"Like all of Europe," writes Pat Buchanan, "Germany grows nervous." Are Germans finally, this late in the day, growing nervous about the five million Muslims, among other foreign groups, they have allowed to populate their country since the 1960s?
In Tribalism Returns to Europe, Buchanan describes the grim consequences of the glorious mosaic of multicultural diversity, that was supposed to bring harmony and progress to European nations. How was it ever possible to put aside common sense and buy the notion that a homogeneous people, one of shared history, language, values and disciplines, could benefit from the intrusion of heterogeneous masses of foreigners?
Because the United States was forced to make the best of its unique circumstances, as it dealt from the beginning with several existing ethnic groups, did observers come to think that this was normal? Did others not take notice that during America's best years a common culture prevailed, guided and steered by a dominant Anglo-Euro authority and sensibility? Although beset with social frictions, the country was not confronted with the challenge of an alien civilization in its midst.
In The Multicultural Cult, Thomas Sowell reminds us that, "In countries around the world, and over the centuries, peoples with jarring differences in language, cultures and values have been a major problem and, too often, sources of major disasters for the societies in which they co-exist." He mocks "the cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about 'diversity,' without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits."
Of course, those who have been following this migrant scenario, know that it's much too late for Germany or any other European country to turn back the clock, as Buchanan has been warning for at least a couple of decades. Globalism may be "in retreat before tribalism," yet, he writes, "Germany’s problem is insoluble. She is running out of Germans. ... For not one European nation, save Iceland and Albania, has had a birth rate for decades that is not below zero population growth. Baby boomer Europe decided in the 1960s and 1970s it wanted La Dolce Vita, not the hassle of children. It had that sweet life. Now the bill comes due. And the bill is the end of their tribes and countries as we have known them."
In Europe, are the populist and nationalist stirrings of recent years just the last protests of those ethnically conscious whites who are, as Buchanan puts it, "raging against the dying of the light?"
Read more!
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Joseph Sobran, R.I.P.
And so, Joe Sobran has left us, at age 64. Why not at 84 or 94? Why so soon? Unfortunately, ill health had slowed his pen during recent years, and many of us had already come to feel bereft of his profound ideas and insights.
I discovered Joe in the 1980s, in those pre-Internet browser days, and remember how I looked forward to each edition of his hard copy newsletter, as well as his column
in The Wanderer newspaper. Because I sought out publications that carried his work, I inadvertently wound up learning a lot about the internal struggles going on in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm sure I learned more than I needed to know about particular disputes, like those between the editors of The Wanderer and The Remnant, but it was all enlightening and expanded my education in unexpected ways.
Joe was a fount of knowledge when it came to dissecting the neoconservative takeover and insidious sabotage of this country's conservative movement – the movement I thought I had joined. He was to pay dearly, via a form of secular ex-communication, for his candid observations on these perverters of conservative principles. "Never before," he wrote, "has enthusiasm for concentrated power and violent change been regarded as a conservative trait."
Here are excerpts from a column by Joe, in 2001:
Many of my favorite books are books that shook me up, even angered me, when I first read them. One of these is The Present Age, by the late Robert Nisbet. I knew Bob Nisbet slightly, and he was kind to me, especially considering what a young fool I was. He had the wisdom to know that a young fool can often be transformed by time alone. Or, as the poet William Blake put it, “If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise.”
Nisbet, a distinguished sociologist and conservative philosopher, published The Present Age in 1988. Though he hated Communism, he harbored a profound skepticism about the Cold War. In 1988 I still didn’t see how a man could hold both attitudes at the same time. Yet I respected Bob Nisbet enough to listen when he said things I didn’t want to hear.
Chief among those things was this: If the Founders of the American Republic could come back today, they would be most astounded, among all the vast changes that time has wrought, by the militarization of the United States. Since World War I, this country has been totally transformed by war and constant preparation for war.
American militarism has been the chief force in changing a decentralized federal republic into a centralized, bureaucratic monolith. During World War I the United States underwent an amazingly swift metamorphosis. World War II accelerated the alteration. The Cold War completed the transformation from isolated republic to global empire. We became inured to limitless government in the name of “defense” and “national security.”
The shock of September 11 has disposed countless Americans to accept, without demurral or reservation, the claim of new powers by the Federal Government — particularly by the executive branch.
But this disposition was made possible by a new tradition of equating patriotism with militarism, and militarism with “defense.” Most of us no longer recognize the new tradition as a break with our original tradition. So we beg the Federal Government to protect us from terrorism, even if that means letting it usurp powers never assigned or allowed to it.
Instead of asking ourselves the pragmatic question, “How can we defeat terrorism?” we should be asking ourselves the more basic question, “Is this the kind of situation we should let ourselves be maneuvered into?” How did a country that was once determined to remain aloof from the endless conflicts of the Old World manage to get itself embroiled in, of all things, the medieval Crusades?
It’s no concern of mine whether Osama bin Laden speaks with the voice of authentic Islam (whatever that may be) or as a crank who happens to have a lot of followers who have the means and determination to kill people I love. Either way, I want him stopped. The sooner the better.
But — and here’s the rub — stopping him may also create more like him. No doubt the U.S. military campaign will deter countless people from trying to emulate him, but it will also have the opposite effect on a few. And a few terrorists or guerrillas are enough to make a lot of trouble, as we have already seen.
The state of Israel has been cracking down on terrorism, hard, for thirty years. Has it worked? The problem is worse than ever. And that’s what we can expect over the next few decades if our own government follows Israel’s example. If we persist in our folly, will we become wise?
•
And more Sobran reflections from a column in 2002:
The Bush administration's threat to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, though thinly veiled in circumlocutions, should tell us all we need to know about the American image in the world today.
The United States, once so admired over most of the earth, is now seen as a nuclear bully. No wonder it's called "the great Satan" by Muslims and "arrogant" even by its European friends. And President Bush thinks they hate us for "our freedom, our democracy"?
The warning is supposed to deter Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction against American forces and allies, even though (1) we don't know that Iraq has such weapons, and (2) the administration has told us repeatedly that deterrence doesn't work against Iraq.
Iraq hasn't threatened the United States, in spite of Bush's raving on the subject. The United States definitely threatens Iraq. And it has forfeited the right to describe Iraq's or any other regime as "evil."
For decades Americans have worried about nukes falling into "the wrong hands," as if there were "right hands" for weapons of mass murder. Well, those weapons are in the wrong hands now: Bush's hands.
Maybe we should distinguish microterrorism, the terrorism of scattered groups of stateless, relatively helpless people with few other options, from the macroterrorism used by powerful states to back up their huge conventional military forces. When there were two superpowers, each had the plausible excuse of deterrence for amassing nuclear arsenals. Now that excuse is gone: the United States is the only superpower left. And it's still using its nukes.
Maybe it will be said that Bush doesn't really intend to use them. But he is already using them. When a bank robber points a pistol at the teller, he's using it, even if he doesn't fire it. He's also terrifying the bystanders, as Bush is doing.
Though history allegedly ended over a decade ago, we should notice that the U.S. Government is out of control, and it continues to make enemies frequently and unpredictably. Who imagined, when its army was bogged down in Vietnam, that it would go on to wage war (or "keep peace"), not long afterward, from Lebanon to Panama to Iraq to Serbia to Afghanistan and back to Iraq? Does anyone care to place a bet on where it will make future enemies?
The Inspiration of Joe Sobran, by Paul E. Gottfried
Joe Sobran: Martyr for truth, by Stephen J. Sniegoski
Joseph Sobran, Writer Whom Buckley Mentored, Dies at 64, by William Grimes, New York Times
Read more!
I discovered Joe in the 1980s, in those pre-Internet browser days, and remember how I looked forward to each edition of his hard copy newsletter, as well as his column
in The Wanderer newspaper. Because I sought out publications that carried his work, I inadvertently wound up learning a lot about the internal struggles going on in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm sure I learned more than I needed to know about particular disputes, like those between the editors of The Wanderer and The Remnant, but it was all enlightening and expanded my education in unexpected ways.Joe was a fount of knowledge when it came to dissecting the neoconservative takeover and insidious sabotage of this country's conservative movement – the movement I thought I had joined. He was to pay dearly, via a form of secular ex-communication, for his candid observations on these perverters of conservative principles. "Never before," he wrote, "has enthusiasm for concentrated power and violent change been regarded as a conservative trait."
Here are excerpts from a column by Joe, in 2001:
Many of my favorite books are books that shook me up, even angered me, when I first read them. One of these is The Present Age, by the late Robert Nisbet. I knew Bob Nisbet slightly, and he was kind to me, especially considering what a young fool I was. He had the wisdom to know that a young fool can often be transformed by time alone. Or, as the poet William Blake put it, “If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise.”
Nisbet, a distinguished sociologist and conservative philosopher, published The Present Age in 1988. Though he hated Communism, he harbored a profound skepticism about the Cold War. In 1988 I still didn’t see how a man could hold both attitudes at the same time. Yet I respected Bob Nisbet enough to listen when he said things I didn’t want to hear.
Chief among those things was this: If the Founders of the American Republic could come back today, they would be most astounded, among all the vast changes that time has wrought, by the militarization of the United States. Since World War I, this country has been totally transformed by war and constant preparation for war.
American militarism has been the chief force in changing a decentralized federal republic into a centralized, bureaucratic monolith. During World War I the United States underwent an amazingly swift metamorphosis. World War II accelerated the alteration. The Cold War completed the transformation from isolated republic to global empire. We became inured to limitless government in the name of “defense” and “national security.”
The shock of September 11 has disposed countless Americans to accept, without demurral or reservation, the claim of new powers by the Federal Government — particularly by the executive branch.
But this disposition was made possible by a new tradition of equating patriotism with militarism, and militarism with “defense.” Most of us no longer recognize the new tradition as a break with our original tradition. So we beg the Federal Government to protect us from terrorism, even if that means letting it usurp powers never assigned or allowed to it.
Instead of asking ourselves the pragmatic question, “How can we defeat terrorism?” we should be asking ourselves the more basic question, “Is this the kind of situation we should let ourselves be maneuvered into?” How did a country that was once determined to remain aloof from the endless conflicts of the Old World manage to get itself embroiled in, of all things, the medieval Crusades?
It’s no concern of mine whether Osama bin Laden speaks with the voice of authentic Islam (whatever that may be) or as a crank who happens to have a lot of followers who have the means and determination to kill people I love. Either way, I want him stopped. The sooner the better.
But — and here’s the rub — stopping him may also create more like him. No doubt the U.S. military campaign will deter countless people from trying to emulate him, but it will also have the opposite effect on a few. And a few terrorists or guerrillas are enough to make a lot of trouble, as we have already seen.
The state of Israel has been cracking down on terrorism, hard, for thirty years. Has it worked? The problem is worse than ever. And that’s what we can expect over the next few decades if our own government follows Israel’s example. If we persist in our folly, will we become wise?
And more Sobran reflections from a column in 2002:
The Bush administration's threat to use nuclear weapons against Iraq, though thinly veiled in circumlocutions, should tell us all we need to know about the American image in the world today.
The United States, once so admired over most of the earth, is now seen as a nuclear bully. No wonder it's called "the great Satan" by Muslims and "arrogant" even by its European friends. And President Bush thinks they hate us for "our freedom, our democracy"?
The warning is supposed to deter Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction against American forces and allies, even though (1) we don't know that Iraq has such weapons, and (2) the administration has told us repeatedly that deterrence doesn't work against Iraq.
Iraq hasn't threatened the United States, in spite of Bush's raving on the subject. The United States definitely threatens Iraq. And it has forfeited the right to describe Iraq's or any other regime as "evil."
For decades Americans have worried about nukes falling into "the wrong hands," as if there were "right hands" for weapons of mass murder. Well, those weapons are in the wrong hands now: Bush's hands.
Maybe we should distinguish microterrorism, the terrorism of scattered groups of stateless, relatively helpless people with few other options, from the macroterrorism used by powerful states to back up their huge conventional military forces. When there were two superpowers, each had the plausible excuse of deterrence for amassing nuclear arsenals. Now that excuse is gone: the United States is the only superpower left. And it's still using its nukes.
Maybe it will be said that Bush doesn't really intend to use them. But he is already using them. When a bank robber points a pistol at the teller, he's using it, even if he doesn't fire it. He's also terrifying the bystanders, as Bush is doing.
Though history allegedly ended over a decade ago, we should notice that the U.S. Government is out of control, and it continues to make enemies frequently and unpredictably. Who imagined, when its army was bogged down in Vietnam, that it would go on to wage war (or "keep peace"), not long afterward, from Lebanon to Panama to Iraq to Serbia to Afghanistan and back to Iraq? Does anyone care to place a bet on where it will make future enemies?
The Inspiration of Joe Sobran, by Paul E. Gottfried
Joe Sobran: Martyr for truth, by Stephen J. Sniegoski
Joseph Sobran, Writer Whom Buckley Mentored, Dies at 64, by William Grimes, New York Times
Read more!
Monday, September 20, 2010
Glenn Beck's carnival of repentance
See my article, Carnival of Repentance: The Outcome of American Conservatism, at Alternative Right
Excerpt:
One has to wonder who these people are who will march on Washington to "restore" the country's "honor," as the rally's theme boasted, yet are in the forefront of supporting some of the most dishonorable acts engaged in by their country's interchangeable governments. Just what is special about the moral convictions of these advocates, who fervently sermonize on such issues as patriotism, war, family life, religion, the nature of government, ad nauseam?
Related
See The Infantilization of American Conservatism, by Paul Gottfried:
Excerpts
[Conservative] critics of the Left cannot bring themselves to find fault with any excess in the Civil Rights movement -- and especially not with its far leftist icon Martin Luther King. “Conservatives” are so terrified of being called “racists” or for that matter, sexists or homophobes, that they devote themselves tirelessly to showing they are just as sensitive as the next PC robot. ...
Such faux conservatives accuse long-dead Democratic presidents, who were well to the right of the current conservative movement, of being more radical than they actually were. It would be no exaggeration to say that Wilson and FDR were far more reactionary than any celebrity in the Tea Party movement. One could only imagine what such antediluvian Democrats would have said if they had heard last year’s “Conservative of the Year,” chosen by Human Events, Dick Cheney, weeping all over the floor about not allowing gays to marry each other. ...
The Tea Party sounds so often like the Left because it is for the most part a product of the Left. Its people were educated in public schools, watch mass entertainment, and have absorbed most of the leftist values of the elite class, to whose rule they object only quite selectively.
Read more!
Excerpt:
One has to wonder who these people are who will march on Washington to "restore" the country's "honor," as the rally's theme boasted, yet are in the forefront of supporting some of the most dishonorable acts engaged in by their country's interchangeable governments. Just what is special about the moral convictions of these advocates, who fervently sermonize on such issues as patriotism, war, family life, religion, the nature of government, ad nauseam?
Related
See The Infantilization of American Conservatism, by Paul Gottfried:
Excerpts
[Conservative] critics of the Left cannot bring themselves to find fault with any excess in the Civil Rights movement -- and especially not with its far leftist icon Martin Luther King. “Conservatives” are so terrified of being called “racists” or for that matter, sexists or homophobes, that they devote themselves tirelessly to showing they are just as sensitive as the next PC robot. ...
Such faux conservatives accuse long-dead Democratic presidents, who were well to the right of the current conservative movement, of being more radical than they actually were. It would be no exaggeration to say that Wilson and FDR were far more reactionary than any celebrity in the Tea Party movement. One could only imagine what such antediluvian Democrats would have said if they had heard last year’s “Conservative of the Year,” chosen by Human Events, Dick Cheney, weeping all over the floor about not allowing gays to marry each other. ...
The Tea Party sounds so often like the Left because it is for the most part a product of the Left. Its people were educated in public schools, watch mass entertainment, and have absorbed most of the leftist values of the elite class, to whose rule they object only quite selectively.
Read more!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Usurping control of the Tea Parties
Among the more interesting diversions these days is watching the Tea Party evolve, or devolve, depending on your point of view. It's no more than a couple of years old and yet "histories" of the origin of this movement are multiplying.
During the Mark Williams fiasco, we saw his version of the Party, i.e., the Tea Party Express, take a thrashing from leaders of something called the Tea Party Federation, which identified itself as a sort of "umbrella" group for all the Tea Parties.
