Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

The conflicts between blacks and Hispanics deserves more attention. I managed to find one article on the phenomenon:

http://www.vdare.com/francis/blacks_clashing.htm

Unfortunately, the article's links to a Washington Times three-part series on the subject don't work - the Times must have taken 'em offline.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at January 19, 2008 09:03 PM

I wonder how they distinguish between legal and illegal union members at the Democratic caucuses being held in the gambling places?

Posted by davod at January 19, 2008 09:05 PM

Is the ultimate end of the Democrat party to be every one who votes as a Democrat, voting for himself as a write in? Seriously, if they continue to split into smaller and smaller voting blocks or interest groups, isn't that where it will all end?

1 man, 1 vote, for himself.

Posted by Steve at January 20, 2008 05:46 AM

Steve, not to worry. One day there will be a crisis so terrible that Captain Jack Sparrow will break tradition and vote for Keira Knightley.

Posted by McGehee at January 20, 2008 07:50 AM

Excellent words from Obama today, addressing a black church congregation:

For most of this country’s history, we in the African-American community have been at the receiving end of man’s inhumanity to man. And all of us understand intimately the insidious role that race still sometimes plays – on the job, in the schools, in our health care system, and in our criminal justice system.

And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King’s vision of a beloved community.

We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.

Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media. And last week, it even crept into the campaign for president, with charges and counter-charges that served to obscure the issues instead of illuminating the critical choices we face as a nation.

Good stuff. I hope he simply keeps being who he is, Presidential ambitions aside. Whether he wins or loses, he argues for something better.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at January 20, 2008 10:07 AM

Here is a link the entire speech Toast_n_Tea quoted from.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obama_at_Ebenezer_Two_calls_for_unity.html

The whole speech is worth reading. And anyone who thinks the Democrats are splitting into different camps might find the whole speech particularly interesting.

Posted by at January 20, 2008 10:47 AM

I like this,

This is something that might be a problem, but it's not something most of those listening will change. Nor would a change benefit them much.

A bigger problem is that as a group, African-Americans support the hip-hop, gang banger lifestyle and call young black men and women who go to college and get jobs Uncle Tom's or Sell Outs. I didn't read that somewhere. I've seen it repeatedly over the last 35 years having hired and or worked with members of the high school thugs and the college students and graduates.

I've even seen it inside two different families I've been around in that time. In one case, the father thought his son was a sell out, because he'd rather work at IBM, than do manual labor. How can any group of any kind, rise above todays economic level with thinking like that?

If Obama could solve that problem, he'd be doing something. Of course most of the black college graduates I know, won't be voting for a Democrat. Hmmm, could there be a reason why educated, hard working blacks aren't voting to support the liberal plantation?

Posted by Steve at January 20, 2008 02:04 PM

What is the liberal plantation? Are Senators Clinton, Obama, or Edwards connected to it?

Posted by at January 20, 2008 02:12 PM

no name,
It's actually a term I first heard from a young black guy who delivered pizzas for me over 30 tears ago. But it refers to what the liberals want the minorities to keep living on. It's a system where they, the liberals, want to take care of minorities via welfare, housing and free gub'ment cheese and peanut butter. It's a system where they, the libs, have kept that voting block imprisoned for the last 50 plus years. It's a system where they, the libs, have ensured the destruction of mostly minority families.

You may call it entitlements, I call it living behind the 8 ball. And yes the three you named are connected. They and most of the Dems in office over the last 50 years, are guilty of keeping it going. As are some Republicans of course. But to the Dems it is and has been prime voter land for decades. Is this all news to you?

I notice you ignored everything I wrote in 4 paragraphs and cherry picked those two words from the end of last sentence. No comment whatsoever about anything else that I wrote, except those two words?

Odd.

And before you say I'm a racist and a bigot think about this. It's not ME that says these people can't get by without welfare, it's the DNC and their liberal policies.

