance is meaningless without changes.
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 11:39 am
DarkStar, I’ve been complaining about the bloated farm bill for years, including doing so in posts on this board.
I have also spoken at length in opposition to PC apologies that pander to any other group. It’s all silly, and amounts to nothing of substance whatever. Pure feel-good gobbledegook.
My senators apologized, and by implication as my representatives, did so on my behalf. I resent that, since I have nothing in this regard about which to apologize. I have never lynched anyone, and I’ve never opposed anti-lynching laws.
If we’re going to go down this twisted road, then I want an apology for the way my various Mennonite and Celtic ancestors were murdered in generations past. I’ll be waiting.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 11:49 am
La Shawn, you are absolutely right - at least in part. I can’t see how this “apology” does anything. Although, I did read that a guy from my old neighborhood was there. Simeon Wright and Wheeler Parker were in the house when they came for Emmett Till. It was interesting hearing their account of what happened. If you are ever in Summit, IL, look up Wheeler Parker. He’s the neighborhood barber and a reverend. He has a fascinating take on what occurred. What the Senate needs to do is apologize for not asking tough questions when it came to Iraq.
Comment by James Manning — 06.14.05 @ 11:58 am
Instead of hate crime legislation (which I agree is sort of dumb, since murder, assault, et al. are already illegal), why not tackle the institutionalized racism present in jury selection by banning peremptory challenges?
Comment by Horatio — 06.14.05 @ 12:02 pm
Absolutely rousing, La Shawn! The Democrats should just say no to pandering, but, as Hillary said the other day, “It’s very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they’re doing.”
Comment by Sissy Willis — 06.14.05 @ 12:09 pm
RepJ:”Anti-lynching laws? Isn’t that what they call “murderâ€? We don’t need it. It’s already on the books.”
I don’t know if you know the history, but the federal lynching laws were needed because the local murder laws weren’t being applied. Ahhh, states rights.
Comment by actus — 06.14.05 @ 12:14 pm
Here is a piece of resolution that cost no money other than the time it took to debate and pass it (Interestingly no with a roll call vote, so we don’t know who voted for it and who obstained) That just says the United State Government and the US Senate in particular is SORRY that NOTHING was done while state and local governments allowed people to be dragged out of jails in broad day light, strung up by the neck and burned to death while on lookers including children gawked and laughed and ate barbecue.
I really can’t see what is wrong with that.
Comment by BH — 06.14.05 @ 12:14 pm
Don’t be naive, BH. EVERYTHING costs money. Who or what do you think is paying politicians to blow hot air every day? The Capitol Hill Money Tree outside the building? NO! You and me.
I don’t want one second wasted with apologies to my dead relatives about what the government should or shouldn’t have done decades ago. You’ve got BLACK people TODAY killing EACH OTHER with impunity. Blacks need to address that before we go demanding apologies for Congress’s failure to pass anti-lynching laws, for freakin’ crying out loud. Murder is, was and will always be on the books. Let the people who were responsible for ENFORCING those laws but didn’t apologize to the families of those lynched back in the day.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 12:19 pm
How can someone apologize for something that they were not responsible for?
And for what would Barack Obama have to apologize?
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to each of you for anything and everything for which you actually or might have been wronged no matter who it was that wronged you. It is my hope and desire that you will live from this day forward a joyful and secure life without blame towards others.
It is my hope that you will then a apologize to me for anything and everything for which I actually or might have been wronged no matter who it was that wronged me. I hope and desire that I will live from this day forward a joyful and secure life without blame towards others.
Ralph
Comment by Ralph — 06.14.05 @ 12:20 pm
La Shawn - It is a shame that we can’t go after the people who were charged to enforce those murder laws. Heck, it would be nice to go after the people who did the lynching seeing how they had the audacity to take pictures of the crime!!!
Comment by James Manning — 06.14.05 @ 12:27 pm
Thank you for presenting your side but I don’t see this issue as you have framed it. It was an apology after the fact but the hope is that since lynchings still happen in these yet to be United States we will soon see actual legislation making lynching a federal crime. This would remove the decision on charging these crimes from the system controlled by state government and elected officials and put the judicial decisions into the hands of those appointed for lifetime tenure on the bench. No it didn’t take as much press about the apology as it has been given but that does not mean that it is ineffective. This country still turns its head when it comes to race. The reason blacks are killing other blacks are as you listed - bigger social issues that need to be addressed. Problem is I don’t see that happening from these politicians either. If you were saying that less time should be spent on this issue so that more time could be spent on issues that were actually being presented that benefitted my race and my country I would be all for that - but in reality, such is not the case.
Comment by JB — 06.14.05 @ 12:34 pm
And let me guess, JB, you think the government should be addressing black-on-black crime, instead of the black community itself.
Such is the case that your answer would be, “Yes,” without hesitation or a second thought. Blacks have been conditioned to feed from the government trough for too long. THAT is the real problem. The government can’t solve anything that we can fix for ourselves. One day a critical mass of blacks will realize this, and things will never be the same. I hope I’m alive to see it.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 12:37 pm
“And let me guess, JB, you think the government should be addressing black-on-black crime, instead of the black community itself.”
I don’t think the government addressing crime is properly called “feeding at the trough.”
Comment by actus — 06.14.05 @ 12:45 pm
Two words:
White Guilt.
The Senate move is in lockstep with other moves, such as the Wachovia apology.
All this “feel good” stuff is shallow, and does little to solve the genuine problems we have. But isn’t that part of the liberal ideology, make people feel good about themselves, while keeping them attached to the government baby bottle?
Troll attacks may commence now.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.14.05 @ 12:48 pm
La Shawn,
I hear you about not waiting on the gov’t to address black-on-black crime (or looking to the gov’t for solutions to a multitude of other social ills). Taking this issue as an example - black-on-black crime - how would you propose the black community deal, without perpetuating a gov’t dependant mentality?
Comment by Scott — 06.14.05 @ 12:51 pm
One other trend being noticed. There is one word mysteriously absent from the apology: F-I-L-I-B-U-S-T-E-R.
Why isn’t the Senate apologizing for the use of the filibuster or threat of to block Civil Rights legislation? That is conspicuously absent from the apology, even though the real reason that anti-lynching legislation never passed was the threat of the filibuster by Senator Russell of Georgia and other Southern leaders. They are the ones who should be making the apology, but they’re all dead now.
You won’t here one peep out of the Dems about filibuster on this issue.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.14.05 @ 12:55 pm
No La Shawn, I think the government should step up to the plate in the same way that you are advocating and play ball on equal levels across the board. This country largely ignores that its founders and early settlers raped pillaged and killed the natives to formulate their idea of a free nation…then immediately passed laws not allowing someone to come behind them and do the same thing that they had just done.
