Here's a copy of a get-well note I came across, sent by me on September 8, 2003, to “Grandpa” Al Lewis. After a long bout with multiple illnesses, he was hospitalized, and then spent a long time at home, during which we hoped would be his recuperation. You knew him from the television sitcom “Car 54, Where are you,” as a dizzy, lovable cop, and as Grandpa in “The Munsters.” I knew him as a regular New York radio host on one of WBAI's most popular talk shows. He was definitely on the leftwing of the political spectrum, and cantankerous as hell. But still lovable.
Dear Grandpa Al,
This is from one of your politically conservative fans, who agrees with you more these days than with those monsters in the White House.
A great many of us rightwingers learned the hard way the truth of that warning, “Be careful of what you wish for.” We never wished to see our government highjacked by warmongers, or to see the Founders' vision spat on and turned on its head.
I'm glad you're out there to remind us that we can agree to disagree on some issues, but we can come together to fight against our country being turned into the bully of the world.
So, get a move on now, pick yourself up, and bring your crotchety self back to us. You're sorely missed.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth
Grandpa Al died on February 3, 2006.
Read more!
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
On Imus - Last thoughts from a long-time listener
I have listened to Don Imus for what seems like most of my adult life. I never saw the MSNBC simulcast, since I never did understand why a radio program needed to be televised. Like others, from time to time, I would make the mistake of endowing the program with a character that it was never meant to have. Especially in recent years, since Washington's invasion of Iraq, and as my politics have drifted away from support of Republicans, I wanted Imus to be a voice that is seldom heard on the airwaves. Since there are so few voices on radio that do not engage in worshipful awe of the neocons and theocrats who rule DC (what with "conservative" talkers out-ranking any other kind by 10 to 1), dissent from any quarter was welcomed.
Whenever I thought about Imus's program, the scatological shenanigans were not what came to mind. What I remembered were the day's politics, and the discussions with his guests, who might have roused my ire or found me in agreement. I was certainly well aware of the rough male humor on the show, which I viewed as one of the many futile behaviors that some men try to adopt, in reaction to the feminization of just about everything in this society. To me, the show was a sort of old-fashioned men's smoking car, where boorish males, out of the hearing of scolding women, could flex some rarely exercised troglodyte muscles.
Civil rights attorney Constance Rice, who was also a listener, in the Los Angeles Times described the show as "a seventh grade white boys' locker room." Well, I'd put them a little higher than the seventh grade. After all was rudely said and done, you knew that at some time in the course of the day, each of these men probably got his ears boxed by some woman, but for these few morning hours, the boys behaving badly could play at being liberated from the skirt brigade.
As a long-time listener, my greatest surprise came with Imus's decision (or was it his advisers or his wife's) to prostrate himself before Al Sharpton -- a man whom Imus had insightfully parodied over the years. No one did better takes on Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as transparent opportunists. Yet, it seems that all knowledge of what Sharpton is about, and has always been about, fell from the head of Imus, as he behaved like a clueless bumpkin. No one knew Sharpton's history better than Imus, so it is incomprehensible that he would offer himself up to the quintessential charlatan as a gift on a silver platter. When he panicked, did he lose his mind?
Did that weekend, in which he was deluged with telephone calls, terrify Imus into trying to rescue not only his show's corporate sponsors, but his wife's business interests, and the loss of the thousands of funders of the children's ranch? Was he so panicked that he thought he could be a match for the country's ultimate shakedown artist? What in the world was he thinking?
Or was he just engaging in what is described as the Trent Lott Crawl, which is coming to be known as the White Man's Crawl? If you thought that Senator Trent Lott's fawning before multiple black luminaries epitomized a man's loss of dignity and pride, Imus has gone and topped that performance. He even topped Doug Tracht, the radio jock otherwise known as The Greaseman, who, back in 1999, after some intemperate remarks on the radio, dragged himself around to various self-appointed black leaders in the Washington-Baltimore area to do public penance. [See my article on this episode here.]
Although other whites had disgraced themselves in their various apology stances, Lott set a precedent for white cringing and submission over the race issue. In addition, he sent strong messages, not only to white children, who learned how best to behave when confronted by howling blacks and their confederates, but also to black children, who learned what simple steps are required to bring about the subjection of The Man.
The day that CBS canceled Imus's show on WFAN, Mike and the Mad Dog, the afternoon sports entertainers on the station (now subbing in the morning), expressed their shock that so many "friends" had deserted Imus. Don't they know that the one thing you can count on white men to do is abandon other white men? Where have they been? The idea of loyalty among whites is a notion that abides only in misguided brains. Blacks often mistake class solidarity among particular circles of whites for a race bond. Do you think the tightly knit Bush social-financial circle of relatives and friends is focused around skin color?
There are thousands of Mike Nifongs out there, in one capacity or another, waiting to pounce upon what they consider the vulnerable, and supposedly hated, white male. Just as blacks, like Sharpton, use members of their race to enhance their profiles and careers, so do whites, especially when it offers a chance to show the world just how "anti-racist" they are, how good and moral. Those Duke University students were viewed by prosecutor Nifong as dispensable fodder, who can afford to take a hit or two, and even go down a time or two. After all, they've got the world on a string, according to this illusion, and their white skin allows them to bounce back from anything.
The Imus show was unique unto itself due to its focus and purpose, which were often misinterpreted. Imus would anger me at times, and I'd cease to listen for a couple or more weeks. The annoyance with him was not for his vulgar and irreverent humor, but due to what I saw as his wishy-washy approach to most political matters. As the country's political fortunes took a turn for the worse, I grew impatient with Imus and his ambivalence on certain issues.
Especially during the 2006 election, I felt it was imperative for every American to do all he could to expel the warmongers out of Washington. This was no time for satirical putdowns of candidates who might stand a chance of replacing the incumbent Republican cranks. Imus finally did come down on the antiwar side, but went on supporting Joseph Lieberman, a chief warmonger, thus, making a mockery of his position on the war. He also spent inordinate amounts of time sneering at Ned Lamont, Lieberman's chief political rival.
With young American soldiers dropping like flies in a totally unnecessary military escapade, there was Imus giving the benefit of the doubt to White House apologists. In his jocular manner, he'd claim, Well, maybe this view is right, or maybe that view is right. Sometimes I would cry out, "Oh, take a stand, damn you, Imus!" This was not a time for playing ribald word games.
In terms of presidential candidates, for weeks Imus would play at supporting this Democratic candidate or that one, or even Bush. As long as the country was being run by certifiably demented kooks, I had no use for irrelevant humor. A rather foolish posture, I admit, given the nature of the Imus show. But that was the confusing thing about it. The mix of politics and entertainment blurred the show's identity.
One of the most unfortunate consequences of this episode is the fact that yet another white man has helped to restore credibility and social power to those two cynical buffoons, Jackson and Sharpton. Just when it looked like their stars were waning, along comes the groveling Imus, to remind us blacks of who our "leaders" are. In his remarkable column in the Kansas City Star, writer Jason Whitlock sarcastically thanks Imus for extending Black History Month to April, so that blacks "can once again wallow in victimhood and protest like it's 1965."
This is how so many blacks felt upon learning that Imus sought out Sharpton and planned to go on his radio show. Writes Whitlock, "At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent. Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves."
Talk show host Tom Joyner concurs, and adds that Sharpton's focus "is to catch a mistake made, fan the issue for personal publicity and, stepping around the carnage, move on to the next photo opportunity." These are views on Sharpton, and his myriad wannabes, that many blacks have been expressing for years, yet timid whites choose to ignore what they consider dangerous dissent. I don't think that Sharpton and his clones knew that they still possessed the power endowed upon them by the media over the past several days. Thanks to Imus, they know it now.
On his radio show, Sharpton had the upper hand over Imus to the extent that Imus could not get away with calling himself an "old cracker." When he used this epithet to denigrate himself, the wily Sharpton took the moral high ground, insisting that Imus should not use this term, but should "respect" his own race. Wow! Gotcha!
Let's face it, when you allow someone to box you into a corner and force you to whine, "I am not a racist, I am not a bigot, I am a good person," you deserve little more than contempt.
So, after all this cringing and groveling, what was accomplished? Nothing more than could have been, if Imus had initially said, "Take this job and stuff it!" And how many more white men will feel compelled to prostrate themselves at the feet of blacks? While he was down there, it's surprising that Imus failed to wash Sharpton's feet -- a practice that actually was performed on the feet of black men by the contrite white members of the "Christian" organization Promise Keepers. What a wonderful set of role models they make.