Williams vigorously claimed that, as the co-founder of the Tea Party Express, he had never heard of the Tea Party Federation, and, further, the first time he heard of his group's membership in the "Federation" was when he was thrown out of said "Federation." He described the Tea Party movement as "millions of tea partiers involved in thousands of groups," and claimed that, "Every tea partier is a tea party leader." Translated this means that no group has power over another and certainly has no power to expel anyone from the movement.
But we all knew that nothing works that way for very long, didn't we? And it wasn't long before the proclaimed "leaders" began to emerge.
The Daily Bell offers an enlightening look at another maneuver to influence the direction of the Tea Parties. In Dick Armey's Tea-Party Coup, we learn of the recent activities of the former Congressman. Following are excerpts:
• • •
A number of months ago, we wrote a good many articles about the Tea Party movement. Along with everyone else we were trying to figure out what it was about and why there seemed to be several different movements and no real way of determining who was in charge or what the message was. ...
Fortunately, Dick Armey is willing to set us straight. Here is the history, as he recites it: "Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new 'tea party' from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos."
Actually, as we understand it, the Tea Party phenomenon was inspired by the libertarian-republicanism of the Ron Paul presidential campaign that created small activist cells. Rick Santelli – and we have seen his "glorious rant" – had nothing to do with this spontaneous manifestation of anti-state protesting. Santelli's TV statement came much later. The reason we have concentrated on [Armey's] article is because it is a superb example of how the mainstream media reworks memes to make them palatable and useful to the powers-that-be.
The Tea Party, initially, was an amorphous and generalized uprising against the modern welfare/warfare state. It was libertarian in nature and fairly specific about its point of view. Today, that specificity has been mislaid (perhaps the movement is too big for one point of view) and the mythmaking has begun. Thus the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal provides a vast platform for the appropriate tale. And Dick Armey provides it. (In fact Murdoch's media organization is also publisher of a book that Armey has written – Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.)
Here is the insider's insider, a man who served as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives for a number of years and then as a $750,000 per annum lobbyist (a berth he has now vacated). Yet Armey, by dint of his connections, ability to raise funds and incessant ambition to shape the political horizon to his liking, has attempted to remake himself as political "outsider" and in the process has seemingly launched a takeover of the inchoate Tea Party. (He denies this of course and regularly emphasizes the Tea Party has no leadership – but certainly he is available to help.)
Not only has he somehow become a high profile, de facto leader of a movement and a definer of the history of a movement that deliberately has no organizational core, he has somehow managed to link himself to a Contract From America that many so-called Tea Party political candidates have "signed." The idea is that the Contract From America emerged out of the inchoate opinions of thousands of Tea Party activists and then were codified by Armey and his staff a the Tea-Party oriented Freedomworks, which he founded in the mid 2000s. ...
The military-industrial complex [whose expenditures are not mentioned in the Contract From America] is one of the largest appendages of the modern American warfare-welfare state. The lack of inclusion of central banking and military expenditures makes this Contract From America fairly useless in our humble opinion.
In fact, from our perspective, this article grants the opportunity to see clearly how a power elite dominant social theme is shaped in modern times. Murdoch provides the platform. Dick Armey poses as a radical Libertarian and rewrites history to his liking.
Read the Contract From America and the rest of this article here.
Read more!
During the Mark Williams fiasco, we saw his version of the Party, i.e., the Tea Party Express, take a thrashing from leaders of something called the Tea Party Federation, which identified itself as a sort of "umbrella" group for all the Tea Parties.
Williams vigorously claimed that, as the co-founder of the Tea Party Express, he had never heard of the Tea Party Federation, and, further, the first time he heard of his group's membership in the "Federation" was when he was thrown out of said "Federation." He described the Tea Party movement as "millions of tea partiers involved in thousands of groups," and claimed that, "Every tea partier is a tea party leader." Translated this means that no group has power over another and certainly has no power to expel anyone from the movement.
But we all knew that nothing works that way for very long, didn't we? And it wasn't long before the proclaimed "leaders" began to emerge.
The Daily Bell offers an enlightening look at another maneuver to influence the direction of the Tea Parties. In Dick Armey's Tea-Party Coup, we learn of the recent activities of the former Congressman. Following are excerpts:
A number of months ago, we wrote a good many articles about the Tea Party movement. Along with everyone else we were trying to figure out what it was about and why there seemed to be several different movements and no real way of determining who was in charge or what the message was. ...
Fortunately, Dick Armey is willing to set us straight. Here is the history, as he recites it: "Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new 'tea party' from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos."
Actually, as we understand it, the Tea Party phenomenon was inspired by the libertarian-republicanism of the Ron Paul presidential campaign that created small activist cells. Rick Santelli – and we have seen his "glorious rant" – had nothing to do with this spontaneous manifestation of anti-state protesting. Santelli's TV statement came much later. The reason we have concentrated on [Armey's] article is because it is a superb example of how the mainstream media reworks memes to make them palatable and useful to the powers-that-be.
The Tea Party, initially, was an amorphous and generalized uprising against the modern welfare/warfare state. It was libertarian in nature and fairly specific about its point of view. Today, that specificity has been mislaid (perhaps the movement is too big for one point of view) and the mythmaking has begun. Thus the Murdoch-controlled Wall Street Journal provides a vast platform for the appropriate tale. And Dick Armey provides it. (In fact Murdoch's media organization is also publisher of a book that Armey has written – Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto.)
Here is the insider's insider, a man who served as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives for a number of years and then as a $750,000 per annum lobbyist (a berth he has now vacated). Yet Armey, by dint of his connections, ability to raise funds and incessant ambition to shape the political horizon to his liking, has attempted to remake himself as political "outsider" and in the process has seemingly launched a takeover of the inchoate Tea Party. (He denies this of course and regularly emphasizes the Tea Party has no leadership – but certainly he is available to help.)
Not only has he somehow become a high profile, de facto leader of a movement and a definer of the history of a movement that deliberately has no organizational core, he has somehow managed to link himself to a Contract From America that many so-called Tea Party political candidates have "signed." The idea is that the Contract From America emerged out of the inchoate opinions of thousands of Tea Party activists and then were codified by Armey and his staff a the Tea-Party oriented Freedomworks, which he founded in the mid 2000s. ...
The military-industrial complex [whose expenditures are not mentioned in the Contract From America] is one of the largest appendages of the modern American warfare-welfare state. The lack of inclusion of central banking and military expenditures makes this Contract From America fairly useless in our humble opinion.
In fact, from our perspective, this article grants the opportunity to see clearly how a power elite dominant social theme is shaped in modern times. Murdoch provides the platform. Dick Armey poses as a radical Libertarian and rewrites history to his liking.
Read the Contract From America and the rest of this article here.
Read more!
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Statistical differences as grievances
Did you know that baseball coaches of minority races are found more often coaching at first base than at third base? (Now what might this mean?!) And further, the third-base coaches become team Managers more often than first-base coaches. (Aha!) From the 1964 Civil Rights Act straight to the lunacy of today's quotas and discrimination lawsuits, one never knows what to expect next.
In Bean-Counters and Baloney, Thomas Sowell shows how the multiculturalists' relentless recitation of statistics is driven only by the desire to demonstrate "social injustices." No matter what! Nothing, of course, must suggest that there are genuine differences between and among ethnic and racial groups. Following are excerpts:
• • •
The bean-counters have struck again – this time in the sports pages. Two New York Times sport writers have discovered that baseball coaches from minority groups are found more often coaching at first base than at third base. Moreover, third-base coaches become managers more often than first-base coaches.
This may seem to be just another passing piece of silliness. But it is part of a more general bean-counting mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances. The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is.
At the heart of such statistics is the implicit assumption that different races, sexes and other subdivisions of the human species would be proportionately represented in institutions, occupations and income brackets if there was not something strange or sinister going on.
Although this notion has been repeated by all sorts of people, from local loudmouths on the street to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States, there is not one speck of evidence behind it and a mountain of evidence against it.
Ask the bean-counters where in this wide world have different groups been proportionally represented. They can't tell you. In other words, something that nobody can demonstrate is taken as a norm, and any deviation from that norm is somebody's fault! ...
At our leading engineering schools – M.I.T., CalTech, etc. – whites are under-represented and Asians over-represented. Is this anti-white racism or pro-Asian racism? Or are different groups just different?
As for baseball, I have long noticed that there are more blacks playing centerfield than third-base. Since the same people hire centerfielders and third-basemen, it is hard to argue that racism explains the difference. No one says it is racism that explains why blacks are over-represented and whites under-represented in basketball. Bean-counters only make a fuss when there is a disparity that fits their vision or their agenda. ...
In countries around the world, all sorts of groups differ from each other in all sorts of ways, from rates of alcoholism to infant mortality, education and virtually everything that can be measured, as well as in some things that cannot be quantified. If black and white Americans were the same, they would be the only two groups on this planet who are the same. ...
The bean-counters are everywhere, pushing the idea that differences show injustices committed by society. As long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it – and the polarization they create will sell this country down the river.
Read complete article here.
Read more!
In Bean-Counters and Baloney, Thomas Sowell shows how the multiculturalists' relentless recitation of statistics is driven only by the desire to demonstrate "social injustices." No matter what! Nothing, of course, must suggest that there are genuine differences between and among ethnic and racial groups. Following are excerpts:
The bean-counters have struck again – this time in the sports pages. Two New York Times sport writers have discovered that baseball coaches from minority groups are found more often coaching at first base than at third base. Moreover, third-base coaches become managers more often than first-base coaches.
This may seem to be just another passing piece of silliness. But it is part of a more general bean-counting mentality that turns statistical differences into grievances. The time is long overdue to throw this race card out of the deck and start seeing it for the gross fallacy that it is.
At the heart of such statistics is the implicit assumption that different races, sexes and other subdivisions of the human species would be proportionately represented in institutions, occupations and income brackets if there was not something strange or sinister going on.
Although this notion has been repeated by all sorts of people, from local loudmouths on the street to the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States, there is not one speck of evidence behind it and a mountain of evidence against it.
Ask the bean-counters where in this wide world have different groups been proportionally represented. They can't tell you. In other words, something that nobody can demonstrate is taken as a norm, and any deviation from that norm is somebody's fault! ...
At our leading engineering schools – M.I.T., CalTech, etc. – whites are under-represented and Asians over-represented. Is this anti-white racism or pro-Asian racism? Or are different groups just different?
As for baseball, I have long noticed that there are more blacks playing centerfield than third-base. Since the same people hire centerfielders and third-basemen, it is hard to argue that racism explains the difference. No one says it is racism that explains why blacks are over-represented and whites under-represented in basketball. Bean-counters only make a fuss when there is a disparity that fits their vision or their agenda. ...
In countries around the world, all sorts of groups differ from each other in all sorts of ways, from rates of alcoholism to infant mortality, education and virtually everything that can be measured, as well as in some things that cannot be quantified. If black and white Americans were the same, they would be the only two groups on this planet who are the same. ...
The bean-counters are everywhere, pushing the idea that differences show injustices committed by society. As long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it – and the polarization they create will sell this country down the river.
Read complete article here.
Read more!
Friday, August 13, 2010
Dr. Laura joins the ranks of the fainthearted
So, even the supposedly tough-minded talk show host Laura Schlessinger dissolves like putty when confronted with the noise of disapproval coming from the multicultural mob, for her use of the proscribed "Nigger" word. But what else could we expect on the heels of the black woman who telephoned the show, to get advice about her own "racist" white husband, his relatives and friends?
We've learned that even the take-no-prisoners Dr. Laura now accepts the notion that there is ONE word in the English language that is allowed to be spoken by members of only ONE group. Can we expect her to join with those insufferable whites who delight in telling of their disdain for the taboo word, and how they refuse to use it under any circumstances? "I won't even say it in private," they proudly prattle on, waiting for the pat of approval.
Dr. Laura might as well join in the campaign already underway to abolish the word "Nigger" from the lips of all non-blacks. Perhaps she will endorse a federal law to punish any non-black caught spewing it. This could sort of be an expansion of the New York City Council's Resolution of 2007, in which the public use of the word was symbolically "banned." Of course, this ban has meant nothing to those blacks who practice no restraint in their use of the prohibited term and are primarily responsible for extending its life, by keeping the epithet fresh in the popular lexicon.
Here are whites running from the accursed expression, while blacks fill New York City's air with it, and even sanctify the word. The gay website Queerty.com had fun by mocking the Council's ridiculous Resolution. Claiming that New York City was soon to be a "Nigger-free zone," the editor asked, "If the council's all about cleaning up people's politically incorrect potty mouths, where are the bans on spic, faggot, kike, chink and all those other nasties?"
Of course, those "other nasties" are generally terms well known to be spewed forth by blacks, more often than by members of any other group.
Most countries in Europe already have "word crime" laws, as part of their pernicious "hate crime" packages. Why not bring such innovation to these shores and join the Europeans? But, what am I thinking? All assaults on blacks (by non-blacks, of course) are first investigated to learn whether or not the "Nigger" word was hurled before the blows came. Then, thanks to "hate crime" statutes, the assaulter can be subject to extra penalties for the use of the term. Ooh, what he said! Since most assaults on blacks are perpetrated by fellow blacks, I wonder if there are any pre-assault verbiage investigations when the perp has an abundance of melanin. Want to guess?
By retreating on this issue of free speech, do whites really think that the cowardice they have displayed since the 1960s needs to be revealed any further? It is white cowardice that gave us those facets of that 1964 Civil Rights Act, that went over the top by stifling the movement for self-sufficiency and taking the wind out of the economic sails of blacks, while forcing whites to pick up the slack. It is white cowardice that made possible that outrageously unconstitutional Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. And how can we even keep count of the endless Affirmative Action and Quota laws around the land, that have undone any pretense at instilling fairness in society? All gifts of white cowardice.
Does Dr. Laura and her ilk really think the world needs any further evidence that whites are willing to submit to anything, but anything, to avoid offending black "sensitivities?" We get it. You will do anything, from overturning Articles in the Constitution, to denying free speech rights even to yourselves. We get it.
It is whites who fell to their knees in the 1960s, and have never gotten up. What fear of rioting and mayhem can do! And, even when a group declares, WE can do this, but YOU cannot, the whites' response isn't "That's what you think!" but, "Yes, Master, whatever you say." Dr. Laura confirms the three- to four-decade slide into docile obedience.
One of the games of the multiculturalists is to keep up front certain words and terminologies that are deemed off-limits to whites. In this way, whites can be raked over the coals whenever one strays. In 2005, black columnist Lovell Estell scorned the hypocrisy that he said envelops the word "Nigger," and offered his views on the forced resignation of a white baseball coach.
Estell suggested that in our PC-driven land, no white can be allowed exoneration, if he can be persecuted. Scoffing at the notion of the word "Nigger" as the "ultimate insult," he observed that "Most of the people who have called me one haven't been white folks." In defending the coach, Estell claimed that the man had never mistreated any of his black ballplayers, and was guilty only of "bad judgment" and an "idiotic faux pas," and, therefore, should be allowed to resume his career.
Did meaningful numbers of whites join in Estell's protest to reinstate the white coach? No, they ran, as usual, to hide under the bed or in a closet, abandoning the coach to his private hell. And, of course, like Dr. Laura, Senator Trent Lott, Doug Tracht (The Greaseman), and Don Imus, the coach apologized, and apologized, and apologized. But, hey, that's what white folks do.
In the early part of her dialogue with the black caller, who complained about whites making use of the Forbidden Word, Dr. Laura made an observation that would occur to anyone with common sense. She ruefully remarked, "Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race." But it was not too long afterward that she issued her initial apology, in which she whined that, after she realized she had "articulated the N-word all the way out," she was too upset to finish the show.
A final thought about the idiot black woman caller who spurred Dr. Laura's intemperate remarks. What kind of a dimwit, who marries out of her race, discovers that her white husband, his white relatives, and his white friends consider his black wife (namely, her) a daily punching bag for their humor, and then calls a stranger on the radio for advice? Is the husband trying to let the dense wife know that he's had enough of her, and desires to move on? Maybe it's time to take a hint, lady.
Read more!
We've learned that even the take-no-prisoners Dr. Laura now accepts the notion that there is ONE word in the English language that is allowed to be spoken by members of only ONE group. Can we expect her to join with those insufferable whites who delight in telling of their disdain for the taboo word, and how they refuse to use it under any circumstances? "I won't even say it in private," they proudly prattle on, waiting for the pat of approval.