It is not the governments job to take care of any group but it is the governments job to take care of its communities. You want them to stop apologizing and I want them to stop letting people buy votes through million dollar lobbyists. You want them to not focus on age old black crimes - I want them to confess that they made black subserviant by not funding our programs in the past and give up the money that they saved and applied to the programs they selected. This is not about giving anything special, not about reparations for wrongs done not even about an apology. This is about a parent having two children, feeding one nutricious food and the other junk food but expecting them both to be olympic caliber athletes. Then, upon finding out the junk food child can’t compete because of poor nutrition you blame the child… ok that makes sense. So then you change the diet and feed them both the same thing…ignoring the fact that the healthy child has been competing an training at a superior level for quite some time so would be more experience, and label this fair and again ask them to compete expecting the junk food child to exceed. Ok that makes sense too. they have the same opportunities to eat you say. Ok. I am not a liberal - not even a democrat but I am also not blind. I’m a realist. Save the apology and pass federal laws making this a crime.
Comment by JB — 06.14.05 @ 12:56 pm
Amen, but I’d say, as someone who had nothing to do with what happened then, what have I to apologize for? It’s stupid.
Comment by Dan — 06.14.05 @ 12:58 pm
People don’t want to hear or deal with this, but spirituality must play a big role in weaning blacks off government, and I’m not talking about shouting in church on Sunday morning and not thinking about God until the next Sunday. It’s about LIVING daily as Christians, adhering to biblical teachings and striving to be holy.
We need to understand as a community the value of intact families and personal sacrifice. If you decide to have sex outside marriage, understand that you will have to live with the consequences, which will likely be pregnancy and abandonment and shame. If you believe that the sexual relationship was designed for marriage, that’s a good foundation and a wise lesson to teach your children, who are watching and learning from you.
Illegitimacy is unacceptable, and the associated behavior should be stigmatized to the degree it once was. Such children are born with negative numbers in their column. With no father around to take care of them, love them and teach them, boys are at risk of growing up with no structure and no one around to teach them that being a man has more to do with sacrificing and taking care of your children than what’s in their pants. A generation of black males are not being socialized to be responsible for their offspring. They must be FORCED to do so by the state. Shameful!
Girls grow up without seeing their father, not their mother’s latest boyfriend, interact with their mother, learning how women are supposed to be treated, which is contrary to what they see all around them and on music videos. Fathers are authority figures and protectors, and back in the day, boys had to prove themselves worthy of a man’s daughter. But these days the only men some fatherless girls see are the typical seed-dropping, slack, fly-by-night bums. And no protectors.
While some pretend not to see the connection between crime, fatherlessness, and lack of training in right conduct, it’s there. We need to help people face and conquer their own demons, and the only way to do it so that it has lasting impact is to tell them about Christ, his love for them and his desire that they be saved.
It is not racism that’s destroying us; it’s our own immoral behavior and indifference toward the only ONE who will heal us, and he ain’t sitting in a big White House down the street.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 1:01 pm
AMEN to that…
Comment by Lawrence — 06.14.05 @ 1:11 pm
PREACH!
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 06.14.05 @ 1:19 pm
“While some pretend not to see the connection between crime and lack of training in right conduct, it’s there.”
You only have to go to ANY school to see that. Regardless of demographic, those who cannot act right in school are usually the ones picked up for drug dealing, burglary or worse a shor time later.
Of course, that’s not the problem. Not enough money is.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 06.14.05 @ 1:19 pm
Wow. What a post.
In the Washington Times article at the end, I noticed this part:
Lawyer E. Faye Williams said she will not rest until the Senate’s oldest office building no longer carries the name of former Sen. Richard B. Russell, Georgia Democrat, who led a filibuster for six days to block one of the anti-lynching bills in 1935.
“We started with that in mind, but we did not get a single sponsor to change the name of the office building,” Mrs. Williams said. “This apology is a rebuke of Sen. Russell, but we will not stop.”
Without pointing out the irony, I’d like to say that removing people’s names who did bad things isn’t what we should do as a country. It is perfectly legitimate for people to see the name, do the research and find out who that person was and what he did as a reminder. History is a lesson. We need to pay attention not forget it.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 1:23 pm
#10 Actus wrote, “Did anyone not vote for the apology?”
Read the Washington Times article for the answer to your question.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 1:25 pm
For all the talk I see about weening blacks off the government I must find pause. The biggest benefits of government aid on all levels does not happen in the black community. If you want to say that government aid is bad say that don’t say black need to stop getting on government aid. Through tax credits, special assessment and impact fees - other races are benefitting tremendously from “government aid.” Are you disavowing that as well? Are you actually saying lets end all aid to all people and let a true system of economic independence take over because the first ones to lose in that system would be those that are currently benefiting the most from government aid right now. Or maybe you are saying that everyone that benefitted from aid should give the money back - Perhaps Scripps could give Florida back the $300 million in “government aid” they took to move the company to Florida…somehow I don’t think this is your argument. Your argument seems to be that aid should only be given to those who deserve aid and also that blacks have taken advantage of an aid system to their detriment and now should remove themselves from the aid. Then I would ask why was so much effort spent on giving blacks fish rather than teaching them how to fish? While government was developing welfare programs and giving small stipends to blacks for family misplanning - they were not edcuating or informing blacks of the trends in the bond markets or the use of public finance for redevelopment. That wasn’t the governments job you say - I say it became the governments job when it allowed blacks to be denied the ability to be educated in classrooms with other races that were learning this information.
Feeding at the trough indeed. Let’s close the trough down if we want it closed but don’t allow discretion in choosing who shall have the right to eat.
Comment by JB — 06.14.05 @ 1:26 pm
“If you decide to have sex outside marriage, understand that you will have to live with the consequences, which will likely be pregnancy and abandonment and shame.”
La Shawn,
I agree completely with this sentiment. What I do not agree with however, are the people among us who believe that they must make that scenario come true by actually doing the abandoning and the shaming.
Consequences = good
Taking it upon yourself to dole out said consequences = bad
Comment by Horatio — 06.14.05 @ 1:28 pm
#31 ACtus wrote, “I don’t think the government addressing crime is properly called “feeding at the trough.—
Lack of Reading Comprehension again ….
I see where you get your UNTRUE accusations…
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 1:41 pm
#36 La Shawn
Comment by James Newman — 06.14.05 @ 1:41 pm
JB - So that’s all you got from my comment about the need to help ourselves? You’re obviously new to my blog. It would be helpful for you to read through some of the “Race Preferences†category archives. I really hate having to re-invent the microchip.
First of all, tax credits, assessments and the like, are not analogous to being handed a government check for sitting on your butt all day or simply for being black. If I’m getting a tax credit based on what I put into the system, for example, or jobs I’ve created or money I’ve saved, the credit is not “government aid.†My argument is just what I wrote in the post and comments, so you had don’t need to wonder what it is. I’d appreciate if you took the time to read them again. Secondly, government aid in a national or state disaster is designed to help entire communities — black, white, whatever — rebuild their infrastructures. To compare this to welfare received by bums who don’t work is…silly.
Precisely what concerns me with government aid to individuals in the form of a check is that it saps incentive and creativity, and it’s given to black people to have babies, compensate for the failure of black men, or to businesses who already get special treatment and unconstitutional set-aside contracts because of the color of their skin. If black business and working individuals can find tax loopholes and justify getting tax credits for profit or personal income, I have no problem with that.