Being Al Sharpton means never having to say you're sorry for any incendiary speeches that might act as fuel for the weak-minded. No one should be held accountable for words, which others may then misinterpret. It is the perpetrator of criminal acts who should be held responsible for his deeds. This rule obviously works for Sharpton, but not for all Americans, as "anti-racist watchdogs" hound their political opponents, to link them with the criminal acts of others. These unappointed guardians of society almost succeeded in the case of the white nationalist Tom Metzger, and did succeed with the railroading of the religious separatist Matt Hale. See
here and here. Because these "anti-racists" tend to share the same politics as Sharpton, he gets a free ride as the Teflon man. That's why his connection to the deaths of young Yankel Rosenblum and those unfortunate souls who died in that Harlem fire gets brushed aside.
Being Al Sharpton also means that you can claim to oppose the "gangsta" culture, while knowing there are now organizations, with the NAACP in the lead, that are major recipients of big donations that come from these "artists" and "entrepreneurs." See my articles on the noble, but short-lived, campaigns to enlighten the public about the rap/hip-hop poison conducted first by
Delores Tucker and then by
Abysssinian Baptist pastor, Rev. Calvin Butts. And also
here.
As I write this, Sharpton is preachifying about how he is going to go after the actual producers, the companies, those corporate executives, who are responsible for the very existence and dissemination of the filth they have the nerve to call "music." Let's see what happens when the NAACP brings him back to reality. In the past, neither Tucker nor Butts could get support from Sharpton or Jackson for their campaigns against those very corporations. After all these years of failing to disavow the black cultural dreck that has poisoned mainstream society, are these "civil rights" folks suddenly going to get down to the business of challenging blacks themselves? Perhaps, but only after they have taken down a few more white men. First blame Whitey.
See follow-up:
The humorless Imus escapes another mess
Read more!
Whenever I thought about Imus's program, the scatological shenanigans were not what came to mind. What I remembered were the day's politics, and the discussions with his guests, who might have roused my ire or found me in agreement. I was certainly well aware of the rough male humor on the show, which I viewed as one of the many futile behaviors that some men try to adopt, in reaction to the feminization of just about everything in this society. To me, the show was a sort of old-fashioned men's smoking car, where boorish males, out of the hearing of scolding women, could flex some rarely exercised troglodyte muscles.
Civil rights attorney Constance Rice, who was also a listener, in the Los Angeles Times described the show as "a seventh grade white boys' locker room." Well, I'd put them a little higher than the seventh grade. After all was rudely said and done, you knew that at some time in the course of the day, each of these men probably got his ears boxed by some woman, but for these few morning hours, the boys behaving badly could play at being liberated from the skirt brigade.
As a long-time listener, my greatest surprise came with Imus's decision (or was it his advisers or his wife's) to prostrate himself before Al Sharpton -- a man whom Imus had insightfully parodied over the years. No one did better takes on Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as transparent opportunists. Yet, it seems that all knowledge of what Sharpton is about, and has always been about, fell from the head of Imus, as he behaved like a clueless bumpkin. No one knew Sharpton's history better than Imus, so it is incomprehensible that he would offer himself up to the quintessential charlatan as a gift on a silver platter. When he panicked, did he lose his mind?
Did that weekend, in which he was deluged with telephone calls, terrify Imus into trying to rescue not only his show's corporate sponsors, but his wife's business interests, and the loss of the thousands of funders of the children's ranch? Was he so panicked that he thought he could be a match for the country's ultimate shakedown artist? What in the world was he thinking?
Or was he just engaging in what is described as the Trent Lott Crawl, which is coming to be known as the White Man's Crawl? If you thought that Senator Trent Lott's fawning before multiple black luminaries epitomized a man's loss of dignity and pride, Imus has gone and topped that performance. He even topped Doug Tracht, the radio jock otherwise known as The Greaseman, who, back in 1999, after some intemperate remarks on the radio, dragged himself around to various self-appointed black leaders in the Washington-Baltimore area to do public penance. [See my article on this episode here.]
Although other whites had disgraced themselves in their various apology stances, Lott set a precedent for white cringing and submission over the race issue. In addition, he sent strong messages, not only to white children, who learned how best to behave when confronted by howling blacks and their confederates, but also to black children, who learned what simple steps are required to bring about the subjection of The Man.
The day that CBS canceled Imus's show on WFAN, Mike and the Mad Dog, the afternoon sports entertainers on the station (now subbing in the morning), expressed their shock that so many "friends" had deserted Imus. Don't they know that the one thing you can count on white men to do is abandon other white men? Where have they been? The idea of loyalty among whites is a notion that abides only in misguided brains. Blacks often mistake class solidarity among particular circles of whites for a race bond. Do you think the tightly knit Bush social-financial circle of relatives and friends is focused around skin color?
There are thousands of Mike Nifongs out there, in one capacity or another, waiting to pounce upon what they consider the vulnerable, and supposedly hated, white male. Just as blacks, like Sharpton, use members of their race to enhance their profiles and careers, so do whites, especially when it offers a chance to show the world just how "anti-racist" they are, how good and moral. Those Duke University students were viewed by prosecutor Nifong as dispensable fodder, who can afford to take a hit or two, and even go down a time or two. After all, they've got the world on a string, according to this illusion, and their white skin allows them to bounce back from anything.
The Imus show was unique unto itself due to its focus and purpose, which were often misinterpreted. Imus would anger me at times, and I'd cease to listen for a couple or more weeks. The annoyance with him was not for his vulgar and irreverent humor, but due to what I saw as his wishy-washy approach to most political matters. As the country's political fortunes took a turn for the worse, I grew impatient with Imus and his ambivalence on certain issues.
Especially during the 2006 election, I felt it was imperative for every American to do all he could to expel the warmongers out of Washington. This was no time for satirical putdowns of candidates who might stand a chance of replacing the incumbent Republican cranks. Imus finally did come down on the antiwar side, but went on supporting Joseph Lieberman, a chief warmonger, thus, making a mockery of his position on the war. He also spent inordinate amounts of time sneering at Ned Lamont, Lieberman's chief political rival.
With young American soldiers dropping like flies in a totally unnecessary military escapade, there was Imus giving the benefit of the doubt to White House apologists. In his jocular manner, he'd claim, Well, maybe this view is right, or maybe that view is right. Sometimes I would cry out, "Oh, take a stand, damn you, Imus!" This was not a time for playing ribald word games.
In terms of presidential candidates, for weeks Imus would play at supporting this Democratic candidate or that one, or even Bush. As long as the country was being run by certifiably demented kooks, I had no use for irrelevant humor. A rather foolish posture, I admit, given the nature of the Imus show. But that was the confusing thing about it. The mix of politics and entertainment blurred the show's identity.
One of the most unfortunate consequences of this episode is the fact that yet another white man has helped to restore credibility and social power to those two cynical buffoons, Jackson and Sharpton. Just when it looked like their stars were waning, along comes the groveling Imus, to remind us blacks of who our "leaders" are. In his remarkable column in the Kansas City Star, writer Jason Whitlock sarcastically thanks Imus for extending Black History Month to April, so that blacks "can once again wallow in victimhood and protest like it's 1965."
This is how so many blacks felt upon learning that Imus sought out Sharpton and planned to go on his radio show. Writes Whitlock, "At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent. Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves."
Talk show host Tom Joyner concurs, and adds that Sharpton's focus "is to catch a mistake made, fan the issue for personal publicity and, stepping around the carnage, move on to the next photo opportunity." These are views on Sharpton, and his myriad wannabes, that many blacks have been expressing for years, yet timid whites choose to ignore what they consider dangerous dissent. I don't think that Sharpton and his clones knew that they still possessed the power endowed upon them by the media over the past several days. Thanks to Imus, they know it now.
On his radio show, Sharpton had the upper hand over Imus to the extent that Imus could not get away with calling himself an "old cracker." When he used this epithet to denigrate himself, the wily Sharpton took the moral high ground, insisting that Imus should not use this term, but should "respect" his own race. Wow! Gotcha!
Let's face it, when you allow someone to box you into a corner and force you to whine, "I am not a racist, I am not a bigot, I am a good person," you deserve little more than contempt.
So, after all this cringing and groveling, what was accomplished? Nothing more than could have been, if Imus had initially said, "Take this job and stuff it!" And how many more white men will feel compelled to prostrate themselves at the feet of blacks? While he was down there, it's surprising that Imus failed to wash Sharpton's feet -- a practice that actually was performed on the feet of black men by the contrite white members of the "Christian" organization Promise Keepers. What a wonderful set of role models they make.
Being Al Sharpton means never having to say you're sorry for any incendiary speeches that might act as fuel for the weak-minded. No one should be held accountable for words, which others may then misinterpret. It is the perpetrator of criminal acts who should be held responsible for his deeds. This rule obviously works for Sharpton, but not for all Americans, as "anti-racist watchdogs" hound their political opponents, to link them with the criminal acts of others. These unappointed guardians of society almost succeeded in the case of the white nationalist Tom Metzger, and did succeed with the railroading of the religious separatist Matt Hale. See
here and here. Because these "anti-racists" tend to share the same politics as Sharpton, he gets a free ride as the Teflon man. That's why his connection to the deaths of young Yankel Rosenblum and those unfortunate souls who died in that Harlem fire gets brushed aside.