Dr. Laura might as well join in the campaign already underway to abolish the word "Nigger" from the lips of all non-blacks. Perhaps she will endorse a federal law to punish any non-black caught spewing it. This could sort of be an expansion of the New York City Council's Resolution of 2007, in which the public use of the word was symbolically "banned." Of course, this ban has meant nothing to those blacks who practice no restraint in their use of the prohibited term and are primarily responsible for extending its life, by keeping the epithet fresh in the popular lexicon.
Here are whites running from the accursed expression, while blacks fill New York City's air with it, and even sanctify the word. The gay website Queerty.com had fun by mocking the Council's ridiculous Resolution. Claiming that New York City was soon to be a "Nigger-free zone," the editor asked, "If the council's all about cleaning up people's politically incorrect potty mouths, where are the bans on spic, faggot, kike, chink and all those other nasties?"
Of course, those "other nasties" are generally terms well known to be spewed forth by blacks, more often than by members of any other group.
Most countries in Europe already have "word crime" laws, as part of their pernicious "hate crime" packages. Why not bring such innovation to these shores and join the Europeans? But, what am I thinking? All assaults on blacks (by non-blacks, of course) are first investigated to learn whether or not the "Nigger" word was hurled before the blows came. Then, thanks to "hate crime" statutes, the assaulter can be subject to extra penalties for the use of the term. Ooh, what he said! Since most assaults on blacks are perpetrated by fellow blacks, I wonder if there are any pre-assault verbiage investigations when the perp has an abundance of melanin. Want to guess?
By retreating on this issue of free speech, do whites really think that the cowardice they have displayed since the 1960s needs to be revealed any further? It is white cowardice that gave us those facets of that 1964 Civil Rights Act, that went over the top by stifling the movement for self-sufficiency and taking the wind out of the economic sails of blacks, while forcing whites to pick up the slack. It is white cowardice that made possible that outrageously unconstitutional Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. And how can we even keep count of the endless Affirmative Action and Quota laws around the land, that have undone any pretense at instilling fairness in society? All gifts of white cowardice.
Does Dr. Laura and her ilk really think the world needs any further evidence that whites are willing to submit to anything, but anything, to avoid offending black "sensitivities?" We get it. You will do anything, from overturning Articles in the Constitution, to denying free speech rights even to yourselves. We get it.
It is whites who fell to their knees in the 1960s, and have never gotten up. What fear of rioting and mayhem can do! And, even when a group declares, WE can do this, but YOU cannot, the whites' response isn't "That's what you think!" but, "Yes, Master, whatever you say." Dr. Laura confirms the three- to four-decade slide into docile obedience.
One of the games of the multiculturalists is to keep up front certain words and terminologies that are deemed off-limits to whites. In this way, whites can be raked over the coals whenever one strays. In 2005, black columnist Lovell Estell scorned the hypocrisy that he said envelops the word "Nigger," and offered his views on the forced resignation of a white baseball coach.
Estell suggested that in our PC-driven land, no white can be allowed exoneration, if he can be persecuted. Scoffing at the notion of the word "Nigger" as the "ultimate insult," he observed that "Most of the people who have called me one haven't been white folks." In defending the coach, Estell claimed that the man had never mistreated any of his black ballplayers, and was guilty only of "bad judgment" and an "idiotic faux pas," and, therefore, should be allowed to resume his career.
Did meaningful numbers of whites join in Estell's protest to reinstate the white coach? No, they ran, as usual, to hide under the bed or in a closet, abandoning the coach to his private hell. And, of course, like Dr. Laura, Senator Trent Lott, Doug Tracht (The Greaseman), and Don Imus, the coach apologized, and apologized, and apologized. But, hey, that's what white folks do.
In the early part of her dialogue with the black caller, who complained about whites making use of the Forbidden Word, Dr. Laura made an observation that would occur to anyone with common sense. She ruefully remarked, "Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race." But it was not too long afterward that she issued her initial apology, in which she whined that, after she realized she had "articulated the N-word all the way out," she was too upset to finish the show.
A final thought about the idiot black woman caller who spurred Dr. Laura's intemperate remarks. What kind of a dimwit, who marries out of her race, discovers that her white husband, his white relatives, and his white friends consider his black wife (namely, her) a daily punching bag for their humor, and then calls a stranger on the radio for advice? Is the husband trying to let the dense wife know that he's had enough of her, and desires to move on? Maybe it's time to take a hint, lady.
Read more!
Thursday, August 05, 2010
The "anchor baby" loophole
In our 2008 post, Birthright citizenship is not constitutional, California State University Professor Edward Erler asks, "If the American Indians, who were certainly born in this country, were not considered automatic citizens by the Constitution's framers, how can it be that the offspring of foreigners who arrive here become automatic citizens?"
Erler debunks the fallacy of believing that anyone born within the geographical limits of the United States is automatically subject to its jurisdiction, and goes on to explain what the Constitution's 14th Amendment means by a person being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Jurisdiction is understood as owing exclusive political allegiance, Erler explains, not simply subject to American laws or courts. A foreign child born in the US is subject to the same jurisdiction to which is parent[s] are subject – that of their native country to which they owe political allegiance.
From this, the question is raised, Why would the newborn baby of an American couple, whose company happened to assign them to the Beijing office, be considered a Chinese citizen? Why wouldn't such a baby, instead, be subject, as are his parents, to the jurisdiction of the United States?
Children's allegiance "should follow that of their parents during their minority," observes Erler. Further, he argues, it is difficult to fathom how any sovereign nation could allow any other policy.
In a Vdare article How Mexican Law Undercuts 'Anchor Baby' Interpretation of U.S. 14th Amendment, Allan Wall looks at the subject from another perspective – that is, Mexican law. He describes birthright citizenship as a "loophole" in American law, and tells of new bills introduced in Congress to rectify this misinterpretation, as well as actions now being taken on the state level.
As to Mexican illegals, Wall indicates that the key to resolution is proving that the children of aliens are not completely "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This can be done by using the laws of Mexico. He writes:
According to the Mexican Constitution, Capitulo II, Articulo 30, the child born to, or begotten by, a Mexican is a Mexican, regardless of where he is born.
Thus, any child born to a Mexican parent—either mother or father, regardless of whether that parent is a natural-born Mexican or naturalized Mexican—regardless of where he is born, is considered a Mexican.
And Mexican consulates have the authority to issue documentation to children born to Mexicans outside of Mexico, to confirm it.
Read the rest of Wall's discussion here.
Read more!
Erler debunks the fallacy of believing that anyone born within the geographical limits of the United States is automatically subject to its jurisdiction, and goes on to explain what the Constitution's 14th Amendment means by a person being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Jurisdiction is understood as owing exclusive political allegiance, Erler explains, not simply subject to American laws or courts. A foreign child born in the US is subject to the same jurisdiction to which is parent[s] are subject – that of their native country to which they owe political allegiance.
From this, the question is raised, Why would the newborn baby of an American couple, whose company happened to assign them to the Beijing office, be considered a Chinese citizen? Why wouldn't such a baby, instead, be subject, as are his parents, to the jurisdiction of the United States?
Children's allegiance "should follow that of their parents during their minority," observes Erler. Further, he argues, it is difficult to fathom how any sovereign nation could allow any other policy.
In a Vdare article How Mexican Law Undercuts 'Anchor Baby' Interpretation of U.S. 14th Amendment, Allan Wall looks at the subject from another perspective – that is, Mexican law. He describes birthright citizenship as a "loophole" in American law, and tells of new bills introduced in Congress to rectify this misinterpretation, as well as actions now being taken on the state level.
As to Mexican illegals, Wall indicates that the key to resolution is proving that the children of aliens are not completely "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." This can be done by using the laws of Mexico. He writes:
According to the Mexican Constitution, Capitulo II, Articulo 30, the child born to, or begotten by, a Mexican is a Mexican, regardless of where he is born.
The Mexicans by birth shall be…The individuals born abroad from Mexican parents who were born within national territory, from a Mexican father who was born within national territory or from a Mexican mother who was born within national territory…The Individuals born abroad from naturalized Mexican parents, from a naturalized Mexican father or from a naturalized Mexican mother…
Thus, any child born to a Mexican parent—either mother or father, regardless of whether that parent is a natural-born Mexican or naturalized Mexican—regardless of where he is born, is considered a Mexican.
And Mexican consulates have the authority to issue documentation to children born to Mexicans outside of Mexico, to confirm it.
Read the rest of Wall's discussion here.
Read more!
The Threat to liberty is not from Islamic gangbangers
Doug Newman at The Fountain of Truth is one of those rare practicing Christians one can truly admire. He has no truck with foolish believers in "My country, right or wrong" idolatry, or the immature ranters of USA! USA! Newman knows a warped Christian mind when he encounters one. That audacious warmongers invoke the name of Christ in their deathly causes angers him.
On his blog he reflects on this country's misguided actions centered around the 9/11 attacks, as well as the fall-out from the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan, and offers some provocative points:
• It has been centuries since a Muslim country conquered a non-Muslim country. The Islam world is militarily irrelevant. 911 was not a military invasion, but a suicide attack. The hijackers are all DEAD. You cannot take over a country, force everyone to speak Arabic, impose Islamic law, etc., when you are DEAD!
• A few thousand gangbangers who do not even control the government of Afghanistan are not going to come and take over the mightiest economic and military power on earth.
• When you station troops in 130 countries and throw your weight around militarily the way America does, don't complain when a lot of people hate you. And when you start wars with countries that haven't done anything to you and kill countless thousands of innocent people, don't complain when people hate you. You reap what you sow!
• Our liberty is not at all threatened by "radical Islam," but rather by the establishment that has ruled this country for close to a century. The greatest threat of all comes from the millions of Americans who have allowed this establishment so much power with no regard to the consequences.
• In the Great Commission - Matthew 28: 18-20 - Jesus tells us to "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." He doesn't tell us to bomb the crap out of countries that have never done anything to us and kill countless thousands of innocent people!
• The proper, moral, constitutional response to 9/11 was a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, that is, a warrant to go after the specific perps. It was NOT to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threaten war with Iran, attack Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and - are you cluing in? - kill countless thousands of innocent people!
• Millions of Christians are so biblically illiterate that they are easy prey for the Falwells, Hagees, Robertsons, Dobsons, etc., and their promotion of aggressive war as Christian. You reap what you sow and when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
An afterthought
It sure doesn't take much to get those "easily led" evangelical types stirred up, does it? Just a few well-placed, inflammatory words from their trustworthy talk show host leaders and the stuff hits the fan – even to the point of suggesting the burning of another religion's holy book. Holy cow! Never mind the ethical issues here, how do you get this simpleminded?
Read more!
On his blog he reflects on this country's misguided actions centered around the 9/11 attacks, as well as the fall-out from the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan, and offers some provocative points:
• It has been centuries since a Muslim country conquered a non-Muslim country. The Islam world is militarily irrelevant. 911 was not a military invasion, but a suicide attack. The hijackers are all DEAD. You cannot take over a country, force everyone to speak Arabic, impose Islamic law, etc., when you are DEAD!
• A few thousand gangbangers who do not even control the government of Afghanistan are not going to come and take over the mightiest economic and military power on earth.
• When you station troops in 130 countries and throw your weight around militarily the way America does, don't complain when a lot of people hate you. And when you start wars with countries that haven't done anything to you and kill countless thousands of innocent people, don't complain when people hate you. You reap what you sow!
• Our liberty is not at all threatened by "radical Islam," but rather by the establishment that has ruled this country for close to a century. The greatest threat of all comes from the millions of Americans who have allowed this establishment so much power with no regard to the consequences.
• In the Great Commission - Matthew 28: 18-20 - Jesus tells us to "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." He doesn't tell us to bomb the crap out of countries that have never done anything to us and kill countless thousands of innocent people!
• The proper, moral, constitutional response to 9/11 was a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, that is, a warrant to go after the specific perps. It was NOT to start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, threaten war with Iran, attack Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and - are you cluing in? - kill countless thousands of innocent people!
• Millions of Christians are so biblically illiterate that they are easy prey for the Falwells, Hagees, Robertsons, Dobsons, etc., and their promotion of aggressive war as Christian. You reap what you sow and when you live by the sword, you die by the sword.
An afterthought
It sure doesn't take much to get those "easily led" evangelical types stirred up, does it? Just a few well-placed, inflammatory words from their trustworthy talk show host leaders and the stuff hits the fan – even to the point of suggesting the burning of another religion's holy book. Holy cow! Never mind the ethical issues here, how do you get this simpleminded?
Read more!
A depressing futuristic fantasy
In The Year America Dissolved, economist Paul Craig Roberts indulges in a dystopian fantasy of life in America in the not-so-distant year of 2017:
• • •
It was 2017. Clans were governing America.
The first clans organized around local police forces. The conservatives’ war on crime during the late 20th century and the Bush/Obama war on terror during the first decade of the 21st century had resulted in the police becoming militarized and unaccountable.
As society broke down, the police became warlords. The state police broke apart, and the officers were subsumed into the local forces of their communities. The newly formed tribes expanded to encompass the relatives and friends of the police.
The dollar had collapsed as world reserve currency in 2012 when the worsening economic depression made it clear to Washington’s creditors that the federal budget deficit was too large to be financed except by the printing of money.
With the dollar’s demise, import prices skyrocketed. As Americans were unable to afford foreign-made goods, the transnational corporations that were producing offshore for US markets were bankrupted, further eroding the government’s revenue base.
The government was forced to print money in order to pay its bills, causing domestic prices to rise rapidly. Faced with hyperinflation, Washington took recourse in terminating Social Security and Medicare and followed up by confiscating the remnants of private pensions. This provided a one-year respite, but with no more resources to confiscate, money creation and hyperinflation resumed.
Organized food deliveries broke down when the government fought hyperinflation with fixed prices and the mandate that all purchases and sales had to be in US paper currency. Unwilling to trade appreciating goods for depreciating paper, goods disappeared from stores.
Read the rest of this sad tale of prediction here.
Read more!
It was 2017. Clans were governing America.
The first clans organized around local police forces. The conservatives’ war on crime during the late 20th century and the Bush/Obama war on terror during the first decade of the 21st century had resulted in the police becoming militarized and unaccountable.
As society broke down, the police became warlords. The state police broke apart, and the officers were subsumed into the local forces of their communities. The newly formed tribes expanded to encompass the relatives and friends of the police.
The dollar had collapsed as world reserve currency in 2012 when the worsening economic depression made it clear to Washington’s creditors that the federal budget deficit was too large to be financed except by the printing of money.
With the dollar’s demise, import prices skyrocketed. As Americans were unable to afford foreign-made goods, the transnational corporations that were producing offshore for US markets were bankrupted, further eroding the government’s revenue base.
The government was forced to print money in order to pay its bills, causing domestic prices to rise rapidly. Faced with hyperinflation, Washington took recourse in terminating Social Security and Medicare and followed up by confiscating the remnants of private pensions. This provided a one-year respite, but with no more resources to confiscate, money creation and hyperinflation resumed.
Organized food deliveries broke down when the government fought hyperinflation with fixed prices and the mandate that all purchases and sales had to be in US paper currency. Unwilling to trade appreciating goods for depreciating paper, goods disappeared from stores.
Read the rest of this sad tale of prediction here.
Read more!
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Make way for your replacement population
In The Rape of Europa: How the West is Overrun, Mark Hackard describes the role played by the U.S. government in its ongoing drive to eliminate Russia as a rival and gain access to Central Asia's energy resources. Washington, of course, cares nothing about the consequences of policies that must inevitably result in altered population demographics throughout Europe. Following are excerpts:
• • •
The postmodern assault on traditional culture and Christianity that Poland and other Washington-allied East European nations are beginning to experience is already far advanced on the rest of the Continent, where secular hedonism and pop-democracy are more deeply entrenched. The European Union itself is but a grotesque parody of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire. While EU governing elites and the complacent masses they rule carry ultimate responsibility for apostasy and decline, it is necessary that we recognize another driving force at work: U.S. power.
By its role in the NATO alliance and its network of bases, the United States has for 65 years shaped European strategic and political discourse and retained its dominant position. There is a shared, institutionalized worldview at work fostered by successive generations of transatlantic elites, from politicians and corporate leaders to policy experts and military officers. This may seem a rather obvious point, but it is crucial to acknowledge the ideological aspect of U.S. hegemony -- perpetuation of the liberalism and materialism that so define the “free world”. ...