Your whole comment is one I’ve replied to ad nauseum. For those big trees blocking your view, you can’t see the forest. Where is the pride and dignity we once had in doing for ourselves and having to work twice as hard? Give me poverty, hard work and pride any day over a life of living for and expecting daily slop from the government.
If I try hard enough and work long enough and always remember that I’m responsible for myself, I just might get to eat steak once in awhile. Through the labor of my own hands.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 1:45 pm
The drum continues to be beat because my point is valid.
The apology was an apology for the Senate’s inaction, not for the U.S.’s inaction.
Lastly, since when has George Allen been accused of being a guilty white guy?
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 1:46 pm
la shawn:
i think rosie o’donnell should apologize for her entire body of work…
check out the June 14 post on my blog - re: Rosie O’Donnell. it’ll make you laugh - or cry.
ironically, for lefties, everything comes down to selfishness and power. their lip-service to tolerance and understaning is all just a front.
-nikita demosthenes
Comment by nikita demosthenes — 06.14.05 @ 1:48 pm
Precisely what concerns me with government aid it individuals in the form of a check is that it’s given to black people to have babies
No one can cite one study that shows women had babies because they wanted welfare money.
In fact, analysis of the welfare data showed that most women on welfare, had no more children.
Coorelation des not equal causation.
How about this, DS: Women have more babies out of wedlock because they’re immoral, and no study will ever come to such a conclusion because the researcher would be branded a racist and/or sexist. Get real with the “cite one study” kick, will you? You see the same thing I see every day and know people who live like that. Save the “show me the study” nonsense for another day. - Admin
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 1:49 pm
You’ll likely see all 100 senators sign this apology Darkstar. It’ll end up being meaningless. 75 have signed so far and it will hang on the wall for longer to give the other senators not present the opportunity to sign it.
La Shawn’s point remains and it is valid. All this smoke and mirrors from the same Senate who has Roberty Byrd (Democrat) still. His name will probably be on the apology.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 1:50 pm
actus wrote: I don’t know if you know the history, but the federal lynching laws were needed because the local murder laws weren’t being applied. Ahhh, states rights.
Liberals are fans of states’ rights … oh, except when the Supreme Court steps in to thwart ridiculously unstructured and biased vote counting in a certain southern state four and half years ago ….
Comment by Hube — 06.14.05 @ 1:51 pm
#36 - Now that’s the gospel. Thanks for the reply.
Comment by Scott — 06.14.05 @ 1:54 pm
“Read the Washington Times article for the answer to your question. ”
It said there was a voice vote, but it didn’t say what the numbers were
Comment by actus — 06.14.05 @ 2:00 pm
I notice how you avoided the the point of my argument by focusing on your definition of government aid. I never said that I believe in getting a check for not doing anything. I did say that government aid should be equal if given or not given at all. I have read some of your other posts and I will be responding to more of them when I have time. I hope that you also visit my blog so that you could begin to understand this is not about me advocating for welfare (notice you keep singling out blacks but ignoring that more than black were the recipients of welfare checks) but more me advocating for equal treatment under the law. An apology would never had been necessary if lynchers were treated equally under the law as murderers…but much in the same way you are advocating a “pick and choose” method of government aid to recognize as ok, courts did the same thing. Like - for instance - the young man that was kidnapped and beaten, permanantly injured and rendered uncapable of caring for himself just last month in Shreveport LA. His attackers who admitted doing the crime were only given 30 days in jail. Explain how your help ourselves argument would have helped him 1) not get beaten up and 2) make the laws of our country apply equally to his attackers? Should we all come together and lobby Congress to make this happen? Or should we keep eeking out our lives ignoring the fact that God created all men to be equal and that a wrong is a wrong. Liberal wrong is wrong and Conservative wrong is wrong. You don’t like “government aid” fine - don’t like it, but don’t just not like it when it helps those you don’t approve of.
Comment by JB — 06.14.05 @ 2:06 pm
Drumroll for La Shawn
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 2:07 pm
Actus, your comprehension is terrible. The voice vote was not the entire senate. It was a vote to move the measure from point a to b status and there was debate on the wording that it contained. But you’ll probably see all 100 senators sign it.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 2:11 pm
An apology would never had been necessary if lynchers were treated equally under the law as murderers…
And if Adam hadn’t eaten the fruit, then…
I tried my best to grasp your argument, JB, so don’t accuse me of avoiding it. I find that offensive. Like most commenters on blogs, including myself, there are a hodgepodge of different lines of reasoning and thoughts coming together to make a point, and if I missed the main thrust of yours, say it plainly. This isn’t a real debate, you know, nor is it rocket science. But let’s not nitpick it to death and go around in circles. It’s boring.
You and I don’t see eye to eye on this, but such is not illegal or fatal. You don’t have to agree with me, as many commenters can attest. As long as you’re respectful of me on my blog, it’s all I require.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 2:14 pm
On comment 36 - as a black male I must have missed my class on abrogation of male responsibility in fatherhood? All my friends and former teamates that have kids either have custody of the children or are married to their mothers so they must have missed it too. We all go to church most of us sing in a male choir and have, for the most part, been pretty successful in giving back to our community. Perhaps you could provide me some direction on where this male focused discussion is? Perhaps it is juxtaposed within all those commercials for feminine hygeine products and sex drugs on television (read - legallized dope dealing) that I refuse to watch or perhaps in the thirteenth article I had to read about how black men are on the down low, cheating no good scoundrels, not god fearing and uneducated good for nothings that I completely ignored cause it wasn’t talking to me. It would be interesting to see though if you could give me direction. Either that or admit that you too are believing the hype by labeling a “generation” of black males based on the few 50 cents and Tupacs you have seen paraded across the tv screen. Make you a deal - you stop thinking Thug Gangsta everytime you see me, I will stop thinking crazy paranoid shallow person everytime I see someone clutch their purse as I walk by on my way to law school.
Comment by JB — 06.14.05 @ 2:16 pm
La Shawn,
I see many of your liberal readers have missed the entire point of your rant. That’s why conservatives and liberals have so much trouble agreeing on anything, because we literally don’t speak the same language or follow the same thought processes.
Spending time (and hence the people’s money) on the apology makes absolutely no sense in the practical reality of today’s world, but I CAN see at least one positive to it. For the time it took the Senate to deal with the apology nonsense, the Senate Democrats were distracted from their mechanizations involving the undermining of our military, our President, and our fight in what may turn out to be one of the great struggles between Good, and TRUE Evil.
Comment by Montie — 06.14.05 @ 3:23 pm
Montie,
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 3:27 pm
Isn’t he cool? Even though he disagreed with me once…
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 3:30 pm
For the record, JB. Welfare is crippling to the recipient - whether a corporation, farmers, the chronically unemployed, or the retired. It removes the core self reliance and self disciplines that are necessary to move forward. Disaster relief would be a temporary fix, but if it extends over a long time, it is still destructive.