Being Al Sharpton also means that you can claim to oppose the "gangsta" culture, while knowing there are now organizations, with the NAACP in the lead, that are major recipients of big donations that come from these "artists" and "entrepreneurs." See my articles on the noble, but short-lived, campaigns to enlighten the public about the rap/hip-hop poison conducted first by
Delores Tucker and then by
Abysssinian Baptist pastor, Rev. Calvin Butts. And also
here.
As I write this, Sharpton is preachifying about how he is going to go after the actual producers, the companies, those corporate executives, who are responsible for the very existence and dissemination of the filth they have the nerve to call "music." Let's see what happens when the NAACP brings him back to reality. In the past, neither Tucker nor Butts could get support from Sharpton or Jackson for their campaigns against those very corporations. After all these years of failing to disavow the black cultural dreck that has poisoned mainstream society, are these "civil rights" folks suddenly going to get down to the business of challenging blacks themselves? Perhaps, but only after they have taken down a few more white men. First blame Whitey.
See follow-up:
The humorless Imus escapes another mess
Read more!
Media Matters comes into its own
Some conservative types are ranting over the fact that David Brock's Media Matters for America is the group that brought attention to the now notorious words of Don Imus, which eventually led to his dismissal from his morning radio show. From the indignation being expressed, you would think that Brock invented the idea of the media watchdog organization. What the ranters are mad about is the fact that liberals are becoming as effective at turning spotlights on media figures they consider biased against their views as their counterparts on the political right.
For years, rightwingers have supported several such groups (some have come and gone), led by the two major ones, Brent Bozell's Media Research Center and Reed Irvine's Accuracy In Media. Founded sometime in the 1980s, both claim to offer exposes of distortions or falsehoods issued by a "malicious" mainstream media. I have been on the mailing lists of both these groups, and continue to receive biweekly "compilations" from the Media Research Center, which purports to offer the "latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes from the liberal media."
The cries of "unfair" treatment of profiled personalities emanating from the crowd that invented the Swift Boat ring more than a little hollow. Some are accusing Media Matters of smearing and tarnishing reputations. This, coming from those who engaged in the most vile and unthinkable conduct, that is, defaming and slandering veterans who had put their lives on the line, fighting in that worthless Vietnam conflict that had been instigated by successive American governments.
What could be more despicable than the mean-spirited taunting of the paraplegic Max Cleland, who was mocked by these wretches for the circumstances that led up to his injuries. No liberal, or anyone of any political attachment, could have conceived such grotesque insensitivity, not because they possess superior genes, but because such depraved thinking could not take form in the normal human mind, for fear that some god's wrath might strike one dead.
All that Media Matters is doing is throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, which is exactly what the rightwing monitors have been doing for decades. If nothing sticks to the wall, that is, no one chooses to pick up the information, so be it. But if someone decides that an item is worthy of exploration (or "investigative reporting"), that's the way the system works. When the Swift Boaters target some poor soul who fails to walk the straight and narrow Republican path, they dig up every piece of smut they can find (and, perhaps, invent), and fling it out for all the world to see.
For years, I fell for the line about the media being "liberal," until I discovered that the media is simply a whore, and will climb into bed with whomever promises to provide the greatest amount of goodies, in this case, not money, but data, gossip and information. In remembering the amiable treatment of the Bush presidential campaigns during both election cycles (2000 and 2004), the benign news coverage during the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the downright friendly dissemination of all those White House press releases immediately following the invasion, I found myself asking, "What liberal media?" Rightwingers can cry persecution all they wish, and howl like stuck pigs, but they now have competition in the field of muckraking.
Read more!
For years, rightwingers have supported several such groups (some have come and gone), led by the two major ones, Brent Bozell's Media Research Center and Reed Irvine's Accuracy In Media. Founded sometime in the 1980s, both claim to offer exposes of distortions or falsehoods issued by a "malicious" mainstream media. I have been on the mailing lists of both these groups, and continue to receive biweekly "compilations" from the Media Research Center, which purports to offer the "latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes from the liberal media."
The cries of "unfair" treatment of profiled personalities emanating from the crowd that invented the Swift Boat ring more than a little hollow. Some are accusing Media Matters of smearing and tarnishing reputations. This, coming from those who engaged in the most vile and unthinkable conduct, that is, defaming and slandering veterans who had put their lives on the line, fighting in that worthless Vietnam conflict that had been instigated by successive American governments.
What could be more despicable than the mean-spirited taunting of the paraplegic Max Cleland, who was mocked by these wretches for the circumstances that led up to his injuries. No liberal, or anyone of any political attachment, could have conceived such grotesque insensitivity, not because they possess superior genes, but because such depraved thinking could not take form in the normal human mind, for fear that some god's wrath might strike one dead.
All that Media Matters is doing is throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, which is exactly what the rightwing monitors have been doing for decades. If nothing sticks to the wall, that is, no one chooses to pick up the information, so be it. But if someone decides that an item is worthy of exploration (or "investigative reporting"), that's the way the system works. When the Swift Boaters target some poor soul who fails to walk the straight and narrow Republican path, they dig up every piece of smut they can find (and, perhaps, invent), and fling it out for all the world to see.
For years, I fell for the line about the media being "liberal," until I discovered that the media is simply a whore, and will climb into bed with whomever promises to provide the greatest amount of goodies, in this case, not money, but data, gossip and information. In remembering the amiable treatment of the Bush presidential campaigns during both election cycles (2000 and 2004), the benign news coverage during the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq, and the downright friendly dissemination of all those White House press releases immediately following the invasion, I found myself asking, "What liberal media?" Rightwingers can cry persecution all they wish, and howl like stuck pigs, but they now have competition in the field of muckraking.
Read more!
Another stupid law in the making
Why in the world is the government intruding itself into the business of online gambling? Doesn't it grow harder for citizens to take "the law" seriously when bureaucracies attempt, first to monitor everyone's trivial pursuits, and then to punish engagement in such pursuits? In a New York Times article ("The GOP's Bad Bet," 10/19/06), social scientist Charles Murray warns that such intrusion can do "long-term damage to Americans' respect for the law." He claims that it is not worth acquiescing to those "scattering" of voters who are upset by the existence of online gambling, while outraging the millions who love it, and writes:
If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong. The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century's stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more. ...
The temptation for good citizens to ignore a stupid law is encouraged when it is unenforceable. In this, the attempt to ban Internet gambling is exemplary. One of the four sites where I play poker has blocked United States customers because of the law, but the other three are functioning as usual and are confident that they can continue to do so. They are not in America, and it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to institutions abroad and thence to gambling sites.
And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong. ... Reflexive loyalty to the rule of law is an indispensable cultural asset. The more honest citizens who take for granted that they are breaking the law, the more their loyalty to the law, and to the government that creates it, is eroded.
# # #
In his syndicated column, Professor Walter Williams offers his views on gambling restrictions and what he calls Congressional nannies, those who would protect us from ourselves. In this case, he cites the House of Representatives' failure to pass a law prohibiting Internet gambling. The law failed this time around, however, its sponsors are primed to reintroduce the bill. Williams writes:
Congress' constitutional contempt is nothing new, but this latest act is quite a step down the slippery slope toward greater control of our lives. Let's look at some of their justifications. Rep. Goodlatte says, "Internet gambling is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems in our society." Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., says, "The Internet is addictive for many people anyway, and online gambling can be doubly addictive." Most other justifications follow the same line of reasoning; namely, there are Americans who don't know what's good for them, and it's the job of Congress to stop them from personal indiscretions. ...
If the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is approved, it will become a precedent for congressional control over other aspects of the Internet and an important loss in our liberty. Let's follow the money and ask who benefits should the law be passed. What about legal gambling establishments in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and elsewhere? From their revenue point of view, they'd be happy to see less online gambling competition.
What about federal, state and local governments? Online gambling, most of which is offshore, doesn't create any tax revenue for them. The bill focuses on online games such as poker, blackjack and sports betting, but exempts taxable state-regulated gambling such as lotteries and horse racing. ... The only thing the act will accomplish is, like Prohibition, make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people.
Read more!
If a free society is to work, the vast majority of citizens must reflexively obey the law not because they fear punishment, but because they accept that the rule of law makes society possible. That reflexive law-abidingness is reinforced when the laws are limited to core objectives that enjoy consensus support, even though people may disagree on means.
Thus society is weakened every time a law is passed that large numbers of reasonable, responsible citizens think is stupid. Such laws invite good citizens to choose knowingly to break the law, confident that they are doing nothing morally wrong. The reaction to Prohibition, the 20th century's stupidest law, is the archetypal case. But the radical expansion of government throughout the last century has created many more. ...