With Marxism discredited at the end of the bipolar era, only one messianic ideology was left standing. In the two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has gloried in the triumph of the liberal revolution and ceaselessly proselytized its globalization. Perhaps the most important target of this effort has been the former Soviet space. To eliminate Moscow as a rival and gain Central Asia’s energy resources would bring Washington to a level of dominion over the world never yet achieved. ...
The comprehensive military presence the United States enjoys in Europe provides it not only unquestioned leadership in the “Euro-Atlantic Community”, but also a platform for expansion into Eurasia’s heartland and the prosecution of wars in the Middle East. The foreign-policy analyst Doug Bandow wonders aloud why the Army’s V Corps remains stationed in Heidelberg rather than stateside:
No study of Europe’s subjection to transatlantic elites would be complete without mentioning the use of Muslims to further divide and demoralize its peoples. For the past 30 years, beginning with covert U.S. support to the Afghan mujahideen, Washington has courted Islamic power as a vehicle of influence in Eurasia, and Europe is no exception in this regard. Through the course the 1990s NATO bombarded Serbs and introduced peacekeeping troops into the Balkans to create Muslim states Bosnia and Kosovo on the carcass of Tito’s Yugoslavia. ...
U.S. diplomacy also celebrates Turkey, with a foothold in Thrace and its two million countrymen in Germany, as an up-and-coming European nation. Washington has long advocated Turkey’s entry into the EU, with all its attendant consequences for native European populations. ...
Faced with waxing Turkish power and assertive and growing populations of Muslim migrants, Europeans may yet react and begin to reclaim their lands and heritage. But they must know that in their resistance, it is entirely likely they will receive not U.S. support, but hostility to their cause and possibly armed intervention on behalf of Muslim belligerents. ... The tribes of Europa are told to forget their past, reject their faith and ethnic identity, and their very place in the Cosmos. “Place no hope in the future,” they are commanded, “for your replacements have arrived.”
Read complete article here.
Read more!
The postmodern assault on traditional culture and Christianity that Poland and other Washington-allied East European nations are beginning to experience is already far advanced on the rest of the Continent, where secular hedonism and pop-democracy are more deeply entrenched. The European Union itself is but a grotesque parody of Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire. While EU governing elites and the complacent masses they rule carry ultimate responsibility for apostasy and decline, it is necessary that we recognize another driving force at work: U.S. power.
By its role in the NATO alliance and its network of bases, the United States has for 65 years shaped European strategic and political discourse and retained its dominant position. There is a shared, institutionalized worldview at work fostered by successive generations of transatlantic elites, from politicians and corporate leaders to policy experts and military officers. This may seem a rather obvious point, but it is crucial to acknowledge the ideological aspect of U.S. hegemony -- perpetuation of the liberalism and materialism that so define the “free world”. ...
With Marxism discredited at the end of the bipolar era, only one messianic ideology was left standing. In the two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, America has gloried in the triumph of the liberal revolution and ceaselessly proselytized its globalization. Perhaps the most important target of this effort has been the former Soviet space. To eliminate Moscow as a rival and gain Central Asia’s energy resources would bring Washington to a level of dominion over the world never yet achieved. ...
The comprehensive military presence the United States enjoys in Europe provides it not only unquestioned leadership in the “Euro-Atlantic Community”, but also a platform for expansion into Eurasia’s heartland and the prosecution of wars in the Middle East. The foreign-policy analyst Doug Bandow wonders aloud why the Army’s V Corps remains stationed in Heidelberg rather than stateside:
About 52,000 American troops are in Germany. Obviously the most populous and prosperous country at the center of Europe doesn't need defending. The likelihood of Russian troops marching on Berlin and clambering up the Bundestag building is somewhat akin to that of the Martians landing and conducting a modern War of the Worlds.
The only other reason to have forces in Germany is because that country is closer to other places where Washington wants to send U. S. personnel -- but shouldn't. German bases once devoted to preventing a Red Army conquest are now handling casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan. However, if the U. S. wasn't promiscuously warring on other nations, it wouldn't need a German way-station in Europe. ...
No study of Europe’s subjection to transatlantic elites would be complete without mentioning the use of Muslims to further divide and demoralize its peoples. For the past 30 years, beginning with covert U.S. support to the Afghan mujahideen, Washington has courted Islamic power as a vehicle of influence in Eurasia, and Europe is no exception in this regard. Through the course the 1990s NATO bombarded Serbs and introduced peacekeeping troops into the Balkans to create Muslim states Bosnia and Kosovo on the carcass of Tito’s Yugoslavia. ...
U.S. diplomacy also celebrates Turkey, with a foothold in Thrace and its two million countrymen in Germany, as an up-and-coming European nation. Washington has long advocated Turkey’s entry into the EU, with all its attendant consequences for native European populations. ...
Faced with waxing Turkish power and assertive and growing populations of Muslim migrants, Europeans may yet react and begin to reclaim their lands and heritage. But they must know that in their resistance, it is entirely likely they will receive not U.S. support, but hostility to their cause and possibly armed intervention on behalf of Muslim belligerents. ... The tribes of Europa are told to forget their past, reject their faith and ethnic identity, and their very place in the Cosmos. “Place no hope in the future,” they are commanded, “for your replacements have arrived.”
Read complete article here.
Read more!
Instigating a new war to kill, cripple, disfigure, and dismember more of our soldiers—for nothing
Philip Giraldi, in the American Conservative magazine blog, asks, "Who Voted for War With Iran, Mr. Obama?" Here is his post:
• • •
House of Representatives resolution 1553, introduced by Congressional Republicans, and currently working its way through the system will endorse an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be going to war by proxy as the US would almost immediately be drawn into the conflict when Tehran retaliates.
The resolution provides explicit US backing for Israel to bomb Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary…including the use of military force”. The resolution is non-binding, but it is dazzling in its disregard for the possible negative consequences that would ensue for the hundreds of thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel currently serving in the Near East region.
Even the Pentagon opposes any Israeli action against Iran, knowing that it would mean instant retaliation against US forces in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. The resolution has appeared, not coincidentally, at the same time as major articles by leading neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bill Kristol calling for military action. AIPAC thinks it is wonderful.
Ironically, the push against Iran comes at a time when the National Intelligence Estimate on the country is being finished. It might come out as soon as August, but it will be secret and its conclusions will either be leaked or released in summary. My sources inside the intelligence community insist that it will support the 2007 NIE that concluded that Iran no longer has a weapons program.
The White House has delayed the process seeking harder language to justify a range of options against Iran, including a military strike, but the analysts are reported to be resisting. So we spend $100 billion on intelligence annually and then ignore the best judgments on what is taking place. Might as well use a Ouija board.
Read more!
House of Representatives resolution 1553, introduced by Congressional Republicans, and currently working its way through the system will endorse an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be going to war by proxy as the US would almost immediately be drawn into the conflict when Tehran retaliates.
The resolution provides explicit US backing for Israel to bomb Iran, stating that Congress supports Israel’s use of “all means necessary…including the use of military force”. The resolution is non-binding, but it is dazzling in its disregard for the possible negative consequences that would ensue for the hundreds of thousands of US military and diplomatic personnel currently serving in the Near East region.
Even the Pentagon opposes any Israeli action against Iran, knowing that it would mean instant retaliation against US forces in Iraq and also in Afghanistan. The resolution has appeared, not coincidentally, at the same time as major articles by leading neoconservatives Reuel Marc Gerecht and Bill Kristol calling for military action. AIPAC thinks it is wonderful.
Ironically, the push against Iran comes at a time when the National Intelligence Estimate on the country is being finished. It might come out as soon as August, but it will be secret and its conclusions will either be leaked or released in summary. My sources inside the intelligence community insist that it will support the 2007 NIE that concluded that Iran no longer has a weapons program.
The White House has delayed the process seeking harder language to justify a range of options against Iran, including a military strike, but the analysts are reported to be resisting. So we spend $100 billion on intelligence annually and then ignore the best judgments on what is taking place. Might as well use a Ouija board.
Read more!
Ensuring that ethnic majority
Philip Weiss brings our attention to a CNN report on the eviction of Bedouins from a village in southern Israel. CNN staff writes:
Police evicted 200 Bedouins from their homes in a southern Israeli village on Tuesday and demolished their dwellings, an act decried by residents who said they are on ancestral land. The move occurred five miles north of Beer Sheva in a village called Al-Araqeeb, an enclave not recognized by the state of Israel.
Witnesses told CNN that the Israeli forces arrived at the village accompanied by busloads of civilians who cheered as the dwellings were demolished. They said armed police deployed with tear gas, water cannon, two helicopters and bulldozers. But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said there were no disturbances and the operation went according to plan.
Weiss also cites a quote by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at a recent Cabinet meeting. He sounded a warning that this was "a situation in which a demand for national rights will be made from some quarters inside Israel, for example in the Negev, should the area be left without a Jewish majority. Such things happened in the Balkans, and it is a real threat."
We're aware of the great delight that Zionists take in comparing the U.S. dispossession of the Indians to the Israelis' treatment of the Arabs in their region. Supposedly, this removes any right for an American to criticize, even though it's our billions of tax dollars that make the cruelties now being exacted on the Palestinians and others in the territory possible. Let's say Israel stops taking U.S. money, even to the point of paying for those Caterpillar machines, and let's see how effective their human removal will be.
What do you think the chances are that a U.S. official today would be heard to say that gentile whites must secure every region and that no area should be left without a "white gentile majority?" We can bet that 99% of the Jews in this country would go ballistic, yet they praise such an approach in dear, little, persecuted Israel. Gentile whites in the U.S. can, by their actions, secure all-white areas to live in, but they'd better not talk about it openly.
Bedouins, of course, have lived in the Negev region for centuries, and claim, as they do in the story above, to have "original deeds to the land." Did they get their deeds from a Sky God, too? I wonder.
Read more!
Police evicted 200 Bedouins from their homes in a southern Israeli village on Tuesday and demolished their dwellings, an act decried by residents who said they are on ancestral land. The move occurred five miles north of Beer Sheva in a village called Al-Araqeeb, an enclave not recognized by the state of Israel.
Witnesses told CNN that the Israeli forces arrived at the village accompanied by busloads of civilians who cheered as the dwellings were demolished. They said armed police deployed with tear gas, water cannon, two helicopters and bulldozers. But Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said there were no disturbances and the operation went according to plan.
Weiss also cites a quote by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at a recent Cabinet meeting. He sounded a warning that this was "a situation in which a demand for national rights will be made from some quarters inside Israel, for example in the Negev, should the area be left without a Jewish majority. Such things happened in the Balkans, and it is a real threat."
We're aware of the great delight that Zionists take in comparing the U.S. dispossession of the Indians to the Israelis' treatment of the Arabs in their region. Supposedly, this removes any right for an American to criticize, even though it's our billions of tax dollars that make the cruelties now being exacted on the Palestinians and others in the territory possible. Let's say Israel stops taking U.S. money, even to the point of paying for those Caterpillar machines, and let's see how effective their human removal will be.
What do you think the chances are that a U.S. official today would be heard to say that gentile whites must secure every region and that no area should be left without a "white gentile majority?" We can bet that 99% of the Jews in this country would go ballistic, yet they praise such an approach in dear, little, persecuted Israel. Gentile whites in the U.S. can, by their actions, secure all-white areas to live in, but they'd better not talk about it openly.
Bedouins, of course, have lived in the Negev region for centuries, and claim, as they do in the story above, to have "original deeds to the land." Did they get their deeds from a Sky God, too? I wonder.
Read more!
How to subvert a law
In The Arizona Lesson: What the state’s experiment with the rule of law has already taught us, Heather Mac Donald offers her observations on why the Los Angeles Times smeared Arizona Law SB 1070. Although her article was written just a couple of days before Judge Susan Bolton blocked from enforcement certain parts of the law, Mac Donald's article is still pertinent for its insights on why the media, most of whose members support open borders, ignore or embellish basic facts about immigration. Following is an excerpt:
As the start date of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, approaches, the Los Angeles Times has published an article on a nearly three-month-old homicide in Phoenix that no one but the victim’s family claims had anything to do with Arizona’s immigration initiative—not the Hispanic neighbors of the alleged killer and his victim, not the police, not even illegal-alien advocacy groups.
“It’s just weird to hear them say he’s racist,” one of the suspect’s Hispanic acquaintances marvels. The suspect had expressed his opposition to Arizona’s law just days before the May 6 shooting; he had invited his Hispanic neighbors to Thanksgiving last year. As for the victim, he “did not get shot because he was Mexican,” a local civil rights activist maintains.
And yet the Times has put the story on its front page as part of its coverage of SB 1070. Why? The official reason: as “an illustration of how incidents in the state now get interpreted through the prism of the new law.” The real reason: to suggest that the Arizona law—which officially authorizes a police officer, during a lawful police stop, to check the immigration status of people whom he suspects of being in the country illegally—is fueling a wave of possibly homicidal hatred against Hispanics. Evidence for this proposition, which has been embraced by editorialists and activists across the country? Zero.
Read entire article here.
Read more!
As the start date of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070, approaches, the Los Angeles Times has published an article on a nearly three-month-old homicide in Phoenix that no one but the victim’s family claims had anything to do with Arizona’s immigration initiative—not the Hispanic neighbors of the alleged killer and his victim, not the police, not even illegal-alien advocacy groups.
“It’s just weird to hear them say he’s racist,” one of the suspect’s Hispanic acquaintances marvels. The suspect had expressed his opposition to Arizona’s law just days before the May 6 shooting; he had invited his Hispanic neighbors to Thanksgiving last year. As for the victim, he “did not get shot because he was Mexican,” a local civil rights activist maintains.
And yet the Times has put the story on its front page as part of its coverage of SB 1070. Why? The official reason: as “an illustration of how incidents in the state now get interpreted through the prism of the new law.” The real reason: to suggest that the Arizona law—which officially authorizes a police officer, during a lawful police stop, to check the immigration status of people whom he suspects of being in the country illegally—is fueling a wave of possibly homicidal hatred against Hispanics. Evidence for this proposition, which has been embraced by editorialists and activists across the country? Zero.
Read entire article here.
Read more!
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Don't confuse Mark Williams with the facts
See my article, House Slaves: The Tea Party Remains Captive to PC, at Alternative Right
Excerpt:
What is so disheartening about people like Mark Williams is that they have imbibed every cliché taught them by the Left, and yet they call themselves "conservative." For instance, his notions about the early NAACP and its origins, and of W.E.B. Du Bois, is boilerplate propaganda. He has obviously consecrated this history, as it was taught to him.
Read more!
Excerpt:
What is so disheartening about people like Mark Williams is that they have imbibed every cliché taught them by the Left, and yet they call themselves "conservative." For instance, his notions about the early NAACP and its origins, and of W.E.B. Du Bois, is boilerplate propaganda. He has obviously consecrated this history, as it was taught to him.
Read more!
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Liberal talking elites and immigration
As liberals wax hysterical over Arizona's proposed immigration law, Michael Lind offers some sobering counsel to his fellow progressives, especially those known as the "commentariat." It appears to him that too
many liberals have gone beyond denouncing what they view as "racial profiling" in certain laws, to condemning all immigration enforcement law. In Open borders or high-wage welfare state, Lind reflects on how far removed such thinking is "not only from the American public as a whole, but also from most Democratic and independent voters."
He writes: Since the economy crashed in the fall of 2008, public attitudes toward immigration, both legal and illegal, have been hardening. Between 2008 and the summer of 2009, the number of respondents telling Gallup that immigration should be decreased shot up from 39 percent to 50 percent.
And then there are those Democrats who actually support an increase in immigration. These are the people who worry Lind and he describes them: The mere 15 percent of Democrats who favor increased immigration make up the overwhelming majority of Democratic pundits, think tank operatives and other opinion leaders. Indeed, it appears that many prominent progressives are opposed to any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws at all.
He cites the liberal Nation magazine, whose provocative article, Arizona Burning, shows how clearly the left tends to view immigration policy as a race issue. Lind asks, Do the editors of the Nation want the U.S. to have any laws regulating entry by citizens of other countries into the U.S. or not? If so, then they have an obligation to explain the methods of law enforcement that they support.