Welfare is reaching into someone else’s pocket to take their money and give it to someone else. That BTW (forestalling an analogy) is NOT what Robin Hood did. He stole from the government to RETURN the money to the poor.
Comment by Pat'sRick© — 06.14.05 @ 3:32 pm
La Shawn
Apologizing for lynching 50 years later is like introducing Food Stamps 50 years after people starved to death.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 06.14.05 @ 3:34 pm
Women have more babies out of wedlock because they’re immoral
Accepted.
and no study will ever come to such a conclusion because the researcher would be branded a racist and/or sexist.
Actually, no because then the study would be based on faith.
You see the same thing I see every day and know people who live like that.
I see people who are or have been on welfare, but none “got pregnant to get on welfare.” And when there are broad based studies of the situation that points to different things, then the claim of “getting welfare for money” doesn’t add up and should be erased from the discussion.
On meaningless things, just about every week, the congress does meaningless proclamations of some sort, but not one thing is said. But in this case, people have a fit.
And if they read the apology, they would see it was an apology for the inactions of the senate not the U.S.
Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: both look at the Black community and see the worst in it as THE DEFINITION of the Black community. And I refuse to accept that definition.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 3:37 pm
A billion dollar or hundred billion dollar appropriations was delayed (saving the taxpayers money) in the time the Senate took doing this.
BTW, There have been liberals who have stated flatly that this country’s government has not apologized to Black Americans for the past.
Well, that statement is countered…. What’s the next beef?
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 3:37 pm
Apologies are worthless…give me reperations…
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.14.05 @ 3:37 pm
Apologizing for lynching 50 years later is like introducing Food Stamps 50 years after people starved to death.
That was not the apology.
People can’t even get the apology straight.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 3:38 pm
Me, too, Dell! I think $50,000 would just about cover all the pain and suffering my ancestors endured. I’ve had my eye on this cool Benz…
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 3:42 pm
Watch out La Shawn,
Sometimes liberal thinkers have a hard time recognizing conservative sarcasm. I think it has to do with what we would consider sarcasm, they were actually thinking about in a serious way
Comment by Montie — 06.14.05 @ 3:46 pm
It still didn’t give any numbers
“But you’ll probably see all 100 senators sign it.”
Hopefully.
Comment by actus — 06.14.05 @ 3:47 pm
I think apologies in general are worthless unless they are immediate and unless significant changes in behavior occur based upon the apology.
When I walk out on my block and look at the kids who are broke, and will disproportionately be locked up etc. I can’t fix that with an apology.
So instead, give me relevent social programming that reduces poverty, improves inner city infastructure, and creates urban entrepreneurs who create self-sustainable environments and enclaves.
The reasons liberals suck is because they band aid wounds that need chemotherapy to heal, plus the white ones are smarmy and patronizing. The reasons conservatives suck is because they are myopic and arrogant, and talk alot of trash but have no real solutions other than to say ‘you dumb negro’s are immoral’. Sheesh…
Speak for yourself, oh mighty sage… - Admin
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.14.05 @ 3:48 pm
Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: both look at the Black community and see the worst in it as THE DEFINITION of the Black community. And I refuse to accept that definition.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 3:37 pm
I see Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Janice brown, Condeleeza Rice, James Sowell, Star Parker, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and our own La Shawn as the definition of the Black Community.
I see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc as the worst
of the black community. When I think of welfare recipients, I don’t think of black or white, but the liberals sure seem to want to keep blacks dependent on the government.
Comment by Pat'sRick© — 06.14.05 @ 3:51 pm
actus and DarkStar -
The apology should have come from the 44 Senators on the Democrat side of the aisle for blocking Senate action by the Democrat use of the filibuster in that situation. Yes, I read baklava’s post.
Comment by Pat'sRick© — 06.14.05 @ 3:55 pm
Dell.
Dictionary.com said this about reperations - No entry found for reperations.
Here’s nothing !
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 3:56 pm
Pat’sRick,
You read !
Some don’t.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 3:57 pm
“Liberals and conservatives have one thing in common: both look at the Black community and see the worst in it as THE DEFINITION of the Black community.”
DS, there’s nothing like a massive, sweeping, and frankly untrue, generalization. I don’t view the “Black Community” as a monolith, because that would be incredibly silly. Btw, where is that “Black Community?” I can’t find it on a map anywhere.
Dell, I was wondering how soon reparations would surface. I need some myself. Where do I apply?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 3:57 pm
Darkstar,
I have to take exception to what you said regarding taking the worst of the black community to be the definition of the black community. Far from it. If that is the viewpoint of liberals, then speaking for the conservatives here I must say, that is another area in which our thought processes diverge.
Comment by Montie — 06.14.05 @ 3:57 pm
Bak, you misspelled reparations.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 3:58 pm
Dell did and I noticed it and pointed it out with humor.
Oh! - Admin
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 4:00 pm
Um… is it just me, or is the following quotation really unnecessary and rather completely out of line?
“The reasons conservatives suck is because they are myopic and arrogant, and talk alot of trash but have no real solutions other than to say ‘you dumb negro’s are immoral’.”
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 4:01 pm
Back to the Benz….
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 4:01 pm
I seem to recall Janis Joplin singing a little ditty about that very thing…….
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 4:04 pm
Doooh! I am a thenkar nawt a spelerr…
When I was in economics I designed a pretty sweet reparations program that showed economically how wealth redistribution in the form of reparations improves the overall economy as well as the urban environments that it would be redistributed to.
Recently I design a structure of incentives for a reparations program the incents positive and constructive behavior such as education and entrepreneurialism and dis-incents premarital child bearing and other ills.
Sweeeeeeeeeet…
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.14.05 @ 4:08 pm
Pat’s Rick:
It would probably be better if you saw some black people in your own community who are decent hardworking principled folks than some bold faced names.
If we all started viewing our neighbors the way we view some bold faces who seem to be an example of “the good black people”, we’d all be better off.
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 06.14.05 @ 4:09 pm
AMEN!
Comment by Renee — 06.14.05 @ 4:20 pm
Did your program account for the fact that money was removed from someone who worked hard to obtain it and was less likely to want to keep working hard and get punished for it? versus someone just luckily obtaining money with little effort and therefore not realizing work ethic?
Not making any race statement here, I’m simply referring to human nature. If I give my daughters money for nothing they will not spend money as wisely as if they work and earn it. And that’s not saying anyone is working or not now. It’s simply referring to the effect of someone receiving FREE money.
The effect of such a program also needs the accounting of administrative costs. Welfare has 72% administrative costs. Education has approximately 50% administrative costs (depending on what you classify is classroom costs or not).
To pull money from the private sector, have administrative costs and give to another segment of the private sector probably won’t live up to your computer models ONE BIT. Just my educated guess.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 4:25 pm
The Carnival Of Classiness.