Posted by Steve at January 20, 2008 05:49 PM

About cherry picking: I understood everything else you wrote. I just didn't know what you meant by the term liberal plantation. Thank you for explaining. I admit it sounded odd to think of an African-American community activist, or a first lady, or a trial laywer, as running a plantation, but now I understand what you mean.

It still seems strange to compare welfare recipients to slaves living on a plantation, as the slaves who lived on plantations were brutally oppressed by evil men who were empowered by the full force of the law, while welfare recipients are being given the option of taking assistance, assistance offered by people (and paid for by voters) who have intentions which, if nothing else, are moral and good.

Posted by at January 20, 2008 06:29 PM

Of course most of the black college graduates I know, won't be voting for a Democrat.

If, as I assume, you include Obama in this category, and you are trying to generalize your observation to have any kind of statistical validity, you really know nothing about the support Obama has in this particular group, nothing. Check out some black blogs and tune into black talk radio. And you really shouldn't be waving your ignorance around for everyone to see.

If on the other hand you were referring to what happens if Clinton is the nominee, you may be right.

Posted by Offside at January 20, 2008 07:23 PM

This is something that might be a problem, but it's not something most of those listening will change. Nor would a change benefit them much.

What an absolutely superior, arrogant and know it all statement. And of course Steve is such a recognized authority on African Americans. And God Forbid, he is certainly no bigot.

Posted by Offside at January 20, 2008 07:29 PM

Offside,
I'll take take you first. Reread what I said,

Of course most of the black college graduates

I know,

won't be voting for a Democrat.

There is no statistical data, or blog, or talk show that I need to refer to, to get information for the people that

I KNOW,

that will clarify their telling me how they will vote. There is no ignorance involved. Even if they've lied to me, at the time, they said what they said.

I do not, of course, include Obama in what I said, because I do not know him. I also did not include Ken Hamblin, Jesse Jackson, Thomas Sowell or Al Sharpton. I'm pretty sure I know how they'll vote too, but again I don't know them.

.
no name,
I see little difference in the attitudes of the legal slave owners and the politicians.

Both the slave owners and the politicians in question, built up their wealth and power on the backs of the African Americans. The slave owners did it with laws that allowed slavery. The politicians did it by building a system that fed on itself.

If you were born on welfare, lived in the PJs and went to the nearest schools, chances are you wind up in jail and on or on welfare just like your parent(s).

Sounds like being controlled by "The Man" to me. Does it matter if "his" name is Master, or Senator? Or Congressman? Or Mr. (Madame) President?

Posted by Steve at January 20, 2008 08:57 PM

You really don't see a difference in the attitudes of someone who would whip a man until he dies, and offering a mother funds to purchase food which she can refuse?

Posted by at January 20, 2008 09:13 PM

Huh. It turns out that a year ago, Hillary Clinton used the term "liberal plantation" and Ann Coulter criticized for it -- not only was it insensitive, she said, but "calling everything a plantation, in her words, is "moronic" and "how seventh graders talk" and "race-baiting" and "a watering down of what slavery was".
http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/video/yourworld-20060117.mov

Posted by at January 20, 2008 09:31 PM

Nameless Cowardly One, if the whip and the food are being used to the same purpose, then you should not be amazed if I don't see any difference between the attitudes of those who hold them. To wit, both are used to deprive those on the recieving end of their natural liberty and to expropriate what the holder demands, be it labor or votes.

Posted by Blacksmith at January 20, 2008 10:29 PM

Someone offered welfare can refuse it - they have not been deprived of their liberty.

A politician who votes for a law relating to welfare will either be supported by his constituents, or he will be voted out. The law will remain the law of the land, or it will be rescinded, all according to the whims of the voters -- no votes are being "expropriated".

A metaphor is one thing, but it sounds like this is more than just a metaphor for you. Are you seriously arguing that giving an impoverished person charity is equivalent to enslaving someone and whipping them to death?