The temptation for good citizens to ignore a stupid law is encouraged when it is unenforceable. In this, the attempt to ban Internet gambling is exemplary. One of the four sites where I play poker has blocked United States customers because of the law, but the other three are functioning as usual and are confident that they can continue to do so. They are not in America, and it is absurdly easy to devise ways of transferring money from American bank accounts to institutions abroad and thence to gambling sites.
And so the federal government once again has acted in a way that will fail to achieve its objective while alienating large numbers of citizens who see themselves as having done nothing wrong. ... Reflexive loyalty to the rule of law is an indispensable cultural asset. The more honest citizens who take for granted that they are breaking the law, the more their loyalty to the law, and to the government that creates it, is eroded.
In his syndicated column, Professor Walter Williams offers his views on gambling restrictions and what he calls Congressional nannies, those who would protect us from ourselves. In this case, he cites the House of Representatives' failure to pass a law prohibiting Internet gambling. The law failed this time around, however, its sponsors are primed to reintroduce the bill. Williams writes:
Congress' constitutional contempt is nothing new, but this latest act is quite a step down the slippery slope toward greater control of our lives. Let's look at some of their justifications. Rep. Goodlatte says, "Internet gambling is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems in our society." Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn., says, "The Internet is addictive for many people anyway, and online gambling can be doubly addictive." Most other justifications follow the same line of reasoning; namely, there are Americans who don't know what's good for them, and it's the job of Congress to stop them from personal indiscretions. ...
If the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is approved, it will become a precedent for congressional control over other aspects of the Internet and an important loss in our liberty. Let's follow the money and ask who benefits should the law be passed. What about legal gambling establishments in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and elsewhere? From their revenue point of view, they'd be happy to see less online gambling competition.
What about federal, state and local governments? Online gambling, most of which is offshore, doesn't create any tax revenue for them. The bill focuses on online games such as poker, blackjack and sports betting, but exempts taxable state-regulated gambling such as lotteries and horse racing. ... The only thing the act will accomplish is, like Prohibition, make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people.
Read more!
Sunday, March 04, 2007
What's a Democrat to do?
In "Return of the Native" (The American Conservative, December 4, 2006), Kara Hopkins explores the dilemma in which the Democratic party finds itself. How can the self-professed champions of the working class be taken seriously, while continuing to push its multicultural agenda?
Can the Democrats' current flirtation with "populism" be harmonized with its avid support for immigrants--illegal and otherwise? Can members of the party continue to denigrate those Americans, who challenge mass immigration policies, as "xenophobes" and "racists," and expect to win a majority vote?
And, most importantly, will black and Hispanic opponents of open borders, who are greatly impacted by unlimited immigration's downward pressure on wages, be shut up and kept in line by the Democrats' old politically correct platitudes regarding "minorities?" Having stretched themselves so far in the realm of identity politics, where can the Democrats turn? Hopkins writes:
Can the Democrats' current flirtation with "populism" be harmonized with its avid support for immigrants--illegal and otherwise? Can members of the party continue to denigrate those Americans, who challenge mass immigration policies, as "xenophobes" and "racists," and expect to win a majority vote?
And, most importantly, will black and Hispanic opponents of open borders, who are greatly impacted by unlimited immigration's downward pressure on wages, be shut up and kept in line by the Democrats' old politically correct platitudes regarding "minorities?" Having stretched themselves so far in the realm of identity politics, where can the Democrats turn? Hopkins writes:
Read more!
After Republicans joined them on civil rights, Democrats crawled out on the multicultural limb to maintain their supposed monopoly on public virtue. In so doing, they became a new breed of oligarchs, using powerful institutions and the cudgel of political correctness to enforce an artificial state of affairs.
Thus, when they speak of trade they employ the vague language of human rights rather than American equity. And when they bring themselves to mention immigration, it's to indict populists like CNN's Lou Dobbs for "hysteria and jingoism" as The Nation [magazine] did. . . . As long as diversity is enthroned as the highest political good, concern for Joe Six-Pack cannot be primary . . . .
The question the Left must answer, therefore, is whether concern for foreigners outweighs loyalty to citizens, for the American minorities they claim to protect are most vulnerable to the flood of unskilled labor. That is their entry point into the immigration debate and the first step back to authentic populism.
Unalloyed Imperialism
When one powerful country invades and conquers a small, weak country thousands of miles away with a very different culture, language, history, religion, and society in order to replace its regime permanently with one resembling the occupier’s own, change its economic structure, control its most important resource, and use it to dominate and change other regimes in the region, that is classic, unalloyed imperialism. To refuse to admit this and cover it up with transparent dodges of liberation, democratization, self-defense, and Global War on Terror is to indulge still further in the comforting lies that are ruining America’s capacity for world leadership and even for democratic self-governance.
-- Paul W. Schroeder, "Liberating Ourselves," The American Conservative (October 9, 2006) Read more!
-- Paul W. Schroeder, "Liberating Ourselves," The American Conservative (October 9, 2006) Read more!
Mindless Interventions
In 1999, in his book, A Republic Not an Empire, Pat Buchanan presciently wrote: "If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the last weapon of the weak--terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil." And two years later, we lived through that cataclysmic terror.
In a recent syndicated column, Buchanan writes:
In a recent syndicated column, Buchanan writes:
Read more!
Now let me repeat the warning: If this Prodigal Nation does not cease its mindless interventions in quarrels and wars that are not America's concerns, our lot will be endless acts of terror until, one day, a weapon of mass destruction is detonated on American soil. What is it about global empire that is worth taking this risk?
Saturday, September 09, 2006
The biggest power-grabbing bonanza
Whatever happened to those courageous 18th century Anglos, who had the guts to attempt the formation of an open society, even though such an entity might not offer the kind of security as that of a more rigidly controlled society?
How is it that the citizen's freedom to talk back to the country's representatives and to put restrictions on these elected officials meant more to the Constitution's framers than the guarantee of physical "safety"?
Would the Founders recognize their timid descendants, who today seek security above all else, and are willingly selling out their political birthright in their efforts to guarantee continuance of the good life? Today's typical American seems happy to exist within a network of government surveillance, if it means he can live in undisturbed play with his ever-increasing toys -- his iPods, cell phones, Palm Pilots, Blackberries, ad nauseum. In "Fear Is the Coin of the Realm," Jacob Hornberger, director of the Future of Freedom Foundation, writes:
Fear, of course, has been the coin of the realm for oppressive and dictatorial governments throughout history. Frighten the citizenry and they’ll practically beg you to take away their freedom. ...
When Soviet communism, which had been used for decades to justify ever-increasing budgets for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department, expired with the fall of the Berlin Wall, new official fears had to be found. And fast! Federal power and federal budgets depended on it. There were, for example, the drug lords, who were coming to get us and put us on drugs. My favorite though was – "an unsafe world," which was enough to scare anyone to death. ...
No one can deny that 9/11 has been the biggest power-grabbing bonanza for power-loving federal politicians and bureaucrats since the Civil War. The terrorists, who are reacting to the power-grabbers’ own foreign policies, are coming to get us! Don’t even read the USA PATRIOT Act – just enact it! ...
Isn't it ironic that we have the most powerful empire in history, whose very own policies have often produced the things we're supposed be afraid of, and yet, at the same time, the most frightened grownups in the world? ... The sheeplings are bleating to the power-grabbing wolves, "Please, do whatever is necessary to protect me from the big bad terrorists. Take away my freedoms if you have to because I am so scared. I love you and I trust you."
Read more!
How is it that the citizen's freedom to talk back to the country's representatives and to put restrictions on these elected officials meant more to the Constitution's framers than the guarantee of physical "safety"?
Would the Founders recognize their timid descendants, who today seek security above all else, and are willingly selling out their political birthright in their efforts to guarantee continuance of the good life? Today's typical American seems happy to exist within a network of government surveillance, if it means he can live in undisturbed play with his ever-increasing toys -- his iPods, cell phones, Palm Pilots, Blackberries, ad nauseum. In "Fear Is the Coin of the Realm," Jacob Hornberger, director of the Future of Freedom Foundation, writes:
Fear, of course, has been the coin of the realm for oppressive and dictatorial governments throughout history. Frighten the citizenry and they’ll practically beg you to take away their freedom. ...
When Soviet communism, which had been used for decades to justify ever-increasing budgets for the Pentagon, the CIA, and the State Department, expired with the fall of the Berlin Wall, new official fears had to be found. And fast! Federal power and federal budgets depended on it. There were, for example, the drug lords, who were coming to get us and put us on drugs. My favorite though was – "an unsafe world," which was enough to scare anyone to death. ...