We call it “Classiness, All Around Us.” Click to explore more WILLisms.com. In no particular order, WILLisms.com presents classiness from the blogosphere (now with 50% more classy!): 1. Jesse and Fidel- Babalu Blog looks at Jesse Jackson’s interesti…
Trackback by WILLisms.com — 06.14.05 @ 4:29 pm
So what do you think would happen if this country ever actually admitted that most of the generational wealth and the foundation of mulit-million dollar companies actually came from the work of those lazy shiftless people whose kids are now on welfare because their parents and grandparents died doing manual labor or being lynched? hmmm Or maybe the same people that are so scared that someone “may” be on the juice that benches five hundred pounds and hits over 60 homeruns could appoint another special master (ala Feingold) to determine the damages and costs associated with the domestice terrorism that took place and was documented in Tulsa Oklahoma. May be…
Comment by JB — 06.14.05 @ 4:39 pm
Bak, there you go again, being sensible.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 4:46 pm
Bakvala, my program wasn’t based upon anyone money to do “nothing” or for “nothing. That is what welfare is for.
I posted the nutshell on the other thread if you want to read it. It is not formal but it outlines the details and addresses the critical issues that LaShawn often points out, out of wedlock babies, lack of motivation (at least towards positive goals), and the one I always harp on, the lack of urban economic development, which drags down the national economy.
Check it out if you want.
But back to topic, like I said, apologies are a wasted of time unless they are followed by concrete solutions. I agree with whomever above said that the senators could have done something constructive with their time.
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.14.05 @ 4:50 pm
So after the apology, then what concrete solutions?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 4:53 pm
RedBeard, I am glad you asked.
1. Redevelopment of urban infastructure through the redistribution of current social service dollars to aggressive entrepreneurialism and artisan training.
2. Restructuring Urban School environments (matter of fact I gave a presentation on this today to teachers groups at the University of Nebraska at Omaha) to more adequetaly *sp prepare students across the city for the modern economic realities. In particular, create curriculum in the urban centers that prepares students for entrepreneurialism as opposed to corporate work.
3. Rethink the so-called ‘tough’ on crime policies that have resulted in a prison population increase nationally of over 200% (for all races) over the past twenty years while the recidivicism rate is still above 50% (in some cases 75%) for the majority of all offenders. Studies have proven that successful education, counseling and re-entry job programs reduce overall recidivism and exchange the $30,000 per prisoner cost to $1500 per service of ex-offender cost. I am writing a $5 Million dollar grant for my Cousin’s org in Denver, where the prison population is putting a back breaking strain on the budget and the economy.
4. Kill all welfare policies that create incentives for being unmarried and penalize individuals for being married. Kill all welfare policies that make it more advantageous to be on welfare than off.
5. Create corporate incentives in addition to tax increment financing, which draw major corporations into inner city environments to provide jobs.
6. Continue to expand faith based initiatives that allow the black church (the predominant institutions in the black community) to create effective programming drawing federal grant dollars if they qualify.
7. Analyze more appropriately federal, state, and city grants that are awarded to urban organizations to make sure the funds are accomplishing what they were funded for and that the organizational structure of the non-profits are sound.
Those are a couple.
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.14.05 @ 5:14 pm
Thanks for that list, Dell. It lays out your vision very well. But one unanswered question is how that ambitious agenda will be funded. Since there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there remains the uncomfortable truth that government cannot create a single penny of wealth, which productive part of society will we be extorting to pay for it all?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 5:25 pm
Dell,
#5 can’t be done in CA. The Democrat stranglehold here will not consider anything that might look like it is favoring corporations. Their view is that corporations need to be taxed more it seems.
Everything you wrote seems fine (to an extent). The problem that you run into I’m guessing is that you won’t be able to use “current social services” dollars as you mention in #1 without people coming unglued. The liberals would be marching on the streets with people bused in from every city.
Comment by Baklava — 06.14.05 @ 5:25 pm
I have to take exception to what you said regarding taking the worst of the black community to be the definition of the black community.
To all of those who object to what I wrote, then answer me this: why is it that both liberal public commentators and conservative public commentators, present the Black community as helpless and in dispair?
Liberals present the Black community as being mostly poor because of social conditions. Conservatives present the Black community as being mostly poor because of internal conditions. How many of either camp proclaim the strengths and accomplishments of the Black community on a regular basis?
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 5:33 pm
Why is it that conservative commentators don’t point to people such as those who take part in the organizations listed, http://www.blackselfhelp.info, as being Black leaders?
Why is it that conservative commentators don’t really acknowledge such groups unless it is lead by “one of their own”?
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 5:36 pm
Why so timid? Speak a little louder (and bolder) next time, DS.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 5:41 pm
The “I’m Sorry” Society
I acknowledge that the practice of lynching is a horrible, despicable act carried out by criminals and winked at by corrupt public officials of the time, but have problems with the current Senate’s need to apologize.
…
Trackback by bRight & Early — 06.14.05 @ 6:14 pm
Of course, apologizing is just another wedge to wrangle reparations. Don’t these fools get it?
The fact that they’re living the good life, working or otherwise clinging to the public teat, they’ve got it made — consider it reparations made in full, both in blood and economic well-being. If any descendents of slavbes ever had a case for reparations, it would be those south of the border, in particular Brazil which imported far more slaves than all of the Americas put together.
Like I said last month, most (over 51% DS
) Africans would give an arm or leg to be here.
As it is now, they’re giving it up, not to mention human dignity just to survive now in Africa.
“This gives us an easy way for anyone to guesstimate his lifetime financial expectations if he happened to live in Sub-Saharan Africa. We can call it the “50-500 Formula”: (50 years ) x ($500) = $25,000.
[SNIP]
Oops again. Using round numbers, we can easily calculate an average lifetime financial expectation for African-Americans: (70 years) x ($15,000) = $1,050,000. Approximately $1 million.
Finally, we can compute our average per capita reparations owed to African-Americans: $25,000 minus $1,000,000 = ($975,000). Of course, the brackets and red type indicate that it’s a negative number, meaning no reparations owed. End of legal case. Period.”
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=549
More,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/09/the_slavery_shakedown/
Finally I saw sKerry getting some face time yesterday droning on about the apology. In 1992, according to his hometown paper, sKerry once got up, before flip-flopping, and gave a warning about the costs of a ““culture of dependency. . . . We must ask whether [social disintegration] is the result of a massive shift in the psychology of our nation that some argue grew out of the excesses of the 1960s, a shift from self-reliance to indulgence and dependence, from caring to self-indulgence, from public accountability to public abdication and chaos. The truth is that affirmative action has kept America thinking in racial terms“. (Google “Herky-Jerky Kerry“)
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 6:28 pm
“Since there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there remains the uncomfortable truth that government cannot create a single penny of wealth, which productive part of society will we be extorting to pay for it all? - Redbeard”
Taxes are not extortion but the necessary evil of government. Good economist on both sides of the coin argue the how muches of taxes are appropriate. I am not advising any additional taxes, and 85% of the time am for a reduction in taxation. I am advising the reallocation of current taxes towards more effective means to 1) improve the urban communities which are predisposed to poverty, which is closely correlated to crime and 2) Improving the overall American economy.