He then offers sensible suggestions on how to make enforcement work, that would include reliable identification of foreign nationals and punishment of employers who break immigration laws. Lind cites the conflict so often expressed on the part of liberals, who don't want any forms of identification or government inspections of work places.
So, do they want American workers to be protected? he asks. Do liberals, by opposing workplace raids, really want to be on the side of meat-packing companies and union-busting janitorial firms that violate hard-won labor laws?
And Lind offers a zinger for the left: If progressives really believe that the U.S. should become the only sovereign country in the world that does not assert the right to regulate entry to its territory and participation in its labor markets, they should team up with the only other tiny sect in America that believes in open borders: right-wing libertarians.
Lind chastises those liberals who claim a concern for improving the lot of the foreign poor by keeping our borders open to them: It is surprising that any progressives are naive enough to fall for the insincere claim of conservatives and libertarians that their cheap-labor policies are motivated by altruistic concern for the foreign poor. ... The faux-humanitarian arguments of the open-borders, cheap-labor right come as part of a larger policy package that genuine progressives should reject as a whole.
Lind makes it clear that he is well aware of other pressing agendas among the left:
Much of the left's opposition to immigration law enforcement, of course, is based on a strategic appeal to the Latino vote, not on a rational analysis of what sort of immigration policy best suits U.S. labor market conditions in the 21st century. If most Latinos began voting for Republicans, undoubtedly many Democrats who object to border and workplace enforcement would fall silent pretty quickly.
Read complete article here.
Read more!
many liberals have gone beyond denouncing what they view as "racial profiling" in certain laws, to condemning all immigration enforcement law. In Open borders or high-wage welfare state, Lind reflects on how far removed such thinking is "not only from the American public as a whole, but also from most Democratic and independent voters."He writes: Since the economy crashed in the fall of 2008, public attitudes toward immigration, both legal and illegal, have been hardening. Between 2008 and the summer of 2009, the number of respondents telling Gallup that immigration should be decreased shot up from 39 percent to 50 percent.
And then there are those Democrats who actually support an increase in immigration. These are the people who worry Lind and he describes them: The mere 15 percent of Democrats who favor increased immigration make up the overwhelming majority of Democratic pundits, think tank operatives and other opinion leaders. Indeed, it appears that many prominent progressives are opposed to any enforcement of U.S. immigration laws at all.
He cites the liberal Nation magazine, whose provocative article, Arizona Burning, shows how clearly the left tends to view immigration policy as a race issue. Lind asks, Do the editors of the Nation want the U.S. to have any laws regulating entry by citizens of other countries into the U.S. or not? If so, then they have an obligation to explain the methods of law enforcement that they support.
He then offers sensible suggestions on how to make enforcement work, that would include reliable identification of foreign nationals and punishment of employers who break immigration laws. Lind cites the conflict so often expressed on the part of liberals, who don't want any forms of identification or government inspections of work places.
So, do they want American workers to be protected? he asks. Do liberals, by opposing workplace raids, really want to be on the side of meat-packing companies and union-busting janitorial firms that violate hard-won labor laws?
And Lind offers a zinger for the left: If progressives really believe that the U.S. should become the only sovereign country in the world that does not assert the right to regulate entry to its territory and participation in its labor markets, they should team up with the only other tiny sect in America that believes in open borders: right-wing libertarians.
Lind chastises those liberals who claim a concern for improving the lot of the foreign poor by keeping our borders open to them: It is surprising that any progressives are naive enough to fall for the insincere claim of conservatives and libertarians that their cheap-labor policies are motivated by altruistic concern for the foreign poor. ... The faux-humanitarian arguments of the open-borders, cheap-labor right come as part of a larger policy package that genuine progressives should reject as a whole.
Lind makes it clear that he is well aware of other pressing agendas among the left:
Much of the left's opposition to immigration law enforcement, of course, is based on a strategic appeal to the Latino vote, not on a rational analysis of what sort of immigration policy best suits U.S. labor market conditions in the 21st century. If most Latinos began voting for Republicans, undoubtedly many Democrats who object to border and workplace enforcement would fall silent pretty quickly.
Read complete article here.
Read more!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
George's new edifice
About ten minutes after hearing the announcement of George Steinbrenner's death, I penned some 
rough notes that I knew would have to wait before being zapped into upload. It was too early to hit the negative button, what with all the effusive media hype that had only just begun.
For the past half dozen years, at least, I could not bear to hear this man's name mentioned because of its connection to the destruction and final demolition of Yankee Stadium. I didn't think I could put the right words in place and I hoped that some mighty soul would come along, right quick, and waste no time crashing the media's hypocritical love fest. Just who the hell are these people kidding, anyway?
So, I sent out a half-whispered query, as if to the wind: "Matt Taibbi, are you paying attention?" And, sure enough, good, old Matt was, indeed, paying attention to all that phony, sentimental claptrap being focused on "The Boss," that was filling up the airwaves.
In The Steinbrenner Slobituary," Taibbi describes the adulation that has taken over New York City's main sports radio station, WFAN, as it engages in a "round-the-clock Steinbrenner grovel-a-thon." Of course, these sports talk show hosts are always in desperate need to keep some featured story going, so it's understandable that the Steinbrenner death is splendid grist for their mill.
Taibbi calls the "mania for elegiac slobbering" a disgusting aspect of public life in this country. What surprised me were the saccharine calls from what sounded like ordinary guys eagerly repeating the cloying platitudes about Steinbrenner being put into the ether by ingratiating media types. Why on earth would these simple sounding callers identify with this vainglorious man, who never hid his contempt for the likes of them and whose ruthless methods transformed the nature of the game, which consequently led to tripling the costs of the average shlub's ticket and food prices. Taibbi writes:
Steinbrenner was in every conceivable way the prototypical office tyrant and the fact that he's being uninterruptedly worshipped after his death by a nation of cubicle slaves tells you almost everything you need to know about the modern American psyche. In no other country do people genuinely love their bosses the way Americans do. They'll go home after 12 hard hours of capricious superiors peeing in their faces, and the very first thing they'll do is call up some talk radio show and denounce the graduated income tax that gives them a break at their bosses' expense.
Taibbi claims that people's heads are so turned around that the terror of being thought of as poor and subordinate "has people reflexively worshipping their bosses, to the point where George Steinbrenner -- a workplace Caligula so stupid and self-centered that he could not be convinced George Constanza wasn't named after him -- is somehow thought of as cute and lovable."
Perhaps it had been taken for granted that Yankee Stadium was safely and officially land marked, and could no more be razed than the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building or the Woolworth Building or City Hall. But it was not land marked and, perhaps, even if it had been, the fear of Steinbrenner's powerful reach might have made even a Jackie Kennedy hesitate to protest.
The reality of the Stadium's disappearance was especially hard on us Bronxites who ride the No. 4 elevated subway on a regular basis. For me, it was an instinctive habit to look up momentarily from whatever I was reading for a glimpse of the Stadium, as the train pulled into the 161st Street station. For the past several years, however, I could not bring myself to look up at the site, since I did not want to see the daily or weekly stages of alteration. The House that Ruth built disappeared level by level, and is now replaced by the House that George built.
One talk show host will not refer to the new structure as "Yankee Stadium," but as "That Place Across the Street." Others refer to George's building as the Yankee Shopping Mall or the Yankee Food Court. I simply call it the New Edifice.
Late last season, I attended my first (and probably only) game in the New Edifice, since I felt I should see the interior of the place. Big deal! I was struck by the fact that you never have to sit in your assigned seat to view the game. Since the whole point of the place seems to be to keep the attendees roaming around, buying and eating, and roaming some more, there are dozens of picknicky type spots, with benches and eating counters, and big-screen TVs blasting the game on the field. The place seems to be designed to keep the wallet carriers engaged in everything except the ball game.
I wonder how those corporate executive suites are faring in the New Edifice, since they are the reason for which Yankee Stadium was destroyed in the first place. Last year, it was gratifying to hear about all those high-priced seats that embarrassingly stayed empty all season long. Hopefully, Taibbi's wish of last year will come true, that the Yankee management will "choke on their own greed."
And as for Steinbrenner? Taibbi suggests that we should have thrown a parade "the minute the guy drew his last breath." He asks, "Whatever happened to Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead?"
Related
The long-dead Brooklyn Dodgers still haunt New York
Read more!
rough notes that I knew would have to wait before being zapped into upload. It was too early to hit the negative button, what with all the effusive media hype that had only just begun.For the past half dozen years, at least, I could not bear to hear this man's name mentioned because of its connection to the destruction and final demolition of Yankee Stadium. I didn't think I could put the right words in place and I hoped that some mighty soul would come along, right quick, and waste no time crashing the media's hypocritical love fest. Just who the hell are these people kidding, anyway?
So, I sent out a half-whispered query, as if to the wind: "Matt Taibbi, are you paying attention?" And, sure enough, good, old Matt was, indeed, paying attention to all that phony, sentimental claptrap being focused on "The Boss," that was filling up the airwaves.
In The Steinbrenner Slobituary," Taibbi describes the adulation that has taken over New York City's main sports radio station, WFAN, as it engages in a "round-the-clock Steinbrenner grovel-a-thon." Of course, these sports talk show hosts are always in desperate need to keep some featured story going, so it's understandable that the Steinbrenner death is splendid grist for their mill.
Taibbi calls the "mania for elegiac slobbering" a disgusting aspect of public life in this country. What surprised me were the saccharine calls from what sounded like ordinary guys eagerly repeating the cloying platitudes about Steinbrenner being put into the ether by ingratiating media types. Why on earth would these simple sounding callers identify with this vainglorious man, who never hid his contempt for the likes of them and whose ruthless methods transformed the nature of the game, which consequently led to tripling the costs of the average shlub's ticket and food prices. Taibbi writes:
Steinbrenner was in every conceivable way the prototypical office tyrant and the fact that he's being uninterruptedly worshipped after his death by a nation of cubicle slaves tells you almost everything you need to know about the modern American psyche. In no other country do people genuinely love their bosses the way Americans do. They'll go home after 12 hard hours of capricious superiors peeing in their faces, and the very first thing they'll do is call up some talk radio show and denounce the graduated income tax that gives them a break at their bosses' expense.
Taibbi claims that people's heads are so turned around that the terror of being thought of as poor and subordinate "has people reflexively worshipping their bosses, to the point where George Steinbrenner -- a workplace Caligula so stupid and self-centered that he could not be convinced George Constanza wasn't named after him -- is somehow thought of as cute and lovable."
Perhaps it had been taken for granted that Yankee Stadium was safely and officially land marked, and could no more be razed than the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building or the Woolworth Building or City Hall. But it was not land marked and, perhaps, even if it had been, the fear of Steinbrenner's powerful reach might have made even a Jackie Kennedy hesitate to protest.
The reality of the Stadium's disappearance was especially hard on us Bronxites who ride the No. 4 elevated subway on a regular basis. For me, it was an instinctive habit to look up momentarily from whatever I was reading for a glimpse of the Stadium, as the train pulled into the 161st Street station. For the past several years, however, I could not bring myself to look up at the site, since I did not want to see the daily or weekly stages of alteration. The House that Ruth built disappeared level by level, and is now replaced by the House that George built.
One talk show host will not refer to the new structure as "Yankee Stadium," but as "That Place Across the Street." Others refer to George's building as the Yankee Shopping Mall or the Yankee Food Court. I simply call it the New Edifice.
Late last season, I attended my first (and probably only) game in the New Edifice, since I felt I should see the interior of the place. Big deal! I was struck by the fact that you never have to sit in your assigned seat to view the game. Since the whole point of the place seems to be to keep the attendees roaming around, buying and eating, and roaming some more, there are dozens of picknicky type spots, with benches and eating counters, and big-screen TVs blasting the game on the field. The place seems to be designed to keep the wallet carriers engaged in everything except the ball game.
I wonder how those corporate executive suites are faring in the New Edifice, since they are the reason for which Yankee Stadium was destroyed in the first place. Last year, it was gratifying to hear about all those high-priced seats that embarrassingly stayed empty all season long. Hopefully, Taibbi's wish of last year will come true, that the Yankee management will "choke on their own greed."
And as for Steinbrenner? Taibbi suggests that we should have thrown a parade "the minute the guy drew his last breath." He asks, "Whatever happened to Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead?"
Related
The long-dead Brooklyn Dodgers still haunt New York
Read more!
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Calling the race-hustling Reverend
The black blogger Aaron Laramore in If You Have to Call Al Sharpton for Help With Your Own Mayor, You Have No Power, tells of Sharpton's recent visit to Indianapolis, and writes, "He's here at the urgent behest of local ministers, some of whom pastor the largest black churches in Indianapolis, to help them pressure Mayor Ballard to meet with them regarding the police beat down of a teen during an arrest. Sharpton is scheduled to make several appearances around town and give a speech this evening at 7:00 at Eastern Star Church."
What does this signify about black leadership? "I'm not sure I can conceive of a more visible display of political impotence and irrelevance on the part of these ministers," says Laramore. "If you have to call in an out of town race hustler like Al Sharpton, in order to get the attention of the mayor of your own city, you are irrelevant."
Laramore claims that this scene has been played out in the past, when these ministers tried to make demands on the city's previous Mayor and administration. "This is all reaction that will not result in significant change and stands as an example of how faith leadership in Indianapolis fails to expand and develop the strategic value of their connection to thousands of people."
But do these elites really have a connection to "thousands of people?" Or are members of their congregations weary of the familiar pulpit bombast that ensues each time a "race incident" presents an opportunity for exploitation? Such black "leaders" are eager to show their constituents that they, at least, have the power to engage the Almighty Al Sharpton in their cause, as they hope for some of his luster to rub off on them.
Sharpton is a man for all seasons, and willingly answers the calls even of distressed white folks. Thanks to the white Don Imus who, during his radio troubles in 2007, resuscitated Sharpton's career, almost singlehandedly, the black race hustler still earns a comfortable living doing what he does best. And he is now the host of three (three!) radio programs here in the New York area. So, if white folks, like Imus, aren't calling for the good pastor Sharpton to forgive them their "racial sins," black preachers are keeping him busy hounding their political enemies.
Laramore concludes, "When you call Al Sharpton in from out of town just to have a conversation with your own Mayor, you are missing the boat."
See also here for Laramore's take on this recent NAACP Convention: "I wanted to find something to be encouraged about in this speech, I really did, but color me totally unimpressed. Black folk catching hell and she's touting school snack programs? the opening of a few college chapters; so-called curriculum reforms to teach civil rights history? That's it? That's the best you've got to tout as achievements? The speech has a constant focus on the wrongs done to us, not nearly enough of anything about problem solving in our communities. It was heavy on platitudes, way light on substance."
Read more!
What does this signify about black leadership? "I'm not sure I can conceive of a more visible display of political impotence and irrelevance on the part of these ministers," says Laramore. "If you have to call in an out of town race hustler like Al Sharpton, in order to get the attention of the mayor of your own city, you are irrelevant."
Laramore claims that this scene has been played out in the past, when these ministers tried to make demands on the city's previous Mayor and administration. "This is all reaction that will not result in significant change and stands as an example of how faith leadership in Indianapolis fails to expand and develop the strategic value of their connection to thousands of people."
But do these elites really have a connection to "thousands of people?" Or are members of their congregations weary of the familiar pulpit bombast that ensues each time a "race incident" presents an opportunity for exploitation? Such black "leaders" are eager to show their constituents that they, at least, have the power to engage the Almighty Al Sharpton in their cause, as they hope for some of his luster to rub off on them.
Sharpton is a man for all seasons, and willingly answers the calls even of distressed white folks. Thanks to the white Don Imus who, during his radio troubles in 2007, resuscitated Sharpton's career, almost singlehandedly, the black race hustler still earns a comfortable living doing what he does best. And he is now the host of three (three!) radio programs here in the New York area. So, if white folks, like Imus, aren't calling for the good pastor Sharpton to forgive them their "racial sins," black preachers are keeping him busy hounding their political enemies.
Laramore concludes, "When you call Al Sharpton in from out of town just to have a conversation with your own Mayor, you are missing the boat."
See also here for Laramore's take on this recent NAACP Convention: "I wanted to find something to be encouraged about in this speech, I really did, but color me totally unimpressed. Black folk catching hell and she's touting school snack programs? the opening of a few college chapters; so-called curriculum reforms to teach civil rights history? That's it? That's the best you've got to tout as achievements? The speech has a constant focus on the wrongs done to us, not nearly enough of anything about problem solving in our communities. It was heavy on platitudes, way light on substance."