No one can deny that 9/11 has been the biggest power-grabbing bonanza for power-loving federal politicians and bureaucrats since the Civil War. The terrorists, who are reacting to the power-grabbers’ own foreign policies, are coming to get us! Don’t even read the USA PATRIOT Act – just enact it! ...
Isn't it ironic that we have the most powerful empire in history, whose very own policies have often produced the things we're supposed be afraid of, and yet, at the same time, the most frightened grownups in the world? ... The sheeplings are bleating to the power-grabbing wolves, "Please, do whatever is necessary to protect me from the big bad terrorists. Take away my freedoms if you have to because I am so scared. I love you and I trust you."
Read more!
The divinely sanctioned American state
In an entry to the LewRockwell blog, Charles Featherstone questions the strange development of American Christianity into a belief system that now confuses Ceasar with God. A great many of today's Christians are taught that the church must become a subsidiary of the state. Not only do church leaders demand endorsement by the state of their particular notion of God, they also claim to know when God has returned the endorsement. He writes:
The core of the problem is the American conviction of "chosenness," that God has somehow singled out the United States of America for a special mission in the world. Personally, I'd like to see some evidence for that view, rather than mere assertions based on interpretations of scripture and self-centered wishful thinking.
Did I miss God handing out the law at Plymouth Rock, or making a covenant with Americans at Jamestown or Gettysburg? Did I miss the crucifixion and resurrection of Abraham Lincoln? Did I miss the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Progressives, empowering them to spread the Gospel and save the unsaved through the law and through state power? Read more!
The core of the problem is the American conviction of "chosenness," that God has somehow singled out the United States of America for a special mission in the world. Personally, I'd like to see some evidence for that view, rather than mere assertions based on interpretations of scripture and self-centered wishful thinking.
Did I miss God handing out the law at Plymouth Rock, or making a covenant with Americans at Jamestown or Gettysburg? Did I miss the crucifixion and resurrection of Abraham Lincoln? Did I miss the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Progressives, empowering them to spread the Gospel and save the unsaved through the law and through state power? Read more!
Enough to secure the border ten times over
Chris Simcox, of the Minutemen, estimates that 2.2 miles of fencing along a section of the Arizona-Mexico border costs about $17,000. Congressman John Murtha says that the travesty in Iraq is costing us $11 million an hour. Now, how much border fencing would that pay for, and how many National Guardsmen might be maintained at $11 million an hour?
Read more!
Paying for anchor babies
On the Vdare website, a South Carolina registered nurse vents her complaints about her hospital duties, where one-third of births are to illegal aliens.
She tells of women from South American countries who have never learned to read and write in their own native languages. Some, like indigenous Indians from Guatemala, never even learned to speak Spanish in their own countries, and certainly don't know a word of English. Yet voting advocates are insisting that such people participate in U.S. elections.
The nurse writes, "You pay over $2 billion each year just for illegals to have their anchor babies [children who are born over the border in the U.S., which insures American citizenship and benefits]." She logically proposes, "If the mother is an illegal alien who is not under our jurisdiction, then so is her baby."
Before the misinterpretation of the immigration clause in the Constitution, this was considered to be the case. Where jurisdiction was the key, the child shared the same citizenship as his parents, and did not magically become an American citizen because the mother happened to be in the country at the time she gave birth. Read more!
She tells of women from South American countries who have never learned to read and write in their own native languages. Some, like indigenous Indians from Guatemala, never even learned to speak Spanish in their own countries, and certainly don't know a word of English. Yet voting advocates are insisting that such people participate in U.S. elections.
The nurse writes, "You pay over $2 billion each year just for illegals to have their anchor babies [children who are born over the border in the U.S., which insures American citizenship and benefits]." She logically proposes, "If the mother is an illegal alien who is not under our jurisdiction, then so is her baby."
Before the misinterpretation of the immigration clause in the Constitution, this was considered to be the case. Where jurisdiction was the key, the child shared the same citizenship as his parents, and did not magically become an American citizen because the mother happened to be in the country at the time she gave birth. Read more!
A "seamless" North America - The Founders didn't have this in mind
The following excerpts are from a commentary by Phyllis Schlafly about a document of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) that proposes to "integrate" the three countries of Canada, U.S. and Mexico essentially into one -- a sort of North American European Union.
The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages. Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico." ...
The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." ... The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system. ...
To expedite American embrace of the CFR plan, [Prof. Robert] Pastor [member of CFR Task Force] calls for educational centers to help us accept "an integrated North America" and to develop "a new consciousness" so that we will think of ourselves "as North Americans." Pastor criticized the U.S., Mexican and Canadian government for remaining "zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty." ...
Americans don't want to be "integrated" with the corruption, socialism, poverty, population, and communism of our hemispheric neighbors any more than the French want to be integrated with the Turks and Bulgarians.
The European Union political elite ridiculed the French and the Dutch for not realizing that globalism is on the march and we should all get on the train before it leaves the station. The French and Dutch [whose countries rejected the proposed EU Constitution] woke up to the fact that the engineers of the EU train are bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Luxembourg who invent regulations and judge-made laws without so much as a tip of their hats to democracy. ...
The enemies of sovereignty are working toward world government, but they know that is a highly unpopular concept. So they woo us with softer semantics, always undefined, such as global governance, human rights, sustainable development, and international justice.
The world government advocates think they can achieve their goal by incremental steps. Europe progressed from the European Common Market to the European Union, and complete integration was to be sealed with the European Union Constitution. In the Western Hemisphere, the steps are NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), numerous North American summits such as the ones in Quebec in 2001 and at Bush's ranch in 2005, and finally FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). ...
Our Declaration of Independence, in essence, is a declaration of American sovereignty. Our freedom depends on keeping our sovereignty — with our own borders — and on avoiding European mistakes. It is essential that our next President be a man who will stand up for American sovereignty.
Read more!
The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages. Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico." ...
The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." ... The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system. ...
To expedite American embrace of the CFR plan, [Prof. Robert] Pastor [member of CFR Task Force] calls for educational centers to help us accept "an integrated North America" and to develop "a new consciousness" so that we will think of ourselves "as North Americans." Pastor criticized the U.S., Mexican and Canadian government for remaining "zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty." ...
Americans don't want to be "integrated" with the corruption, socialism, poverty, population, and communism of our hemispheric neighbors any more than the French want to be integrated with the Turks and Bulgarians.
The European Union political elite ridiculed the French and the Dutch for not realizing that globalism is on the march and we should all get on the train before it leaves the station. The French and Dutch [whose countries rejected the proposed EU Constitution] woke up to the fact that the engineers of the EU train are bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Luxembourg who invent regulations and judge-made laws without so much as a tip of their hats to democracy. ...
The enemies of sovereignty are working toward world government, but they know that is a highly unpopular concept. So they woo us with softer semantics, always undefined, such as global governance, human rights, sustainable development, and international justice.
The world government advocates think they can achieve their goal by incremental steps. Europe progressed from the European Common Market to the European Union, and complete integration was to be sealed with the European Union Constitution. In the Western Hemisphere, the steps are NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement), numerous North American summits such as the ones in Quebec in 2001 and at Bush's ranch in 2005, and finally FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). ...
Our Declaration of Independence, in essence, is a declaration of American sovereignty. Our freedom depends on keeping our sovereignty — with our own borders — and on avoiding European mistakes. It is essential that our next President be a man who will stand up for American sovereignty.
Read more!
Why not a return to states rights?
There was a time when true conservatives lamented the loss of the Constitution's Tenth Amendment. Somehow, as the civil rights of blacks took center stage and became the one and only Holy Cause of the nation, the right of individual states to exert political power on their own became an almost immoral idea.
Now, Pat Buchanan comes along ["Armistice in the Culture War?," The American Conservative, July 17, 2006] and proposes that which so many of us have mused over -- that each of the 50 states be allowed once again to operate under the will of their respective residents. Buchanan suggests that such a move is the only way out of this culture war that keeps Americans shouting at one another. Why not "rediscover the lost road to the states' rights nation" originally intended by Madison and Jefferson, Buchanan asks, and writes:
We need to look reality in the eye. America is no longer a moral community. We no longer agree on what is right and wrong, good and evil. The cultural revolution of the 1960s, while igniting the political counterrevolution that Nixon and Reagan rode to 49-state landslides, has by now occupied the commanding heights of academia, the arts, the media, and the popular culture. . . .
Consider the possibilities of a states' rights resolution of the issues that most bitterly divide us. Mississippi might outlaw almost all abortions, end forced busing for racial balance, forbid reverse discrimination against white folks, enact a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, allow Bible instruction, prayer, and posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, and outlaw X-rated movies in all theaters. Mississippians could create the society they want, according to values in which a majority of Mississippians believe.