You are correct when you say that the government can not create money, but it umpires the rules of the game in a free market system. So I am simply saying create rules that envigorate the economy through the creation of strategies that encourage investment in inner cities, that empower urban individuals to create a self-determined environments and reduce the need for personal welfare (lets not touch farm subsidies and corporate welfare).
If the school is going to spend $558 Million (that is our school districts budget) doesn’t it make sense to spend it in a way that is most effective and efficient and provides for the most prosperous long term scenarios?
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.14.05 @ 6:33 pm
DS, I’m not sure what conservative commentators you’re listening to, but the ones I hear are extremely critical of the liberal tendency to assume helplessness on the part of black Americans, and those same commentators are the biggest boosters of black Americans who are succeeding, be they famous like our Secretary of State, or non-famous like the local entrepreneur who runs my favorite Alabama-style barbeque house.
It’s true conservatives who refuse to pigeonhole people based upon race. It’s liberals who see job security in keeping people dependent, so when they see independent folks, they go a little bit nuts. Sometimes a lot nuts.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 6:39 pm
DG: “Redevelopment of urban infastructure through the redistribution of current social service dollars”
DG: “I am advising the reallocation of current taxes towards more effective means…”
I advise getting rid of all social services funded by Fed tax dollars. That’s but one point where we diverge.
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 6:44 pm
That’s what I’m talking about, Andy. Taxes, social service dollars, government, government, government…whatever happened to PROFIT? Or PRIVATE funding? Or CHARITABLE giving?
Comment by La Shawn — 06.14.05 @ 6:47 pm
DG, you should check out CA Senator Tom McClintock’s modest proposal to save his schools.
You want to talk about sweeeeet? His proposal would rescue kids from this squalor by leasing out luxury commercial office space. Along with other initiatives, he would end up with a net savings. The only problem standing in his way are the unions, race pimps and the MSM/DNC. Check it out, you might get some ideas for your grand plan.
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=292
Comment by Andy — 06.14.05 @ 6:51 pm
I agree completely, Andy.
Another serious problem with your scenario, Dell, is the thing Baklava brought up. When have public-trough bureaucrats EVER voluntarily given up funding of their petty little fiefdoms? Since the answer is NEVER, you’re faced with having to raise taxes to fund the new programs, as has always been the case. And I, for one, will fight tooth and nail against any increases in confiscatory wealth-redistribution taxation.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.14.05 @ 6:52 pm
Darkstar,
You said, “Why is it that conservative commentators don’t really acknowledge such groups unless it is lead by “one of their ownâ€?”
Led, led, led. I know there is a metallic element (symbol Pb, as I recall) spelled lead (as in pencil lead), but the past tense of “to lead” is “led.” Sorry to be such a pencil-necked geek, but I have seen that too many times to let a smart guy like you get away with it.
Comment by Nardo — 06.14.05 @ 7:23 pm
I think all the public apologizing that goes on is extremely wimpy.
Comment by RepJ — 06.14.05 @ 8:24 pm
LaShawn, thanks for a detailed and passionate summation of this stupid bill. Unless they can raise people from the dead, stop wasting my tax dollars emoting useless legislation. The whole thing is nonsensical and so I knew it would pass. Did Sheets Byrd vote for it?
Comment by BlackRedneck — 06.14.05 @ 8:27 pm
How many people actually read the resolution?
Comment by DarkStar — 06.14.05 @ 9:35 pm
DS,
Good point. More than once I’ve seen a congresscritter admit that he/she hadn’t read the text of a bill or resolution. Often, their staffs read and analyze them, then hand off a summary and recomendation. Now, keep in mind the nepotism and cronyism that provides the staffing pools in Washington…
But this stupid little resolution makes for good press, and the media would crucify any dissenter, and so would their opponent in the next election.
Democrat opposes or abstains, and the ads would shout “What are XXXX’s moral credentials, they’ve betrayed the black constituency?!?” and the republican who opposed or abstained would be hit with, to paraphrase O-Dub “RACIST!”.
Man, there are days where I wish politicians were a game species, even if the season was only one weekend a year…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 06.14.05 @ 9:42 pm
If you want to know….
….what LaShawn Barber thinks of the Senate’s recent apology for not passing anti-lynching legislation one hundred years ago, read this.Perhaps Congress s…
Trackback by Media Lies — 06.14.05 @ 11:41 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 06.15.05 @ 2:02 am
La Shawn Barber On The Lynching Apology
I love it when La Shawn gets on a “rant” and her self-described one on the Senate’s lynching apology is not to be missed. Here is a taste of it:In light of the serious problems we face in the world and our own country, I think this apology is one …
Trackback by PoliPundit.com — 06.15.05 @ 7:21 am
Don’t Apologize To “Black People”
Congress recently passed a resolution of apology for its failure to pass anti-lynching legislation 101 years after the first such bill was introduced in Congress. However, La Shawn Barber is having none of it. What I love about La Shawn…
Trackback by The Narrow — 06.15.05 @ 7:26 am
…by a number of different black bloggers with more conservative analysis (see here and here, for example). My personal stance on this whole issue is a bit more tempered. I won […]
Pingback by The (vast) Right Wing Conspiracy — 06.15.05 @ 8:09 am
I also tend to share La Shawn Barber’s view: In light of the serious problems we face in the world and our own country, I think […]
Pingback by SayUncle — 06.15.05 @ 9:25 am
Good points guys:
Redbeard - “It’s true conservatives who refuse to pigeonhole people based upon race.”
You all do it all the time in here, if I started tabulating quotes on the pigeonhole generalizations so-called conservatives make in here (even on this thread) I would have a long list. Who defined conservative ideology as being anti social reality? That is the fundamental problem I have with the neo-con mentality. This is a modern phenomenon, when most blacks were publicans there was never this ‘lets not look at race as a factor’ bizarre myopic philosophy.
Also Red you state - “When have public-trough bureaucrats EVER voluntarily given up funding of their petty little fiefdoms? Since the answer is NEVER, you’re faced with having to raise taxes to fund the new programs, as has always been the case”
This is what is known in debate as presenting a false dichotomy, IE an either / or scenario that does not necessarily exist. This is very much a political issue that needs to be driven by individuals who desire true productive change. Maybe it will have to be done (or something like it) in incremental steps, but I believe that it can be done, particularly in progressive local and state politics. It just has to be well thought out and pushed for by a vocal group.
Andy & LaShawn - Your idealism on the lack of federal tax dollars for safety net programs is interesting. The capacity of non-profit agencies will never match the need of a underclass that is created by the natural disparities that occur in a free market system. The government taxes to control ‘externalities’ the negative consequences of individual freedom in a democracy and free market system, and it also exist to umpire the rules of the game.
But let me step back. How would you propose replacing the social service system with private or non-profit institutions?
Comment by Dell Gines — 06.15.05 @ 9:26 am
We seem to have wandered off-topic into an area where economics starts to apply. Mind if I butt in?
There are really two arguments going on when we talk about welfare programs: (1) Does it work? (2) Even if it does work, should we do it at all?