Read more!
Our masters and liars
What is this? Is the staunchly Zionist New York Times suggesting that much of life is a misery for the Palestinians trapped in the prison of Gaza? But, haven't we been led to believe, from Israeli propaganda, that life is coming up roses for Gaza residents, and that those who make claims to the contrary are just whining crybabies?
In Trapped by Gaza Blockade, Locked in Despair, we learn of the negative impact on people's lives through their inability to travel and to trade with other nations, in order to spark Gaza's economy and generate employment:
Israel is never far from people’s minds here. Its ships control the waters, its planes control the skies. Its whims, Gazans feel, control their fate. And while most here view Israel as the enemy, they want trade ties and to work there. In their lives the main source of income has been from and through Israel. Economists here say what is most needed now is not more goods coming in, as the easing of the blockade has permitted, but people and exports getting out. That is not going to happen soon.
And we learn, as well, the views of many Palestinians about their governing authorities:
As if the Palestinian people did not have enough trouble, they have not one government but two, the Fatah-dominated one in the West Bank city of Ramallah and the Hamas one here. The antagonism between them offers a depth of rivalry and rage that shows no sign of abating. ...
In fact, there is a paradox at work in Gaza: while Hamas has no competition for power, it also has a surprisingly small following. Dozens of interviews with all sorts of people found few willing to praise their government or that of its competitor. “They’re both liars,” Waleed Hassouna, a baker in Gaza City, said in a very common comment.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian people pay the price for the ongoing war between their masters, the Israelis, and their political leaders, the "liars."
Read complete article here.
The photo below is interesting, isn't it? In Israel, young Jewish woman harassing Palestinian woman by yanking on her scarf, while Jewish boy applies a kick to her leg. Israeli policemen nearby watch the fun. Everyday life in the Land of the Chosen. But, hey, those Palestinian leaders claim that they would like to see an end to Israel, so anything goes as far as treatment of Palestinians, in general, right? Sort of like that new "Black Panther" party in this country declaring death upon all whites, so this makes it fair game to go out on the streets and torment or mow down average American blacks, right? Is this picture reminiscent of photographs you've viewed of scenes in Europe during the middle of the 20th century?
Read more!
In Trapped by Gaza Blockade, Locked in Despair, we learn of the negative impact on people's lives through their inability to travel and to trade with other nations, in order to spark Gaza's economy and generate employment:
Israel is never far from people’s minds here. Its ships control the waters, its planes control the skies. Its whims, Gazans feel, control their fate. And while most here view Israel as the enemy, they want trade ties and to work there. In their lives the main source of income has been from and through Israel. Economists here say what is most needed now is not more goods coming in, as the easing of the blockade has permitted, but people and exports getting out. That is not going to happen soon.
And we learn, as well, the views of many Palestinians about their governing authorities:
As if the Palestinian people did not have enough trouble, they have not one government but two, the Fatah-dominated one in the West Bank city of Ramallah and the Hamas one here. The antagonism between them offers a depth of rivalry and rage that shows no sign of abating. ...
In fact, there is a paradox at work in Gaza: while Hamas has no competition for power, it also has a surprisingly small following. Dozens of interviews with all sorts of people found few willing to praise their government or that of its competitor. “They’re both liars,” Waleed Hassouna, a baker in Gaza City, said in a very common comment.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian people pay the price for the ongoing war between their masters, the Israelis, and their political leaders, the "liars."
Read complete article here.
The photo below is interesting, isn't it? In Israel, young Jewish woman harassing Palestinian woman by yanking on her scarf, while Jewish boy applies a kick to her leg. Israeli policemen nearby watch the fun. Everyday life in the Land of the Chosen. But, hey, those Palestinian leaders claim that they would like to see an end to Israel, so anything goes as far as treatment of Palestinians, in general, right? Sort of like that new "Black Panther" party in this country declaring death upon all whites, so this makes it fair game to go out on the streets and torment or mow down average American blacks, right? Is this picture reminiscent of photographs you've viewed of scenes in Europe during the middle of the 20th century?
Read more!
Monday, July 12, 2010
Eminent domain and the Kelo backlash
When, five years ago, the Kelo v. City of New London decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court, I thought, Well, that's the end of things for sure. When any government can systematically employ a ruse to legally confiscate citizens' homes, that's a sign that the Republic's 
days are numbered. I figured the Supreme Court had given a green light to every developer who salivated over some landowner's piece of property. I had followed the case closely since I couldn't think of many rulings that could be more significant than this one.
When a Supreme Court Justice himself claims that a ruling by his very Court is "unconstitutional," where do you go from there? What is one to think when the mighty "interpreters" of the Constitution admit to error by the Court? In Kelo Justice Clarence Thomas vehemently disagreed with the majority decision, as written by Justice John Paul Stevens. In his Dissent, Thomas wrote:
The Constitution’s text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to employ it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking. ... The Takings Clause is a prohibition, not a grant of power: The Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. ... Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. ... When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another emphatic dissenter, expressed it this way:
To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property – and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ... The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. ... Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
Here are excerpts from a view on the case offered by The Economist magazine, The worst decision of Justice Stevens:
[Justice Stevens'] opinion in Kelo v. New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes.
The city decided to use the power of "eminent domain." Under the Fifth amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use,” and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums.
In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens – and a slim majority of the court – said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public,” he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose” — such as those new taxes. This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. ...
The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for Justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, businesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. ...
But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins.
Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities.
And the discerning writer William Norman Grigg offers his inimitable reflections on the notorious Kelo case:
Prior to the closing of the frontier in 1890, "Manifest Destiny" was the incantation used by the government when it gave itself permission to steal property it coveted. Today, the preferred conjuration is "eminent domain." The phrase "eminent domain" reflects an assumption Karl Marx would find congenial: government is the default owner of everything, and that private ownership, however extensive, is merely a contingent arrangement. ...
In his recent book, Government Pirates, former real estate developer Don Corace offers a concise description of how eminent domain operated prior to the onset of the current depression: "Arrogant and corrupt city and county officials – with near limitless legal budgets ... align themselves with well-heeled developers, political cronies, and major corporations to prey on the politically less powerful and disenfranchised, particularly minority communities." ...
In recent weeks, the Illinois state government has begun the legal process of seizing a huge amount of private property in and around Peotone, a small town in Will County, about forty miles south of Chicago. The land is being taken for the supposed purpose of building a third Chicago-area airport to complement O'Hare and Midway – a project that has been discussed, studied, and debated since 1968.
The proposed "South Suburban Airport" – which would be three times the size of O'Hare International – is impractical, unwanted, and unnecessary. It doesn't enjoy the support of any major airline or the approval of the FAA. ...
Expanding the small international airport in depressed Rockford would provide additional runway space at a fraction of what would be spent on a third Chicago-area airport. But this would deprive the state's patronage pimps of an opportunity to lavish plundered wealth on their favored constituents. ...
Four Peotone-area condemnation cases are already working their way through the court system. Unless the land owners are successful in getting the cases dismissed outright, they will face a lengthy, protracted legal struggle in which their opponent – the criminal junta dominating Springfield and Chicago – will use money extorted from them as taxes to underwrite the effort to drive them from their land. ...
There's every reason to believe that the Peotone Landgrab – if it's successful – would be a template for similar acts of official larceny wherever fertile tracts can be seized by the political class at depressed "fair market value."
Following are conclusions about the Kelo case offered by the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the New London residents:
The U.S. Supreme Court should have ruled in favor of the Kelo homeowners and established a federal baseline that would protect home and business owners throughout the nation. Instead, it threw the issue to the states, completely abdicating its role as guardian of Americans’ rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Less than one week after the decision was handed down, the Institute for Justice launched a national campaign called “Hands Off My Home.” IJ was determined to focus the outrage over Kelo and turn it into meaningful reform. In the five years since the decision, there has been an unprecedented backlash against the Kelo ruling in terms of public opinion, citizen activism, legislative changes, state court decisions, and lessons learned from the New London case:
• Citizen activists defeated at least 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private gain in the five-year period since Kelo.
• Forty-three states improved their laws in response to Kelo, more than half of those providing strong protection against eminent domain abuse.
• Nine state high courts restricted the use of eminent domain for private development since Kelo while only one (New York) has so far refused to do so. ...
Across the country, property owners and activists have testified before crowded public hearings and state legislatures. They have formed groups and started websites. They stood tall on the steps of City Hall and held press conferences demanding officials keep their hands off their property. They have held neighborhood meetings, which have turned into citywide meetings. ...
Following the public outcry about Kelo, constitutional amendments and legislation at the federal, state and local levels were introduced in legislative bodies nationwide. In the five years since the decision, 43 states have passed either constitutional amendments or statutes that have reformed eminent domain law to better protect private property rights. ...
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, the state high courts began to fill that void. Three state supreme courts — Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota — explicitly rejected the Kelo decision. Ohio cities had frequently abused eminent domain and Oklahoma cities had occasionally abused the power, but we have heard of no new abuses in either state since their respective court decisions. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court implicitly rejected Kelo while also curtailing the use of redevelopment and blight as an excuse for private development.
The Institute for Justice describes the dismal facts of what ultimately happened to the land in New London that was sought by the developer Pfizer, Inc.:
Part of the package of incentives offered to Pfizer to come to New London was the redevelopment of the neighboring Fort Trumbull area. Fort Trumbull was a working-class neighborhood. It housed approximately 75 homes, as well as a few smaller businesses and an abandoned Navy base.
The plan called for this area to be replaced by an upscale hotel, office buildings and new housing. Now, five years after the Kelo ruling, there has been no new construction on any of the land that was acquired in Fort Trumbull. After the decision, the remaining residents who had fought to save their homes, including Susette Kelo, were forced out. The Fort Trumbull site was completely razed. And it has remained empty ever since — brown, barren fields no longer home to people but rather to feral cats and migratory birds. After much controversy and many extensions of time given to the chosen developer, the city terminated the development agreement.
Now, ten years after its initial plan was approved, the city has commissioned another study to see what might work in the area. Ironically, given that a majority of the area used to be filled with owner-occupied and residential rental property, the city is considering a proposal to build some rental property on a portion of the project area. Ten years lost and more than $80 million in taxpayer money spent to perhaps one day build a lesser version of what used to exist on the peninsula.
Related
Judicial vandalism
Eminent domain: Taking from Peter to give to Paul
Read more!
days are numbered. I figured the Supreme Court had given a green light to every developer who salivated over some landowner's piece of property. I had followed the case closely since I couldn't think of many rulings that could be more significant than this one.When a Supreme Court Justice himself claims that a ruling by his very Court is "unconstitutional," where do you go from there? What is one to think when the mighty "interpreters" of the Constitution admit to error by the Court? In Kelo Justice Clarence Thomas vehemently disagreed with the majority decision, as written by Justice John Paul Stevens. In his Dissent, Thomas wrote:
The Constitution’s text, in short, suggests that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to employ it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking. ... The Takings Clause is a prohibition, not a grant of power: The Constitution does not expressly grant the Federal Government the power to take property for any public purpose whatsoever. Instead, the Government may take property only when necessary and proper to the exercise of an expressly enumerated power. ... Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not. ... When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, another emphatic dissenter, expressed it this way:
To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property – and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ... The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory. ... Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
Here are excerpts from a view on the case offered by The Economist magazine, The worst decision of Justice Stevens:
[Justice Stevens'] opinion in Kelo v. New London (2005) was simply terrible. The case was about a private developer in New London, Connecticut, who wanted to raze some waterfront homes to build an office block and some posh apartments. The owners didn't want to sell. The city decided to force them to, calculating that the new development would create jobs and yield more taxes.
The city decided to use the power of "eminent domain." Under the Fifth amendment, the government may seize private property only in exceptional circumstances. The land seized must be put to “public use,” and “just compensation” must be paid. “Public use” has traditionally been taken to mean something like a public highway. Roads would obviously be much harder to build if a single homeowner could hold out forever or for excessive compensation. The government's powers of “eminent domain” have also been used to clean up blighted slums.
In this case, however, the area was not blighted, and the land was not going to be put to a public use, so the seizure was plainly unlawful. Amazingly, Justice Stevens – and a slim majority of the court – said it was fine. Rejecting “any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ...public,” he said it was enough that the seizure should serve some vaguely defined “public purpose” — such as those new taxes. This massively expanded the government's power of eminent domain. ...
The ruling had two effects. First, it told local governments and their developer chums that working-class neighbourhoods were up for grabs. In the year after Kelo, the Institute for Justice, a group that defends property rights, counted 5,783 homes, businesses, churches and other properties condemned or threatened with eminent domain to the benefit of a private party. ...
But second, Kelo provoked a backlash. Most Americans are repelled by the idea that the state might take your house and give it to Donald Trump. (This is not rhetoric: New Jersey once tried, unsuccessfully, to seize someone's home because The Donald needed somewhere to park limousines outside one of his casinos.) Since the Kelo ruling, no fewer than 34 states have passed laws or constitutional amendments aimed at curbing the abuse of eminent domain. At the mid-term elections, voters in ten states approved measures curbing politicians' power to seize private property, all by wide margins.
Public revulsion against such seizures is visceral and nearly uniform: polls find between 85% and 95% of Americans are opposed to them. Political affiliation makes no difference. Republicans hate to see property rights violated and individuals bullied by the state. Democrats hate to see the state's coercive power hired out to big corporations, and worry, correctly, that the chief victims of eminent domain abuse will be the working class and ethnic minorities.
And the discerning writer William Norman Grigg offers his inimitable reflections on the notorious Kelo case:
Prior to the closing of the frontier in 1890, "Manifest Destiny" was the incantation used by the government when it gave itself permission to steal property it coveted. Today, the preferred conjuration is "eminent domain." The phrase "eminent domain" reflects an assumption Karl Marx would find congenial: government is the default owner of everything, and that private ownership, however extensive, is merely a contingent arrangement. ...
In his recent book, Government Pirates, former real estate developer Don Corace offers a concise description of how eminent domain operated prior to the onset of the current depression: "Arrogant and corrupt city and county officials – with near limitless legal budgets ... align themselves with well-heeled developers, political cronies, and major corporations to prey on the politically less powerful and disenfranchised, particularly minority communities." ...
In recent weeks, the Illinois state government has begun the legal process of seizing a huge amount of private property in and around Peotone, a small town in Will County, about forty miles south of Chicago. The land is being taken for the supposed purpose of building a third Chicago-area airport to complement O'Hare and Midway – a project that has been discussed, studied, and debated since 1968.
The proposed "South Suburban Airport" – which would be three times the size of O'Hare International – is impractical, unwanted, and unnecessary. It doesn't enjoy the support of any major airline or the approval of the FAA. ...
Expanding the small international airport in depressed Rockford would provide additional runway space at a fraction of what would be spent on a third Chicago-area airport. But this would deprive the state's patronage pimps of an opportunity to lavish plundered wealth on their favored constituents. ...
Four Peotone-area condemnation cases are already working their way through the court system. Unless the land owners are successful in getting the cases dismissed outright, they will face a lengthy, protracted legal struggle in which their opponent – the criminal junta dominating Springfield and Chicago – will use money extorted from them as taxes to underwrite the effort to drive them from their land. ...
There's every reason to believe that the Peotone Landgrab – if it's successful – would be a template for similar acts of official larceny wherever fertile tracts can be seized by the political class at depressed "fair market value."
Following are conclusions about the Kelo case offered by the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm that represented the New London residents:
The U.S. Supreme Court should have ruled in favor of the Kelo homeowners and established a federal baseline that would protect home and business owners throughout the nation. Instead, it threw the issue to the states, completely abdicating its role as guardian of Americans’ rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Less than one week after the decision was handed down, the Institute for Justice launched a national campaign called “Hands Off My Home.” IJ was determined to focus the outrage over Kelo and turn it into meaningful reform. In the five years since the decision, there has been an unprecedented backlash against the Kelo ruling in terms of public opinion, citizen activism, legislative changes, state court decisions, and lessons learned from the New London case:
• Citizen activists defeated at least 44 projects that sought to abuse eminent domain for private gain in the five-year period since Kelo.
• Forty-three states improved their laws in response to Kelo, more than half of those providing strong protection against eminent domain abuse.