The same with the Big Apple. If they want to legalize lap dancing and ban smoking in every bar, that is their business. But Big Apple values could no longer be imposed on Utah or Wyoming. . . .
With a return to states' rights, the social and moral issues could be decided either by state referenda or elected representatives who could be voted out of office every two years. Society would be shaped according to the values of the people of the community, region, or state.
=================
And, one might add, if a state's residents opted for unlimited immigration from any country under the sun, let them have it. Whereas, another state could declare itself off-limits to any and all prospective immigrants, or off-limits only to particular ones from particular countries. Wouldn't that kind of choice raise the hackles on liberals! However, before becoming dismayed, they should consider that states could legalize abortion, homosexual marriage, preferential policies for their favorite ethnic/gender groups, and so forth. Read more!
Now, Pat Buchanan comes along ["Armistice in the Culture War?," The American Conservative, July 17, 2006] and proposes that which so many of us have mused over -- that each of the 50 states be allowed once again to operate under the will of their respective residents. Buchanan suggests that such a move is the only way out of this culture war that keeps Americans shouting at one another. Why not "rediscover the lost road to the states' rights nation" originally intended by Madison and Jefferson, Buchanan asks, and writes:
We need to look reality in the eye. America is no longer a moral community. We no longer agree on what is right and wrong, good and evil. The cultural revolution of the 1960s, while igniting the political counterrevolution that Nixon and Reagan rode to 49-state landslides, has by now occupied the commanding heights of academia, the arts, the media, and the popular culture. . . .
Consider the possibilities of a states' rights resolution of the issues that most bitterly divide us. Mississippi might outlaw almost all abortions, end forced busing for racial balance, forbid reverse discrimination against white folks, enact a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, allow Bible instruction, prayer, and posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools, and outlaw X-rated movies in all theaters. Mississippians could create the society they want, according to values in which a majority of Mississippians believe.
The same with the Big Apple. If they want to legalize lap dancing and ban smoking in every bar, that is their business. But Big Apple values could no longer be imposed on Utah or Wyoming. . . .
With a return to states' rights, the social and moral issues could be decided either by state referenda or elected representatives who could be voted out of office every two years. Society would be shaped according to the values of the people of the community, region, or state.
=================
And, one might add, if a state's residents opted for unlimited immigration from any country under the sun, let them have it. Whereas, another state could declare itself off-limits to any and all prospective immigrants, or off-limits only to particular ones from particular countries. Wouldn't that kind of choice raise the hackles on liberals! However, before becoming dismayed, they should consider that states could legalize abortion, homosexual marriage, preferential policies for their favorite ethnic/gender groups, and so forth. Read more!
If Ike could see us now
The excerpts below are some of what former General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower had to say about past Republican governance. They are from the speech he delivered to the 1964 Republican Convention. He is proud that his party disdains the "expansion of federal influence," the "sinister trend toward paternalism," an "increase in the concentration of power in Washington," and "charging our bills to posterity."
Say, what?
• • •
I am here this evening, first of all, as a citizen of the United States, with primary allegiance to my country; but second, I am here, with great pride, as a Republican. I am dedicated to the purposes of this party; I am jealous of its good name; I am grateful to those among us who represent us all by their discharge of political responsibility. ...
In the last thirty-two years, our political opponents have controlled the executive branch of the Federal Government for twenty-four, and the Congress for twenty-eight. During this period our money was recklessly devalued, with great hardship visited upon much of our citizenry. The expansion of federal influence was made permanent policy, even though its miserable lack of success in the economic arena persisted until the violent demands of war obscured the unhappy failure. The centralizing process even went so far as to include an attempt, by summary executive power, to seize the steel industry. . . .
The sinister trend toward paternalism, which now again grows apace, was interrupted only by the eight-year determination of a Republican administration in the 1950's. That administration . . . insisted that all public responsibilities be carried out, wherever possible, by local and state governments; by the federal government only when necessary. . . . It was an administration which set its face directly for the people and their well-being and directly against any increase in the concentration of power in Washington. . . .
By our insistence upon paying now for what we demand from government today, instead of charging our bills to posterity, we are seeing to it that those who follow us will not one day be working out their lives, paying off gigantic debts run up through our own selfishness and profligacy.
This concern for the future is in keeping with Republican conviction and American tradition. America is here, not just for a day or a century. In the Constitution we read, as the purpose of our inspired founders, "To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." Any political party that counsels us to ignore the needs of tomorrow, so that, on deficit spending, we may live today in comfort and ease, is false to America's true meaning and to her destiny. Our policy of sound conduct of fiscal affairs is simply proof of our concern for all Americans, both now and in the future.
A couple of more gems from the General:
"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."
-- Speech to luncheon clubs, Galveston, Texas, December 8, 1949, when he was president of Columbia University.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. War settles nothing."
-- Speech in Ottawa, Canada, January 10, 1946.
Read more!
Say, what?
I am here this evening, first of all, as a citizen of the United States, with primary allegiance to my country; but second, I am here, with great pride, as a Republican. I am dedicated to the purposes of this party; I am jealous of its good name; I am grateful to those among us who represent us all by their discharge of political responsibility. ...
In the last thirty-two years, our political opponents have controlled the executive branch of the Federal Government for twenty-four, and the Congress for twenty-eight. During this period our money was recklessly devalued, with great hardship visited upon much of our citizenry. The expansion of federal influence was made permanent policy, even though its miserable lack of success in the economic arena persisted until the violent demands of war obscured the unhappy failure. The centralizing process even went so far as to include an attempt, by summary executive power, to seize the steel industry. . . .
The sinister trend toward paternalism, which now again grows apace, was interrupted only by the eight-year determination of a Republican administration in the 1950's. That administration . . . insisted that all public responsibilities be carried out, wherever possible, by local and state governments; by the federal government only when necessary. . . . It was an administration which set its face directly for the people and their well-being and directly against any increase in the concentration of power in Washington. . . .
By our insistence upon paying now for what we demand from government today, instead of charging our bills to posterity, we are seeing to it that those who follow us will not one day be working out their lives, paying off gigantic debts run up through our own selfishness and profligacy.
This concern for the future is in keeping with Republican conviction and American tradition. America is here, not just for a day or a century. In the Constitution we read, as the purpose of our inspired founders, "To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." Any political party that counsels us to ignore the needs of tomorrow, so that, on deficit spending, we may live today in comfort and ease, is false to America's true meaning and to her destiny. Our policy of sound conduct of fiscal affairs is simply proof of our concern for all Americans, both now and in the future.
A couple of more gems from the General:
"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They’ll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."
-- Speech to luncheon clubs, Galveston, Texas, December 8, 1949, when he was president of Columbia University.
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity. War settles nothing."
-- Speech in Ottawa, Canada, January 10, 1946.
Read more!
Thursday, April 06, 2006
The great lie persists
As white politicians sell out white America, thereby selling out all the rest of us, black politicians are busy standing in solidarity with the advocates of mass immigration, thereby selling out black Americans. The impact of mass immigration, legal and otherwise, affects greatly these subsets of born-in-this-country American citizens:
• • •
Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. ... The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
• • •
The natural, free market way to help low income Americans is to increase their value by making them rarer commodities. How do you do this? You guessed it, by severely curtailing (a moratorium would be ideal) immigration. Do that and America becomes more of a worker's market, forcing businesses to offer more money to attract applicants.
• • •
There are 8.3 million native-born workers 18 years of age or older working full-time who have not completed high school. In addition, there are 3.4 million adult native-born Americans who lack a high school education working part-time. There is a good deal of evidence that these workers are in direct competition with Mexican immigrants. ... In a comparison across cities, Cordelia Reimers found that the impact of immigration falls heaviest on African-American and white high school dropouts. Other research has come to a similar conclusion. Because immigration in general and Mexican immigration in particular increases the supply of high school dropouts, it should come as no surprise that it reduces wages for unskilled workers.
Yet the lie persists, as propagated by blind believers, that mass immigration has no effect on the economic or social circumstances of native-born Americans. To admit the truth of its negative impact is to admit that the United States was a better place before the migrant invasion. Read more!
- The young, who, during summer vacations are now in competition for lower-wage jobs with immigrants. If they drop out of high school, they are in competition with the same population.
- Former prison inmates, who some employers would take a chance on hiring, if they did not have an enormous pool of immigrants from which to choose.
- The elderly, who thought that when they retired they could count on low-wage jobs to supplement their meager Social Security payments. Such jobs now go to immigrants.
Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. ... The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays -- and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.
--Paul Krugman, excerpt from "North of the Border," New York Times (3/27/06)
The natural, free market way to help low income Americans is to increase their value by making them rarer commodities. How do you do this? You guessed it, by severely curtailing (a moratorium would be ideal) immigration. Do that and America becomes more of a worker's market, forcing businesses to offer more money to attract applicants.