Just dealing with the first question, if you look at any statistical measure, the start of the Great Society programs coincided with the destruction of the family in the US. Blacks, as the poorest and most vulnerable, suffered first and worst, but eventually even whites had seen an increase in welfare dependency and fatherless families. You may argue that this is coincidence, but there is a sound economic argument for causation.
If I offered $X,XXX per month to have a child out of wedlock, most readers would refuse and rightly feel insulted. You all have better options and a longer time frame (hopefully eternal) with which you set values to your choices. There are others, though, to whom this offer would not look too unattractive. These are people whose other choices are only a little better or a little worse. Perhaps the stigma is less in their social context; maybe their education and employment prospects are not all that good; maybe the men in their lives are poor husband material. This kind of offer only affects behavior at the margin where the choices are close to equal in value, as those choices are valued by the individual.
Over time, though, the margin tends to move. The stigma becomes a little less for many others; education tends to deteriorate for others; men behave a little worse, knowing that the state, not they, will pay for their mistakes, and more women are willing to accept those terms.
If you want to argue the morality of welfare systems, you must look beyond the intentions to the unintended secondary effects. Good intentions are no excuse to persist in harmful behavior, whatever your original motive. This system was clearly broken and needed drastic reform, at the very least.
Comment by Mitch — 06.15.05 @ 9:59 am
I didn’t think much about this apology until I read your passionate comments. I’m sending a copy of your reaction to my senators, Boxer and Feinstein and my representative, George Miller. I’m sure they voted for this. Maybe they’ll send you an apology for the things you’re really mad about, which is the same things I’m mad about. I doubt it, but if African American grievances have more voice with the legislature, then maybe your comments will have more impact than the many comments complaints I’ve sent my representatives.
Comment by Penny Silver — 06.15.05 @ 12:05 pm
But of course there are those much more able to speak to this, people like La Shawn Barber (hat tip: Lori Byrd @ Polipundit: In light of the serious problems we fac […]
Pingback by The Strata-Sphere — 06.15.05 @ 1:09 pm
While it almost goes without saying that any item that passes through the US Senate on a voice vote only is worthless, this post and the majority of the comments show such an extreme degree of ignorance as to the issue, it is a wonder the degree of vitriol reaches so high. One struggles with where to begin, but let’s begin at the beginning:
- This is not an apology for failing to pass anti-lynching legislation 100 years ago (or 1905); rather it is an apology for failing to pass any of the seven anti-lynching bills that cleared the house in any of the decades of the previous century - right through the 1960s.
- Congratulations to those of you who correctly identified the Democratic party of the “solid South” (those Sons of Confederate Veterans who were on the losing side of the Second Revolutionary War), as you at least showed that you were able to recognize the word “Democrat” when it was repeated from the first half of last century through today. Unfortunately, you have not made the connection to the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson (whom you most likely only know as the stoic face on your yuppie, welfare checks (the $20 bill for those of you too slow to comprehend) or to the modern-day Republican Party. That’s right; the solidly Democratic South (identified as such after the demise of Reconstruction, the empowerment of the KKK and the removal of Federal troops from the South back in the 1880s). The South was solidly Democratic as that was the party that committed treason against this nation by starting the Civil War by attacking US troops at Fort Sumter. Their attempted creation of a breakaway republic was crushed by Lincoln and the Republican Party, but after the Republicans tired of Reconstruction expenditures (and perhaps sharing the Senate and House bathrooms with those recalcitrant Negroes), the Republicans withdrew the troops and the South returned to its pre-Civil War, Democratic Party roots (otherwise known as the party of white men). It was not until FDR started to let Black troops into the Army in large numbers (so he could get the manpower needed to fight a war on two fronts) that Black folks even considered voting Democratic. This, naturally, led the most racist of the Southern politicians - Strom, Helms, Lott, etc., out of the Democratic Party and into the South. The successive election of Truman and the later election of Kennedy, cemented the migration of Blacks to the Democratic Party and of racists to the Republican Party.
Make no mistake: did some Black people - in particular those whose family members were killed by mobs of thugs - seek a statement from the Senate?
Yes.
Did those same US, taxpaying citizens have any recourse at the local level; did they see any enforcement of laws against murder when their relatives were pulled from their homes and into the dark to be killed?
No.
Is it the responsibility of the Federal government to ensure that all of the citizens of this nation are treated as equal before the law?
Each one of us has to answer that question for ourselves; God help those of you who say “no”.
Comment by Derrick Gibson — 06.15.05 @ 1:18 pm
Did you catch the way AP and others worded it: the anti-legislation filibusters were by ‘Southern conservatives’. The phrase ‘Southern Democrats’ never made it into any of the wire stories -I- was able to find.
Comment by JimO — 06.15.05 @ 1:26 pm
“Did you catch the way AP and others worded it: the anti-legislation filibusters were by ‘Southern conservatives’. The phrase ‘Southern Democrats’ never made it into any of the wire stories -I- was able to find. ”
Probably because it would cause people to associate with the current democratic party, which would be misleading. And would cause people to miss the fact that those racists left the democratic party because of their conservatism wasn’t in tune with its progressivism.
Where did they go, when they left the democratic party?
Comment by actus — 06.15.05 @ 1:36 pm
As far as I know, Actus, Senator Robert K.K.K. Byrd is still a Democrat, and worshipped as a leader of that party.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.15.05 @ 1:55 pm
“…the negative consequences of individual freedom in a democracy and free market system…”
Dell, right there is the basic reason that we will never agree. Freedom is not a negative factor. Lack of freedom causes negative consequences.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.15.05 @ 1:57 pm
Ever heard of Strom Thurmond, RedBeard? Also, Congress does a lot of pandering (see Schiavo, Terri), why does the outrage show up only when the silly gestures are aimed at black folks?
Comment by Big Worm — 06.15.05 @ 3:45 pm
Right-on LaShawn! Unfortunately, there is a political industry that exists to complain that “African Americans” are descriminated against, and that industry has to hold blacks down as victims, keeping them oppressed and feeling bad about themselves, in order to hold their power. Thanks Rev.s Jesse & Al. Dr. King’s vision of people being judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is upheld by the Republican party. Notice the MSM and Democrats do not give any credit to the administration for Condi Rice. The administration doesn’t taut her as a “black woman” they put in a high position of power, but they could… Why don’t they? They just see her as the best, most qualified person for the job. Get it? W judges the content of her character (and her qualifications) and isn’t trying to create “a cabinet that looks like America”.
Also… I’m reminded of what Arthur Ashe said when he was asked about Prop 48 (which set a minimum score for college athletes to participate in their sports as freshmen). The question was intended to provoke him to declare that it unfairly targets black athletes. Ashe said: “I don’t think it’s right. The minimum score is too low. It should be higher.” Arthur Ashe knew that you don’t lift people up by lowering expectations.
Love ya LaShawn!!!
Comment by Pat — 06.15.05 @ 4:08 pm
Byrd Should Apologize
…
Trackback by Say Anything — 06.15.05 @ 4:21 pm
LaShawn for president!! No doubt she’ll be vilified by the professional victim class. But don’t worry. The rest of us mainstreamers understand, agree with and support your very timely and accurate commentary. Great work !!