Posted by at January 20, 2008 11:40 PM

Steve is pointing out pretty much the same thing as Obama himself has touched upon earlier (think about Obama's comments on his own drug use in his book). Steve went a step further by saying something Obama probably wants to but wouldn't survive politically saying out loud that's all.

I'm not surprised that made him (Steve as an Obama stand-in) into a lightning-rod for denial.

Nameless:
Refusal of welfare hand-outs. Right. Imagine you've been born, raised, and taught to expect hand-outs. In fact it's not even called hand-outs it's called "justice" or "equality" or some such. Yup a few do refuse it even so but to most that wouldn't even look like an option, it would look like downright insanity and absurdity.

Water flows downhill so what do you expect to happen when the time comes that absolutely everyone except a small group at the top is only waiting for hand-outs? Do you really want to vote for such a future? If so do you do it because you expect to be at the top looking down?

Posted by Habitat Hermit at January 21, 2008 03:28 AM

A bigger problem is that as a group, African-Americans support the hip-hop, gang banger lifestyle and call young black men and women who go to college and get jobs Uncle Tom's or Sell Outs.

Any person who can say this is either a bigot or an ignoramus of mighty proportion.

The kay phrase Steve needs to reflect on is as group . It slipped out of him, likely inadvertently. I won't call Steve a racist, but he's getting close, because that's what it is when you ascribe stereotypical views to a group.

And it's certainly not true since young educated African Americans are supporting the first black president of the Havard Law Review.

Sellout indeed. More likely Steve is just afraid; afraid that the hip-hop blacks might just follow a liberal role model out Steve's so called liberal plantation, and thus ruining the stereotype.

And kudos to no-name for calling him out on the ridiculous analogy between a real plantation and this liberal plantation BS. Maybe a taste of a whip might make some feel difference, especially since they seem to lack the mental capacity to tell the difference.

Posted by Offside at January 21, 2008 06:54 AM

And kudos to no-name for calling him out on the ridiculous analogy between a real plantation and this liberal plantation BS.

It's called a "metaphor," for those unfamiliar with the concept. It's a very apt one.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 21, 2008 07:15 AM

Steve said I see little difference in the attitudes of the legal slave owners and the politicians.

Blacksmith said if the whip and the food are being used to the same purpose, then you should not be amazed if I don't see any difference between the attitudes of those who hold them. To wit, both are used to deprive those on the recieving end of their natural liberty and to expropriate what the holder demands, be it labor or votes.

Rand, neither of the above quotes is an example of a metaphor. Both of the above quotes seem to literally be saying that those who give out welfare have the same attitudes as those who enslaved others. Maybe Steve and Blacksmith didn't mean to be saying it that way, but it sure sounds like that's what they are saying.

As for welfare metaphorically depriving people of liberty, I want to complain about pastry chef plantation. Their dastardly chocolate confections are too tempting - they deprive too many of us of our ability to say no. How dare they enslave us like that! Filling the air with the delicious smells is truly no different than putting us in chains, separating us from our families after abusing our children and raping our wives, feeding us almost nothing, housing us in a shed, whipping us at any whim, and working us all day long until we die. Isn't that a great metaphor?

Posted by at January 21, 2008 07:59 AM

Nameless Cowardly One,

The liberty of which I speak is the liberty to act according to one's conscience, to grab any and all opportunities for self-advancement, and to prosper to one's own individual limits without hindrance from others. The liberty without which most other liberties become swiftly forgotten.

The manacles a slaveholder used were cheap iron, easily recognized, and what to do about them readily apparent. The manacles you offer are gilded and padded to make them more attractive, but are made of the wearers' imagination and are thus much more binding. It is not the one to whom you're offering the cake that is being enslaved physically, you're merely telling them that they cannot reasonably hope to aspire to be a chef--OTHERWISE you'd be telling them to go to a library or school, read a cookbook, and make their own cake. Enslavement of the mind, NCO. To match your physical enslavement of the ones who make possible your boundless generosity with things that do not belong to you.