-- Selwyn Duke, excerpt from "What Jobs Americans Won't Do?," NewsWithViews (4/3/06)
There are 8.3 million native-born workers 18 years of age or older working full-time who have not completed high school. In addition, there are 3.4 million adult native-born Americans who lack a high school education working part-time. There is a good deal of evidence that these workers are in direct competition with Mexican immigrants. ... In a comparison across cities, Cordelia Reimers found that the impact of immigration falls heaviest on African-American and white high school dropouts. Other research has come to a similar conclusion. Because immigration in general and Mexican immigration in particular increases the supply of high school dropouts, it should come as no surprise that it reduces wages for unskilled workers.
-- Excerpt from "Impact of Mexican Immigration on
Wages and Prices in the United States," Center for Immigration Studies.
Yet the lie persists, as propagated by blind believers, that mass immigration has no effect on the economic or social circumstances of native-born Americans. To admit the truth of its negative impact is to admit that the United States was a better place before the migrant invasion. Read more!
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Crouch on Richard Pryor
In this assessment of the recently deceased, vulgar comedian Richard Pryor, isn't Stanley Crouch right? Wasn't Pryor "a much more negative influence than a positive one?"
----------------
Pryor's flawed legacy
Comedian's vulgarity made him no role model
by Stanley Crouch
This past Saturday Richard Pryor left this life and bequeathed to our culture as much darkness as he did the light his extraordinary talent made possible.
When we look at the remarkable descent this culture has made into smut, contempt, vulgarity and the pornagraphic, those of us who are not willing to drink the Kool-Aid marked "all's well," will have to address the fact that it was the combination of confusion and comic genius that made Pryor a much more negative influence than a positive one. . . .
Pryor was troubled and he had seen things that so haunted him that the comedian found it impossible to perform and ignore the lower-class shadow worlds he had known so well, filled with pimps, prostitutes, winos and abrasive types of one sort or another. The vulgarity of his material, and the idea a "real" black person was a foul-mouthed type was his greatest influence. It was the result of seeing the breaking of "white" convention as a form of "authentic" definition.
Pryor reached for anything that would make white America uncomfortable and would prop up a smug belief among black Americans that they were always "more cool" and more ready to "face life" than the members of majority culture. Along the way, Pryor made too many people feel that the N word was open currency and was more accurate than any other word used to describe or address a black person.
In the dung piles of pimp and gangster rap we hear from slime meisters like Snoop Dogg and 50 Cent, the worst of Pryor's influence has been turned into an aspect of the new minstrelsy in which millions of dollars are made by "normalizing" demeaning imagery and misogyny. . . . Of course, Russell Simmons' Def Comedy Jam is the ultimate coon show update of human cesspools, where "cutting edge" has come to mean traveling ever more downward in the sewer.
In essence, Pryor stunned with his timing, his rhythm, his ability to stand alone and fill the stage with three-dimensional characters through his remarkably imaginative gift for an epic sweep of mimicry.
For the complete column:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/374139p-317932c.html
Read more!
----------------
Pryor's flawed legacy
Comedian's vulgarity made him no role model
by Stanley Crouch
This past Saturday Richard Pryor left this life and bequeathed to our culture as much darkness as he did the light his extraordinary talent made possible.
When we look at the remarkable descent this culture has made into smut, contempt, vulgarity and the pornagraphic, those of us who are not willing to drink the Kool-Aid marked "all's well," will have to address the fact that it was the combination of confusion and comic genius that made Pryor a much more negative influence than a positive one. . . .
Pryor was troubled and he had seen things that so haunted him that the comedian found it impossible to perform and ignore the lower-class shadow worlds he had known so well, filled with pimps, prostitutes, winos and abrasive types of one sort or another. The vulgarity of his material, and the idea a "real" black person was a foul-mouthed type was his greatest influence. It was the result of seeing the breaking of "white" convention as a form of "authentic" definition.
Pryor reached for anything that would make white America uncomfortable and would prop up a smug belief among black Americans that they were always "more cool" and more ready to "face life" than the members of majority culture. Along the way, Pryor made too many people feel that the N word was open currency and was more accurate than any other word used to describe or address a black person.
In the dung piles of pimp and gangster rap we hear from slime meisters like Snoop Dogg and 50 Cent, the worst of Pryor's influence has been turned into an aspect of the new minstrelsy in which millions of dollars are made by "normalizing" demeaning imagery and misogyny. . . . Of course, Russell Simmons' Def Comedy Jam is the ultimate coon show update of human cesspools, where "cutting edge" has come to mean traveling ever more downward in the sewer.
In essence, Pryor stunned with his timing, his rhythm, his ability to stand alone and fill the stage with three-dimensional characters through his remarkably imaginative gift for an epic sweep of mimicry.
For the complete column:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/374139p-317932c.html
Read more!
Something essential has died
When a Christian pastor is hounded and threatened by a government agency for using his pulpit in praise of peace and to worship the Ultimate Peacemaker, has something essential died in this country? An excerpt from Lawrence Vance's article, "Humpty Dumpty Religion," on the Lew Rockwell site:
But first, a word about the term "Christian warmonger." Yes, it is spoken in derision. And yes, it is a pejorative term that is meant to agitate and incite Christians who continue to support what is becoming more and more evident every day, an unnecessary, unscriptural, immoral, and unjust war that is needlessly killing and injuring American soldiers, creating terrorists faster than we can kill them, increasing the hatred many foreigners around the world have for the United States, and dividing churches and families across the country. In light of what Christian peace advocates are called by Christian war supporters--liberal, communist, anti-war weenie, traitor, coward, America-hater--I think the term "Christian warmonger" is justified. Read more!
But first, a word about the term "Christian warmonger." Yes, it is spoken in derision. And yes, it is a pejorative term that is meant to agitate and incite Christians who continue to support what is becoming more and more evident every day, an unnecessary, unscriptural, immoral, and unjust war that is needlessly killing and injuring American soldiers, creating terrorists faster than we can kill them, increasing the hatred many foreigners around the world have for the United States, and dividing churches and families across the country. In light of what Christian peace advocates are called by Christian war supporters--liberal, communist, anti-war weenie, traitor, coward, America-hater--I think the term "Christian warmonger" is justified. Read more!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
They missed out on millions
Here's an interesting response from MH to my remarks about the Amos 'n Andy show.
---------------------------------
I have long felt that one of the best shows ever on TV where Blacks could see themselves as honest hard working men and women, families, business people and professionals, was the Amos & Andy show. In my opinion, those who criticized the show because of the antics the King Fish and Andy Brown, not to mention "Lightnin'" missed many positive things but one thing they missed right there in the title was "Amos." Would any critic have anything of a negative nature to say about Amos the cab driver and family man? People are blind and stupid regardless of ethnic background and because of that stupidity, the actors on that show and their heirs have been denied multi millions in royalties that are paid to the actors of the Archie Bunker show and other such comedic TV fare.
Anyway, here is a website you may wish to share where all the Amos & Andy episodes are available on DVD. http://amosandydvd.webhop.net/ Read more!
---------------------------------
I have long felt that one of the best shows ever on TV where Blacks could see themselves as honest hard working men and women, families, business people and professionals, was the Amos & Andy show. In my opinion, those who criticized the show because of the antics the King Fish and Andy Brown, not to mention "Lightnin'" missed many positive things but one thing they missed right there in the title was "Amos." Would any critic have anything of a negative nature to say about Amos the cab driver and family man? People are blind and stupid regardless of ethnic background and because of that stupidity, the actors on that show and their heirs have been denied multi millions in royalties that are paid to the actors of the Archie Bunker show and other such comedic TV fare.
Anyway, here is a website you may wish to share where all the Amos & Andy episodes are available on DVD. http://amosandydvd.webhop.net/ Read more!
If you want a piece of the pie, bake some pies
A reader -- let's call him AT -- offered some criticism of the last Commentary of 9/14/05. He objected to the fact that, along with columnist Gregory Kane, I agreed that the owners of the all-white Elkridge Club in Baltimore have a right to run their club on the present basis.
AT writes: The Elkridge Club like other private clubs have members who cut business deals behind the closed doors of such clubs. They cut business deals on the golf courses and back in the day made deals in steam rooms and on handball courts.
EW responds: Yes, that's why those successful black businessmen in the past in such places as Durham, Tulsa, Chicago, Philadelphia, created their own social clubs. The purpose was to form networks and interact with other business associates. They too cut deals, because that's how it works. And, no doubt, they grew their own Old Boys connections. There was no more reason for them to allow outsiders into their social settings than for whites to allow outsiders into their dealings.
AT writes: My peeve with the NAACP is they have not been aggressive in pushing for changes behind the camera, They settled on superficial stuff like more Blacks in front of the camera.