Comment by Jerry Lundegaard — 06.15.05 @ 4:36 pm
Outstanding!
Comment by ahem — 06.15.05 @ 4:40 pm
DG: I’m not interested in “replacing” social services. Mankind has gotten as far as the mid 20th Century w/o it. Let me put it another way, by delegating our indvidual social responsibilities as Christians, we have in effect hindered the spread of the Gospel. To wit, everyone knew what the Salvation Army was all about way back then, or consider the missionary work that was Florence Nightingale. The beacon of hope and glory to God type of outreach have been eclipsed by the Government.
Going back to your initiative; “The capacity of non-profit agencies will never match the need of a underclass that is created by the natural disparities that occur in a free market system.”
Do you have any evidence or is this an assumption? Is it supposed to match the need? Why not just a little bit, so as to nudge the needy to fill the rest?
To wit, one of your planks calls for creating incentives for education
“Education
100% of undergraduate education will be paid out, up to $100,000 per student.
50% of postgraduate education will be paid out, up to $100,000 per student.
25% of doctoral education will be paid out, up to $100,000 per student.
The caveat is this, it is grade based. If a student maintains a 3.0 or above GPA he receives the 95% reimbursement. If it is between 2.0 or 3.0 it is reduced to 50%. If it is beneath 2.0 he or she is suspended from the educational reparations program until they increase their GPA to 2.5 or above.
This incentivizes students to enter college and perform at a high level. Thereby increasing human capital amongst American blacks and improving ultimately their socio-economic status. ”
As an economist and student of social behavior several things should jump out at you why this is unworkable:
1) when 100% of undergraduate education will be paid out, up to $100,000 per student. You will have effectively removed cost from competition. Why should schools compete on cost when they know the ceiling is 100G and will mark up their base price accordingly.
Consequence: Easy Money=Greed.
2) If a student maintains a 3.0 or above GPA he receives the 95% reimbursement. If it is between 2.0 or 3.0 it is reduced to 50%…” Do you have any idea why academic standards don’t work in the NCAA? Now in addition to being pressured from Atheltic Directors to keep a star player’s GPA up, instructors will now be forced to pump GPA for students to keep the money coming.
Consequence: Losing Money=Fraud.
3) This incentivizes students to enter college and perform at a high level. Actually this incentivizes slacking, since it’s OPM (Other People’s Money) and everyone from the student up to the Chancellor has an incentive to cook the grades.
Consequence: Easy Grades=Ignant Students
Or do you have a caveat to eliminate fraud, waste & abuse? Plus I’d forget aboout the term “reparations” which connotes a sense of entitlement, especially for something undeserved, unearned and unwarranted.
Especially if we use real-world numbers, the average ‘African-American” would be owing about 1 million USD each, in order to reach economic parity with our African cousins, no?
Comment by Andy — 06.15.05 @ 4:42 pm
Things not earned are not cherished.
“Entitlements” as used by bureaucrats and social experimenters is a cruel misnomer. Even in the private sector, and on a small scale, it gets ridiculous. I was in line at a fast food restaurant recently. The rather unpleasant old man ahead of me made quite a show of demanding his “entitlement” of a cheap cup of coffee: “I want the SENIOR coffee at the SENIOR coffee discount. Last time I did not get my SENIOR discount.” I very much wanted to ask him why he thought he was “entitled” to have coffee subsidized by me and by all the other full-fare customers, but I bit my tongue.
Comment by RedBeard — 06.15.05 @ 5:01 pm
Senators,
On behalf of all of those who died at the hands of a lynch mob…who asked ya’? What a bunch of revisionist wimps! La Shawn, bless you my dear. Thanks for holding their feet to the fire on this. They ought to be ashamed of the number two culprit of their past inaction; behind racism comes the shameful practice of fillibustering.
Comment by dougrc — 06.15.05 @ 5:09 pm
LaShawn;
Is there any symbolic redemption in issuing apologies for past wrongs? I’m thinking in terms of Nehemiah 9:2 where the Israelites apologized to God for the sins of their fathers.
I see an apology as a first step if it is followed by just behaviors and decisions afterwards. As a first step, it may not be necessary, but it could conceivably pave the road for the future. Correct me if I err (I’m sure you will:)
Comment by pjlr — 06.15.05 @ 5:13 pm
“Things not earned are not cherished.” - Redbeard
Indeed. That must be why nobody cherishes their children. Or their lives.
And you aren’t subsidizing Senior citizen’s discounts. The coffee shop, if it is obeying market discipline, is charging you the marginal cost of producing an additional cup. That cost is wholly independent of what they are charging anyone else.
Comment by Big Worm — 06.15.05 @ 5:43 pm
Again, how many people actually READ the apology?
Man…
It’s an apology because the senate, not the U.S., but the senate, never passed any anti-lynching legislation.
The ignorance of the basic resolution, NOT BILL, is amazing.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.15.05 @ 5:57 pm
DS, the Senate IS the United States. They are a body of federal legislators, the only branch with authority to make and pass federal law. The two terms are interchangeable. I think most people “get” that a Senate resolution is not a law.
What semantical rant are you going off on? Don’t raise your blood pressure over this nonsense, please.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.15.05 @ 6:01 pm
“Indeed. That must be why nobody cherishes their children. Or their lives.” You’ve lost me with that one, Worm. What do you mean?
As for the coffee, the shop needs to make a certain percentage net profit at the end of the day in order to remain solvent and satisfy the stockholders. Now, if that cheap cup of coffee pulls in more old folks and creates more business, that may, or may not, justify the discount, although the discounted senior meals are also suspect. The discount may only work for the restaurant if they use the old folks’ business for low-profit volume, and make up the profit difference on the backs of the other customers. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Interesting economics descussion, but not my real point, however it turns out.
My main point is the idea that some people feel “entitled” to a discount. If the restaurant decides to give a discount, that’s their business. But for anyone to feel as though the restaurant owes it to them is an idea without merit, a point lost on the “entitlement” grouch I mentioned earlier. Can you see where I’m going with this analogy?
Comment by RedBeard — 06.15.05 @ 6:05 pm
But who is the Senate? Who in the Senate never tried to pass any anti-lynching laws? Obama? cHillary? Schumer? Specter? Levin? Landrieu?
In any case now that a precedent is being set, I guess we can all start expecting a raft of letters of apologies from every institution that ever denied service/opportunity to minorities: A&P, Woolworth, Kmart, Kresgee, Sears, Ford, GM, most public schools, colleges, you get the drift. But what about the institutions that have faded into history? Bring em back from the dead for an apology?
Institutional apologies mean nothing. For the same reason institutions are nothing without someone at the controls.
Comment by Andy — 06.15.05 @ 6:11 pm
Personally Andy, I am waiting for the letter from my first grade teacher who used that red marker to grade my papers and made me feel bad
It traumatized me for years (I still have nightmares about it and sometimes can not cope at work) 
I deserve an apology!
Comment by Renee — 06.15.05 @ 6:31 pm