• Nine state high courts restricted the use of eminent domain for private development since Kelo while only one (New York) has so far refused to do so. ...
Across the country, property owners and activists have testified before crowded public hearings and state legislatures. They have formed groups and started websites. They stood tall on the steps of City Hall and held press conferences demanding officials keep their hands off their property. They have held neighborhood meetings, which have turned into citywide meetings. ...
Following the public outcry about Kelo, constitutional amendments and legislation at the federal, state and local levels were introduced in legislative bodies nationwide. In the five years since the decision, 43 states have passed either constitutional amendments or statutes that have reformed eminent domain law to better protect private property rights. ...
When the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution, the state high courts began to fill that void. Three state supreme courts — Ohio, Oklahoma and South Dakota — explicitly rejected the Kelo decision. Ohio cities had frequently abused eminent domain and Oklahoma cities had occasionally abused the power, but we have heard of no new abuses in either state since their respective court decisions. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court implicitly rejected Kelo while also curtailing the use of redevelopment and blight as an excuse for private development.
The Institute for Justice describes the dismal facts of what ultimately happened to the land in New London that was sought by the developer Pfizer, Inc.:
Part of the package of incentives offered to Pfizer to come to New London was the redevelopment of the neighboring Fort Trumbull area. Fort Trumbull was a working-class neighborhood. It housed approximately 75 homes, as well as a few smaller businesses and an abandoned Navy base.
The plan called for this area to be replaced by an upscale hotel, office buildings and new housing. Now, five years after the Kelo ruling, there has been no new construction on any of the land that was acquired in Fort Trumbull. After the decision, the remaining residents who had fought to save their homes, including Susette Kelo, were forced out. The Fort Trumbull site was completely razed. And it has remained empty ever since — brown, barren fields no longer home to people but rather to feral cats and migratory birds. After much controversy and many extensions of time given to the chosen developer, the city terminated the development agreement.
Now, ten years after its initial plan was approved, the city has commissioned another study to see what might work in the area. Ironically, given that a majority of the area used to be filled with owner-occupied and residential rental property, the city is considering a proposal to build some rental property on a portion of the project area. Ten years lost and more than $80 million in taxpayer money spent to perhaps one day build a lesser version of what used to exist on the peninsula.
Related
Judicial vandalism
Eminent domain: Taking from Peter to give to Paul
Read more!
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Terry Anderson, R.I.P.
"If you ain't mad, you ain't payin' attention!" I can't count the number of times I heard Terry Anderson recite that refrain on his radio show. I was hooked, and had to have my weekly Sunday night Terry fix. 
Thanks to the Internet, I was able to do so, and rarely missed his broadcast from Los Angeles.
Terry was a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, and had watched first hand as this social poison altered once stable communities in southern California. As a black working man, he and many of his friends had been directly impacted by the cheap labor resulting from the alien invasion. When the opportunity presented itself to host a radio program dedicated to the subject, he took it.
After his show went off the air last year, I would check from time to time to learn if it might return. I had no idea he was seriously ill. This week we all learned that Terry died of pancreatic cancer.
Following are excerpts from appreciative friends and listeners who will miss Terry's wit and determination.
Brenda Walker, on the Vdare Blog – Farewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson
From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.
Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.
Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists, Fighting Immigration Anarchy, to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.
Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.
Walter Moore, Remembering Terry Anderson
Terry’s articulation of the popular rage was therapeutic. When you heard Terry rant, you knew you weren’t alone. You also knew you were right, because Terry knew right from wrong, and knew how to explain it simply and clearly. Politicians could blow all the smoke they wanted to, but it never clouded Terry’s vision. He had uncommon common sense, and a unique ability to zero in on the truth.
Assembling parts so they work together was apparently second nature to Terry. After he passed away, I read an article about how, from a very early age, he had a knack for taking bits and pieces from wrecked cars, salvaging them, and putting them together to work, good as new.
That’s basically what he was doing with our country. He was salvaging those of us who had given up hope. He found some of us here in L.A., others in Nevada, still others in Illinois -- scattered people, all over America, who thought they were alone.
Terry united and connected people all over America who actually care about America. He was like Radio Free Europe and the French underground rolled into one. He provided important information we couldn’t find anywhere else.
William Gheen, President, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC)
For those of you who did not know Terry Anderson, he was also called 'The Prisoner of South Central.' His radio show aired on Sunday nights for an hour on KRLA radio out of Los Angeles. The show was carried on 30 stations across America and Terry had a huge online listenership that either tuned in live each week or caught his podcasts.
Terry's show was created to fight against illegal immigration. Terry Anderson warned the nation about what was happening in South Central Los Angeles as the illegal alien invaders displaced poor Americans in the area turning parts of LA into a third world slum barrio with chickens and goats running around in the streets!
Terry Anderson was a very brave black man who educated America about the negative impacts of illegal immigration on the black community and he fearlessly spoke out and stood up in the face of the illegals on their home turf.
Over the past five years, it was my great honor to be on Terry Anderson's show over ten times. I got to work with him in person during Unite To Fight, 1 & 2, conducted by radio show host Mark Edwards in Las Vegas back in 2005 and 2006. I also worked with Terry in Washington, DC during Hold Their Feet To The Fire in 2007.
I hope those who have copies and podcasts of all of Terry Anderson's shows will place them in a prominent place on the web. I hope that another great patriot will step forward to take over Terry Anderson's show immediately, pick up his torch and run forward in his absence. ALIPAC will be happy to donate to help preserve Terry's podcasts and to continue his show.
Terry Anderson, I will miss you my friend and I want your family to know how much real Americans appreciate all that you have done for our nation. You cannot speak anymore Terry, but I will always speak out for you.
[See the ALIPAC site for videos of Terry Anderson's presentations]
Read more!
Thanks to the Internet, I was able to do so, and rarely missed his broadcast from Los Angeles.Terry was a staunch opponent of illegal immigration, and had watched first hand as this social poison altered once stable communities in southern California. As a black working man, he and many of his friends had been directly impacted by the cheap labor resulting from the alien invasion. When the opportunity presented itself to host a radio program dedicated to the subject, he took it.
After his show went off the air last year, I would check from time to time to learn if it might return. I had no idea he was seriously ill. This week we all learned that Terry died of pancreatic cancer.
Following are excerpts from appreciative friends and listeners who will miss Terry's wit and determination.
Brenda Walker, on the Vdare Blog – Farewell to a Fearless Patriot, Terry Anderson
From his front-row seat in South Central Los Angeles, Terry saw the demographic invasion before other Americans who lived further from the border. He described the racism against blacks which Mexicans brought with them into his own city, but mostly he spoke as an American, for all citizens who care about the country.
Terry started out as a concerned citizen who phoned kindred spirit and talk-show host George Putnam on the radio (another late, great patriot). Those calls led to friendship and eventually to a radio program that was exclusively about immigration, The Terry Anderson Show.
Author Dan Sheehy devoted a chapter of his 2005 book which focused on patriotic activists, Fighting Immigration Anarchy, to Terry Anderson — his life, his immigration awakening and his radio activism.
Terry was a genuine everyman, a blue-collar guy who worked as an auto mechanic, and saw himself as “articulating the popular rage.” The lack of a fancy academic degree never stopped him from being a powerful speaker. And he didn’t just talk forcefully — although he was known for that — he was well versed in all the complex issues of immigration and blended them seamlessly into his thoughts.
Walter Moore, Remembering Terry Anderson
Terry’s articulation of the popular rage was therapeutic. When you heard Terry rant, you knew you weren’t alone. You also knew you were right, because Terry knew right from wrong, and knew how to explain it simply and clearly. Politicians could blow all the smoke they wanted to, but it never clouded Terry’s vision. He had uncommon common sense, and a unique ability to zero in on the truth.
Assembling parts so they work together was apparently second nature to Terry. After he passed away, I read an article about how, from a very early age, he had a knack for taking bits and pieces from wrecked cars, salvaging them, and putting them together to work, good as new.
That’s basically what he was doing with our country. He was salvaging those of us who had given up hope. He found some of us here in L.A., others in Nevada, still others in Illinois -- scattered people, all over America, who thought they were alone.
Terry united and connected people all over America who actually care about America. He was like Radio Free Europe and the French underground rolled into one. He provided important information we couldn’t find anywhere else.
William Gheen, President, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC)
For those of you who did not know Terry Anderson, he was also called 'The Prisoner of South Central.' His radio show aired on Sunday nights for an hour on KRLA radio out of Los Angeles. The show was carried on 30 stations across America and Terry had a huge online listenership that either tuned in live each week or caught his podcasts.
Terry's show was created to fight against illegal immigration. Terry Anderson warned the nation about what was happening in South Central Los Angeles as the illegal alien invaders displaced poor Americans in the area turning parts of LA into a third world slum barrio with chickens and goats running around in the streets!
Terry Anderson was a very brave black man who educated America about the negative impacts of illegal immigration on the black community and he fearlessly spoke out and stood up in the face of the illegals on their home turf.
Over the past five years, it was my great honor to be on Terry Anderson's show over ten times. I got to work with him in person during Unite To Fight, 1 & 2, conducted by radio show host Mark Edwards in Las Vegas back in 2005 and 2006. I also worked with Terry in Washington, DC during Hold Their Feet To The Fire in 2007.
I hope those who have copies and podcasts of all of Terry Anderson's shows will place them in a prominent place on the web. I hope that another great patriot will step forward to take over Terry Anderson's show immediately, pick up his torch and run forward in his absence. ALIPAC will be happy to donate to help preserve Terry's podcasts and to continue his show.
Terry Anderson, I will miss you my friend and I want your family to know how much real Americans appreciate all that you have done for our nation. You cannot speak anymore Terry, but I will always speak out for you.
[See the ALIPAC site for videos of Terry Anderson's presentations]
Read more!
Friday, July 09, 2010
The media enforcers
Glenn Greenwald reflects on which journalists or pundits get fired for expressing politically incorrect opinions. Although it is the "Liberal Media" that has the power to destroy careers and reputations, punishment comes only at the behest of right wingers, especially the neoconservative media monitors. Here are excerpts from Greenwald's column at Salon.com:
• • •
First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians.
Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.
CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones.
NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right.
MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.
What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall.
I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.
Beyond journalism, speech codes concerning the Middle East are painfully biased and one-sided. Chas Freeman was barred from a government position -- despite a long and accomplished record of public service -- due to AIPAC-led anger over comments deemed insufficiently devoted to Israel.
Juan Cole was denied a tenured position at Yale after a vicious neocon campaign based on his allegedly anti-Israel remarks, and Norman Finklestein suffered the same fate, despite a unanimous committee recommendation for tenure, after an Alan-Dershowitz-led demonization campaign based on his blasphemous scholarship about Israel.
Does anyone ever suffer career-impeding injuries of this type -- the way Nasr and Thomas also just have -- for expressing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views? No. The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce "pro-Israel" orthodoxies. Does this long list of examples leave room for doubt about that fact? ...
With the Octavia Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free "objectivity" is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions: the official, approved ones. ...
The reality is that "pro-Israel" is not considered a viewpoint at all; it's considered "objective." That's why there's no expression of it too extreme to result in the sort of punishment which Nasr just suffered (preceded by so many others before her). ...
It's true that much of the world sees some of Hezbollah's actions as Terrorism; much of the world sees Israel's that way as well. CNN requires the former view while prohibiting the latter. As usual, our brave journalistic outlets not only acquiesce to these suffocating and extremely subjective restrictions on what our political discourse allows; they lead the way in enforcing them.
Read complete article here.
Read more!
First, consider which viewpoints cause someone to be fired from The Liberal Media. Last month, Helen Thomas' 60-year career as a journalist ended when she expressed the exact view about Jews which numerous public figures have expressed (with no consequence or even controversy) about Palestinians.
Just weeks ago, The Washington Post accepted the "resignation" of Dave Weigel because of scorn he heaped on right-wing figures such as Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh.
CNN's Chief News Executive, Eason Jordan, was previously forced to resign after he provoked a right-wing fit of fury over comments he made about the numerous -- and obviously disturbing -- incidents where the U.S. military had injured or killed journalists in war zones.
NBC fired Peter Arnett for criticizing the U.S. war plan on Iraqi television, which prompted accusations of Treason from the Right.
MSNBC demoted and then fired its rising star Ashleigh Banfield after she criticized American media war coverage for adhering to the Fox model of glorifying U.S. wars; the same network fired its top-rated host, Phil Donahue, due to its fear of being perceived as anti-war; and its former reporter, Jessica Yellin, confessed that journalists were "under enormous pressure from corporate executives" to present the news in a pro-war and pro-Bush manner.
What each of these firing offenses have in common is that they angered and offended the neocon Right. Isn't that a strange dynamic for the supposedly Liberal Media: the only viewpoint-based firings of journalists are ones where the journalist breaches neoconservative orthodoxy? Have there ever been any viewpoint-based firings of establishment journalists by The Liberal Media because of comments which offended liberals? None that I can recall.
I foolishly thought that when George Bush's own Press Secretary mocked the American media for being "too deferential" to the Bush administration, that would at least put a dent in that most fictitious American myth: The Liberal Media. But it didn't; nothing does, not even the endless spate of journalist firings for deviating from right-wing dogma.
Beyond journalism, speech codes concerning the Middle East are painfully biased and one-sided. Chas Freeman was barred from a government position -- despite a long and accomplished record of public service -- due to AIPAC-led anger over comments deemed insufficiently devoted to Israel.
Juan Cole was denied a tenured position at Yale after a vicious neocon campaign based on his allegedly anti-Israel remarks, and Norman Finklestein suffered the same fate, despite a unanimous committee recommendation for tenure, after an Alan-Dershowitz-led demonization campaign based on his blasphemous scholarship about Israel.
Does anyone ever suffer career-impeding injuries of this type -- the way Nasr and Thomas also just have -- for expressing anti-Muslim or anti-Arab views? No. The speech prohibitions and thought crimes on the Middle East all run in one direction: to enforce "pro-Israel" orthodoxies. Does this long list of examples leave room for doubt about that fact? ...
With the Octavia Nasr firing, here we find yet again exposed the central lie of American establishment journalism: that opinion-free "objectivity" is possible, required, and the governing rule. The exact opposite is true: very strong opinions are not only permitted but required. They just have to be the right opinions: the official, approved ones. ...
The reality is that "pro-Israel" is not considered a viewpoint at all; it's considered "objective." That's why there's no expression of it too extreme to result in the sort of punishment which Nasr just suffered (preceded by so many others before her). ...
It's true that much of the world sees some of Hezbollah's actions as Terrorism; much of the world sees Israel's that way as well. CNN requires the former view while prohibiting the latter. As usual, our brave journalistic outlets not only acquiesce to these suffocating and extremely subjective restrictions on what our political discourse allows; they lead the way in enforcing them.
Read complete article here.
Read more!
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Who needs black politicians?
The Washington Post informs us that black political candidates around the country, running for statewide offices, are "struggling" to survive. According to the Post, there might be no black Governors or Senators by next year.
It seems that the presence of the ultimate Identity candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, has not ushered in an era of blind support for colored politicians – at least, not among those faithful white Obama devotees. Of course, as a black, I'm expected to vote for the Black Ticket, no matter who is on it. Although a New Yorker, I'm even supposed to care about a candidate in far off Alabama, if it means another "first." As in the First Black Governor of Alabama. Just why Alabama or any other state is in need of a black Governor is never clarified.
The paternalistic tone of the Post article, makes it clear that this is an urgent matter for Americans to worry over – that is, the necessity to keep increasing the numbers of black politicians throughout the land. The candidates themselves will tell you how they are needed to deal with unique "black issues." After all, haven't we seen how effective these figureheads are in reducing crime among blacks, in re-establishing black families, and in setting education as a priority among youth?
Black publications and websites rejoice every time another of their black favorites wins a national, state or municipal election. There is no end to the bean counting they employ when examining every state legislature and city council. Look at this city, there are 20 council members, but only four of them are black. Something is wrong here. And look at this state, there are 120 assemblymen and only eight of them are black. Obviously, some serious racism is at work here.
The fervent promotion of black for the sake of blackness reminds me of my conversation in the 1980s with that good, white libertarian lady in New York, who bemoaned the fact that the city, up to that time, had never had a black Mayor as had so many other cities, and this was a good reason to elect David Dinkins.