EW responds: I don't see what right any advocacy group, like the NAACP, has to go to private individuals and make demands on how they should spend their money when making movies or anything else. Blacks once were owners of a small, but thriving movie industry. Not content to build from small to bigger, once they had coerced forced integration, the middle class dropped such ventures. Had black entrepreneurs continued on the road in their many entertainment enterprises, instead of using the government to intrude themselves among whites, where they were not wanted, they might today command enough resources to own or control several cable TV channels.
Here in NYC, up and down the radio dial there are a multitude of Spanish-speaking stations. Hispanics also have a score of cable TV channels, which are busy showing films, news programs, talk shows and other entertainment. Hispanics revel in the fact that members of their various cultures create entertainment for them. They don't disdain participating in white-created entertainment, but they don't disparage their own productions as being inferior -- a pattern that is normal to the average black.
AT writes: I do notice that the Monday night line-up at CBS resembles its line-up of the early 1960's "lily-white." Oh, some shows have Blacks in supporting roles but it reeks of tokenism.
EW responds: The last time I looked, this country was still over 70% white, so why shouldn't vehicles created by the majority be directed to the members of that majority? Why should whites expend their efforts on making stars out of blacks, several of whom already have been awarded the whites' highest entertainment honors? Why should anyone but blacks solve the problem of "tokenism." If you don't want to be a token, then create your own enterprises. If you want a piece of the pie, then help to bake some pies.
AT writes: The issue with a show like Amos n' Andy or Julia is the lack of balance in the medium of television, whites had the Honeymooners or Fibber McKee and Molly but they also had shows like See It Now, Person to Person and quiz shows. They balanced off their stereotypes with programming that could uplift.
EW responds: No one should worry themselves about "balancing" anything. They should think of making profits for their investors. In the 1950s and 60s, should white men have come together, pooled their resources, in order to create black-face versions of "See It Now," just so that Americans could see that blacks could be just like Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite? Are whites supposed to risk their money, in order to make blacks feel good about themselves? The producers of such shows aren't social workers; they're people looking for bottom line profits, and nothing else.
AT writes: I would take the Jeffersons over Amos n' Andy any day of the week. George Jefferson for all his flaws spoke good diction.
EW responds: In entertainment, I guess everything is a matter of taste. In the case of that "Jeffersons" show, good diction or not, I think the main character is simply clownish. I had never seen this sitcom until recent re-runs, and I was surprised at its silliness and poor scripts. That opening tune is pitiful, yet a true representation of a typical mindset among many blacks -- they're "moving UP," if they're intruding themselves into the white man's neighborhoods. And that's something to sing about? I find this an admission of a crazed desire for acceptance. It's more embarrassing than Amos 'n Andy.
AT writes: [Concerning the White Pride piece], I suppose the T-shirt would be non-threatening if one could tear from the pages of history the image of the Klu Klux Klan marching in the nation's capitol.
EW responds: Are you suggesting that whites who live right now should be forever stripped of their constitutional right to free expression, because of the behavior of some ancestors? If this is the case, then this rule should be applied to all American citizens and everyone should be judged according to the wicked sins of bygone generations. And that includes blacks.
AT writes: Years from now with the changing demographics, whites are going to end up being a minority and some of them will not be able to cope with it.
EW responds: You're right about whites becoming a minority, but they're not the only ones who won't be able to "cope" with it, as you put it. Blacks, who have permanently hitched their wagons to their ability to bully, intimidate, and coerce goodies from the white population, will be the greater losers. As the Hispanic population, along with Asians and others, grows and moves above the 60% mark, and as whites fall downwards towards, say, 25%, blacks will discover that the set-aside, affirmative action party is over. All their special deals and biased legislation in their behalf, will be in jeopardy.
As Hispanics displace blacks in congressional districts across the country, these black legislators are going to be gone with the wind. Blacks will have no more whites to grovel to their demands, e.g., Trent Lott doing his mortifying crawl to placate them. For blacks, their power is derived from using the political system to beg, cajole, and intimidate. Threatening the white man with the prospect of "long, hot summers" has worked for over 30 years, but once whites are no longer the majority, the game will be over. Read more!
AT writes: The Elkridge Club like other private clubs have members who cut business deals behind the closed doors of such clubs. They cut business deals on the golf courses and back in the day made deals in steam rooms and on handball courts.
EW responds: Yes, that's why those successful black businessmen in the past in such places as Durham, Tulsa, Chicago, Philadelphia, created their own social clubs. The purpose was to form networks and interact with other business associates. They too cut deals, because that's how it works. And, no doubt, they grew their own Old Boys connections. There was no more reason for them to allow outsiders into their social settings than for whites to allow outsiders into their dealings.
AT writes: My peeve with the NAACP is they have not been aggressive in pushing for changes behind the camera, They settled on superficial stuff like more Blacks in front of the camera.
EW responds: I don't see what right any advocacy group, like the NAACP, has to go to private individuals and make demands on how they should spend their money when making movies or anything else. Blacks once were owners of a small, but thriving movie industry. Not content to build from small to bigger, once they had coerced forced integration, the middle class dropped such ventures. Had black entrepreneurs continued on the road in their many entertainment enterprises, instead of using the government to intrude themselves among whites, where they were not wanted, they might today command enough resources to own or control several cable TV channels.
Here in NYC, up and down the radio dial there are a multitude of Spanish-speaking stations. Hispanics also have a score of cable TV channels, which are busy showing films, news programs, talk shows and other entertainment. Hispanics revel in the fact that members of their various cultures create entertainment for them. They don't disdain participating in white-created entertainment, but they don't disparage their own productions as being inferior -- a pattern that is normal to the average black.
AT writes: I do notice that the Monday night line-up at CBS resembles its line-up of the early 1960's "lily-white." Oh, some shows have Blacks in supporting roles but it reeks of tokenism.
EW responds: The last time I looked, this country was still over 70% white, so why shouldn't vehicles created by the majority be directed to the members of that majority? Why should whites expend their efforts on making stars out of blacks, several of whom already have been awarded the whites' highest entertainment honors? Why should anyone but blacks solve the problem of "tokenism." If you don't want to be a token, then create your own enterprises. If you want a piece of the pie, then help to bake some pies.
AT writes: The issue with a show like Amos n' Andy or Julia is the lack of balance in the medium of television, whites had the Honeymooners or Fibber McKee and Molly but they also had shows like See It Now, Person to Person and quiz shows. They balanced off their stereotypes with programming that could uplift.
EW responds: No one should worry themselves about "balancing" anything. They should think of making profits for their investors. In the 1950s and 60s, should white men have come together, pooled their resources, in order to create black-face versions of "See It Now," just so that Americans could see that blacks could be just like Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite? Are whites supposed to risk their money, in order to make blacks feel good about themselves? The producers of such shows aren't social workers; they're people looking for bottom line profits, and nothing else.
AT writes: I would take the Jeffersons over Amos n' Andy any day of the week. George Jefferson for all his flaws spoke good diction.
EW responds: In entertainment, I guess everything is a matter of taste. In the case of that "Jeffersons" show, good diction or not, I think the main character is simply clownish. I had never seen this sitcom until recent re-runs, and I was surprised at its silliness and poor scripts. That opening tune is pitiful, yet a true representation of a typical mindset among many blacks -- they're "moving UP," if they're intruding themselves into the white man's neighborhoods. And that's something to sing about? I find this an admission of a crazed desire for acceptance. It's more embarrassing than Amos 'n Andy.
AT writes: [Concerning the White Pride piece], I suppose the T-shirt would be non-threatening if one could tear from the pages of history the image of the Klu Klux Klan marching in the nation's capitol.
EW responds: Are you suggesting that whites who live right now should be forever stripped of their constitutional right to free expression, because of the behavior of some ancestors? If this is the case, then this rule should be applied to all American citizens and everyone should be judged according to the wicked sins of bygone generations. And that includes blacks.
AT writes: Years from now with the changing demographics, whites are going to end up being a minority and some of them will not be able to cope with it.
EW responds: You're right about whites becoming a minority, but they're not the only ones who won't be able to "cope" with it, as you put it. Blacks, who have permanently hitched their wagons to their ability to bully, intimidate, and coerce goodies from the white population, will be the greater losers. As the Hispanic population, along with Asians and others, grows and moves above the 60% mark, and as whites fall downwards towards, say, 25%, blacks will discover that the set-aside, affirmative action party is over. All their special deals and biased legislation in their behalf, will be in jeopardy.
As Hispanics displace blacks in congressional districts across the country, these black legislators are going to be gone with the wind. Blacks will have no more whites to grovel to their demands, e.g., Trent Lott doing his mortifying crawl to placate them. For blacks, their power is derived from using the political system to beg, cajole, and intimidate. Threatening the white man with the prospect of "long, hot summers" has worked for over 30 years, but once whites are no longer the majority, the game will be over. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