Putting aside the value, if any, to the country at large of these elected worthies, let's take a look at the benefits that blacks derive from the existence of these politicians. We could look at any number of the familiar social issues, but let's concentrate on immigration.
By now, most people are acquainted to some degree with the statistics that show the industries that have removed U.S.-born Americans from the workforce in favor of underpaid aliens. In plants around the country, from the furniture industry to meatpacking to the hotel industry, 20 years have taken their toll as companies have reorganized around the use of immigrant rather than native labor.
The Center for Immigration Studies describes how a company like IBP, the nation's leading meatpacking company, actually recruits workers from Mexico and directly along the border. Not too long ago, in Los Angeles, semi-skilled blacks could count on employment as janitors for $12 an hour, with benefits, but no longer. When companies discovered they could subcontract such labor for $3.35 an hour with "undocumented" immigrants, within two years the Americans were displaced. CIS reports that in the hotel industry, especially, immigrant workers "displaced native black workers en masse."
In California, black men also had been prominent as roofers, framers, drywallers and truck drivers. Prior to the immigration deluge, native-born minorities were able to sustain families on the salaries earned from such jobs.
As to youth employment, CIS calls the summer of 2009 "the worst summer ever experienced by U.S.-born teenagers." The jobs that teenagers once normally counted on during the summer season now went to mostly illegal immigrant laborers. As CIS suggests, reducing legal immigration and enforcing the law to reduce illegal immigration is no cure-all for the problems that afflict young black men, who are chronically unemployed, but such enforcement might re-open doors that have been shut.
Are any black politicians known to throw their efforts behind those reformers who are working to alleviate the economic effects of mass immigration? Not a one. Because they have been getting heat from some angry constituents, in March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (which includes all black members of Congress) trekked to the White House to share with Obama their "concerns" about the black unemployment rate. As reported by Frank Morris in the Washington Times, the 43 members of the CBC, who represent primarily black constituencies, bear a large share of responsibility for neglect of this issue. These black legislators, writes Morris, have "consistently opposed tough enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens."
As they have ever done, this claque of black politicians march in lockstep with all those who promote and protect illegal immigration. Not only are they in agreement with Obama's policies that have stopped immigration enforcement in the workplace, they have been "front and center in the effort to enact amnesty for millions of illegals." As Morris says, an amnesty bill "would provide nothing for black Americans except more competition for jobs, educational opportunities and increasingly scarce government resources." Remember, every time the overflow of immigrants forces a hospital to close its facilities, the poorest Americans are most negatively affected.
In 2006, in Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites, I described the obnoxiously indifferent attitude of several black politicians who were called upon for help by displaced, unemployed blacks. It was clear then, as it is now, that notables such as Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters and John Conyers seek only to expand their constituent base. As racial demographics change in their districts, they scramble only to court and win the confidence of the new foreigners. These deceivers cleverly make alliances with the elites of the incoming ethnic groups, disregarding the needs of those whom they perceive as their diminishing black base. However much they might bleat when it comes time to win the votes of fellow blacks, the typical black politician has never had an interest in anything except the protection of his/her career and political turf.
After all, when your district is filling up with Guatemalans, Ecuadoreans and Mexicans, you can't be expected to worry yourself about jobs these invaders are taking from the American citizens who initially put you in office.
Black politicians' message to the folks: Has the salary you relied on for years been cut in half and then in half again? Don't complain. That's how the market works. Just come down off your high horse of demanding that $12 an hour that the market once paid, and settle for $3.35, like a good alien, and the problem will be solved.
Unfortunately, there is no recourse to be had from that other political party, the one to which members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not belong. These Republicans have been among the most determined to keep the country's borders wide open for immigrants of all kinds, as their candidates for office spend most of the time flip-flopping on the subject.
Leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans would rather the matter not be brought up at all. On the immigration front, both of these political parties share the same need for ongoing importation of foreigners, that is, cheap labor for the constituencies of the Republicans and lots of brown and black prospective voters for the Democrats.
The Democrats' pitch to blacks, that works successfully, goes something like this: Since you owe us for your "liberation" and "civil rights," you should stick with us and our candidates, who will continue to devise laws, that will form policies, that will create programs to be engineered in your favor. If you don't continue your alliance with us, you might very well slip back into slavery, and fail to benefit from our spurious "job training" projects. After all, you can't trust those other folks to take care of you.
As revolting as this might sound, a look at the Republican offering might very well turn your stomach even more. For this is the War Party, and the employment they offer blacks, or any other unemployed, is grounded in a counterfeit "patriotism." Not just full employment, but all good things come through warmaking.
The Republicans would have all the idle apply for work in Uncle Sam's Army. A report issued last year by these advocates for the "greatest military in the world" laments the fact that so many thousands of American youth are "ineligible" to serve those whom Andrew Bacevich calls the "knaves and fools" who run the military.
It seems that most American youth lack the type of education required to handle today's magnificent military machine. They have enough education, mind you, to die as cannon fodder, but anybody can fill that bill. Our illustrious military leaders, however, want to maim and kill the better educated, those who can decipher all that intelligent technological weaponry, along with the grunts from Mississippi and Georgia, who cannot. You should have at least a high school diploma before you lose an eye or leg, have your brains scrambled, or die.
Another factor that makes so many of the young ineligible, the good Republicans tell us, is early involvement in criminal activities. The Generals would prefer such youth, before embarking on their private criminal careers, to wait until given the appropriate official weaponry and pointed in the direction of Arabia, instead of striking out on their own.
This political party also acts as the country's religious guide. Only its members understand the mind of their peculiar, inscrutable God. We're supposed to take seriously their "pro-life" admonitions, as they eagerly send their warrior sons off to kill the in utero babies of Arab women.
In their determination to "reach out" and to demonstrate their desire to uplift the unfortunates out of the depths of unemployment, members of this Republican party make a fuss about "free enterprise," but do not support such a system with their policies. They are not admirers of entrepreneurial talent, as such, but are worshippers of ruthless profiteering. Not only do they grant sainthood to the grossest corporate pirates, some of them have even been known to apologize to said pirates, when any are taken to task for criminal negligence and outright incompetence.
To these Republicans, there is no such thing as unethical corporate behavior. And anyone who says otherwise is a degenerate Commie. The market, you see, "channels" behavior and thereby keeps it honest. To profit, the businessman must follow the rules of the magic "market," which automatically will keep him on the straight and narrow, thus maintaining his integrity. Human nature or the temptations of the flesh do not come into play in the magic market. At least not in Republican la-la-land. In this land, there is no such thing as an inept corporate executive. And certainly no such thing as a malevolent money-grubbing one, no matter what the Bernie Madoff case might imply.
Just suggest to one of these Republicans that there's something obscene about the escalating sizes of executive pay packages, given the ratio to an average worker's salary, and then stand back for the tidal wave of epithets that will ensue, ranging from you being a denizen of "class envy," to being a brainwashed leftoid redistributionist. For it's not innate human greed, you see, but government interference, via Regulations, that makes business people turn bad. Our recent financial troubles do not stem from the revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act, as we are led to believe, but from exactly that kind of legal meddling with the marketplace.
Let's return to that initial grievance about black candidates now running for political office, and the dire news that many, if not most of them, will not attain their goals. All of these cynical descendants of slaves will be running as members of one of the two corrupt political parties. So, when assessing the overall welfare of the unemployed, would it make a dime's worth of difference whether or not any of these scurrilous flim-flam artists are elected? Let's see what happens to the nation if no blacks end up as winners in elections this year.
Read more!
It seems that the presence of the ultimate Identity candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, has not ushered in an era of blind support for colored politicians – at least, not among those faithful white Obama devotees. Of course, as a black, I'm expected to vote for the Black Ticket, no matter who is on it. Although a New Yorker, I'm even supposed to care about a candidate in far off Alabama, if it means another "first." As in the First Black Governor of Alabama. Just why Alabama or any other state is in need of a black Governor is never clarified.
The paternalistic tone of the Post article, makes it clear that this is an urgent matter for Americans to worry over – that is, the necessity to keep increasing the numbers of black politicians throughout the land. The candidates themselves will tell you how they are needed to deal with unique "black issues." After all, haven't we seen how effective these figureheads are in reducing crime among blacks, in re-establishing black families, and in setting education as a priority among youth?
Black publications and websites rejoice every time another of their black favorites wins a national, state or municipal election. There is no end to the bean counting they employ when examining every state legislature and city council. Look at this city, there are 20 council members, but only four of them are black. Something is wrong here. And look at this state, there are 120 assemblymen and only eight of them are black. Obviously, some serious racism is at work here.
The fervent promotion of black for the sake of blackness reminds me of my conversation in the 1980s with that good, white libertarian lady in New York, who bemoaned the fact that the city, up to that time, had never had a black Mayor as had so many other cities, and this was a good reason to elect David Dinkins.
Putting aside the value, if any, to the country at large of these elected worthies, let's take a look at the benefits that blacks derive from the existence of these politicians. We could look at any number of the familiar social issues, but let's concentrate on immigration.
By now, most people are acquainted to some degree with the statistics that show the industries that have removed U.S.-born Americans from the workforce in favor of underpaid aliens. In plants around the country, from the furniture industry to meatpacking to the hotel industry, 20 years have taken their toll as companies have reorganized around the use of immigrant rather than native labor.
The Center for Immigration Studies describes how a company like IBP, the nation's leading meatpacking company, actually recruits workers from Mexico and directly along the border. Not too long ago, in Los Angeles, semi-skilled blacks could count on employment as janitors for $12 an hour, with benefits, but no longer. When companies discovered they could subcontract such labor for $3.35 an hour with "undocumented" immigrants, within two years the Americans were displaced. CIS reports that in the hotel industry, especially, immigrant workers "displaced native black workers en masse."
In California, black men also had been prominent as roofers, framers, drywallers and truck drivers. Prior to the immigration deluge, native-born minorities were able to sustain families on the salaries earned from such jobs.
As to youth employment, CIS calls the summer of 2009 "the worst summer ever experienced by U.S.-born teenagers." The jobs that teenagers once normally counted on during the summer season now went to mostly illegal immigrant laborers. As CIS suggests, reducing legal immigration and enforcing the law to reduce illegal immigration is no cure-all for the problems that afflict young black men, who are chronically unemployed, but such enforcement might re-open doors that have been shut.
Are any black politicians known to throw their efforts behind those reformers who are working to alleviate the economic effects of mass immigration? Not a one. Because they have been getting heat from some angry constituents, in March, members of the Congressional Black Caucus (which includes all black members of Congress) trekked to the White House to share with Obama their "concerns" about the black unemployment rate. As reported by Frank Morris in the Washington Times, the 43 members of the CBC, who represent primarily black constituencies, bear a large share of responsibility for neglect of this issue. These black legislators, writes Morris, have "consistently opposed tough enforcement of laws against employing illegal aliens."
As they have ever done, this claque of black politicians march in lockstep with all those who promote and protect illegal immigration. Not only are they in agreement with Obama's policies that have stopped immigration enforcement in the workplace, they have been "front and center in the effort to enact amnesty for millions of illegals." As Morris says, an amnesty bill "would provide nothing for black Americans except more competition for jobs, educational opportunities and increasingly scarce government resources." Remember, every time the overflow of immigrants forces a hospital to close its facilities, the poorest Americans are most negatively affected.
In 2006, in Immigration: Betrayal By Black Elites, I described the obnoxiously indifferent attitude of several black politicians who were called upon for help by displaced, unemployed blacks. It was clear then, as it is now, that notables such as Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters and John Conyers seek only to expand their constituent base. As racial demographics change in their districts, they scramble only to court and win the confidence of the new foreigners. These deceivers cleverly make alliances with the elites of the incoming ethnic groups, disregarding the needs of those whom they perceive as their diminishing black base. However much they might bleat when it comes time to win the votes of fellow blacks, the typical black politician has never had an interest in anything except the protection of his/her career and political turf.
After all, when your district is filling up with Guatemalans, Ecuadoreans and Mexicans, you can't be expected to worry yourself about jobs these invaders are taking from the American citizens who initially put you in office.
Black politicians' message to the folks: Has the salary you relied on for years been cut in half and then in half again? Don't complain. That's how the market works. Just come down off your high horse of demanding that $12 an hour that the market once paid, and settle for $3.35, like a good alien, and the problem will be solved.
Unfortunately, there is no recourse to be had from that other political party, the one to which members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not belong. These Republicans have been among the most determined to keep the country's borders wide open for immigrants of all kinds, as their candidates for office spend most of the time flip-flopping on the subject.
Leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans would rather the matter not be brought up at all. On the immigration front, both of these political parties share the same need for ongoing importation of foreigners, that is, cheap labor for the constituencies of the Republicans and lots of brown and black prospective voters for the Democrats.
The Democrats' pitch to blacks, that works successfully, goes something like this: Since you owe us for your "liberation" and "civil rights," you should stick with us and our candidates, who will continue to devise laws, that will form policies, that will create programs to be engineered in your favor. If you don't continue your alliance with us, you might very well slip back into slavery, and fail to benefit from our spurious "job training" projects. After all, you can't trust those other folks to take care of you.
As revolting as this might sound, a look at the Republican offering might very well turn your stomach even more. For this is the War Party, and the employment they offer blacks, or any other unemployed, is grounded in a counterfeit "patriotism." Not just full employment, but all good things come through warmaking.
The Republicans would have all the idle apply for work in Uncle Sam's Army. A report issued last year by these advocates for the "greatest military in the world" laments the fact that so many thousands of American youth are "ineligible" to serve those whom Andrew Bacevich calls the "knaves and fools" who run the military.
It seems that most American youth lack the type of education required to handle today's magnificent military machine. They have enough education, mind you, to die as cannon fodder, but anybody can fill that bill. Our illustrious military leaders, however, want to maim and kill the better educated, those who can decipher all that intelligent technological weaponry, along with the grunts from Mississippi and Georgia, who cannot. You should have at least a high school diploma before you lose an eye or leg, have your brains scrambled, or die.
Another factor that makes so many of the young ineligible, the good Republicans tell us, is early involvement in criminal activities. The Generals would prefer such youth, before embarking on their private criminal careers, to wait until given the appropriate official weaponry and pointed in the direction of Arabia, instead of striking out on their own.
This political party also acts as the country's religious guide. Only its members understand the mind of their peculiar, inscrutable God. We're supposed to take seriously their "pro-life" admonitions, as they eagerly send their warrior sons off to kill the in utero babies of Arab women.
In their determination to "reach out" and to demonstrate their desire to uplift the unfortunates out of the depths of unemployment, members of this Republican party make a fuss about "free enterprise," but do not support such a system with their policies. They are not admirers of entrepreneurial talent, as such, but are worshippers of ruthless profiteering. Not only do they grant sainthood to the grossest corporate pirates, some of them have even been known to apologize to said pirates, when any are taken to task for criminal negligence and outright incompetence.
To these Republicans, there is no such thing as unethical corporate behavior. And anyone who says otherwise is a degenerate Commie. The market, you see, "channels" behavior and thereby keeps it honest. To profit, the businessman must follow the rules of the magic "market," which automatically will keep him on the straight and narrow, thus maintaining his integrity. Human nature or the temptations of the flesh do not come into play in the magic market. At least not in Republican la-la-land. In this land, there is no such thing as an inept corporate executive. And certainly no such thing as a malevolent money-grubbing one, no matter what the Bernie Madoff case might imply.
Just suggest to one of these Republicans that there's something obscene about the escalating sizes of executive pay packages, given the ratio to an average worker's salary, and then stand back for the tidal wave of epithets that will ensue, ranging from you being a denizen of "class envy," to being a brainwashed leftoid redistributionist. For it's not innate human greed, you see, but government interference, via Regulations, that makes business people turn bad. Our recent financial troubles do not stem from the revocation of the Glass-Steagall Act, as we are led to believe, but from exactly that kind of legal meddling with the marketplace.
Let's return to that initial grievance about black candidates now running for political office, and the dire news that many, if not most of them, will not attain their goals. All of these cynical descendants of slaves will be running as members of one of the two corrupt political parties. So, when assessing the overall welfare of the unemployed, would it make a dime's worth of difference whether or not any of these scurrilous flim-flam artists are elected? Let's see what happens to the nation if no blacks end up as winners in elections this year.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