Posted by Blacksmith at January 21, 2008 08:44 AM

Offside and anonymous, I don't see the point of the accusations of stereotyping and racism. Either Steve is accurate in his allegations or he is not. My take is that the slaveowners of the past aren't good analogies for the dependency inducing policies of today. A more accurate analogy would be some sort of "helpful" tapeworm. Namely, a parasite that believes (or perhaps feigns since some might not be sincere) it is helping the host even as it slowly kills it.

Even if the claim that various ethnic groups experience racism that denies them economic opportunity, I don't see the Democrat strategy as being useful. People need to realize that their actions and effort more than anything else will determine what opportunities they receive.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at January 21, 2008 08:59 AM

Karl,
thanks for the words. But they are being wasted. Typical of these two, they want to pick apart the words, over look what I meant and call me names.

Hey Bonehead Brothers,
feel free to call me names. You won't be the first, nor I expect the last. But let us return to what I said.

If what I said is so wrong, show me the neighborhoods in any African-American communities, nationwide where the teenagers are joining fraternities and not gangs. Or where they aren't dressing like they are in gangs anyway. Show me exactly the enclave they dress like businessmen graduated from the Ivy League and not like gangsters. Show me where these kids are booming classical music on their cars stereos and not hip-hop, gangster rap. Show me these kids streaming in to see "The Great Debaters" at the multiplex and not "2 Fast, 2 Furious, episode 13" or "Friday before the one after Next".

I drove a school bus for a year back in the early 90's after a serious illness left me unable to work full time. I got a bus full of high school kids none of the female drivers would take. They were to wild and scary.

The first day they tried to run me ragged too, but I wasn't having it. I couldn't do much individually, but I could take them back to school. That's what I did. They screamed and yelled and cussed and threatened me. But after the vice-Principal got their attention with threats of suspensions, I finished the route in relative peace.

Most of these kids dressed just like the rap stars I see on TV. They talked (cursed) like the music I hear blaring out of the cars around me. Males and females alike were pretty foul. But amazingly they came from a neighborhood, as I found out delivering them home, that was fairly middle class. They didn't emulate UP to be a pain in mom and dad's ass as teens will do. They emulated DOWN to the low life, prison thugs of the movies, TV and music.

There was a time, when black people in this country bitched and complained that white people only allowed them to act or be seen as hoods, junkies or ghetto dwellers.

Now that vision is in vogue.

And it sure as hell wasn't done by white folks. It's been self-imposed. So don't call me a bigot, when my eyes, ears and personal experiences show me these things everyday.

I'd actually be a bigot and racist if I thought it was normal or that they, African-Americans, didn't have the ability to overcome this kind of stuff. Quite the contrary, I think it can be overcome.

But too many African-Americans have been sold a bill of goods about themselves, their plight in life and who is to blame for their woes. Right now their woes are compounded by the "gangsta" lifestyle love fest among black youth. And youth to me now is anyone under about 35!

If the liberals are so good to these minorities why, after 50 plus years of governmental goodness and caring, why are they no better off? Why are there more black men in the prison population per capita now than in 1960? Why are there fewer intact families among them now than then?

Look up the words bigot and racist, before you throw them around. Or at a minimum listen to the meanings, not just the words people are spreading around and using.

And fellas, before you pick this apart too, KMA, my big ol', red neck, America lovin', upward looking @ss. I'm done this time explaining anything to you.

Posted by Steve is done at January 21, 2008 01:23 PM

I have been informed via e-mail, from a friend here and not by our kind host, that my last sentence was too strident and too rude. I reread my blurb and find that it was over the top.

I apologize if anyone was offended. But then again, what else would you expect from a racist and bigot?

Posted by Steve at January 21, 2008 03:36 PM

Steve, I don't think you are a racist or a bigot. I do think however that you are buying into a certain narrative, often repeated for example on talk radio and reinforced by certain personal experiences that you relate. Narratives whose effect is to perpetuate a stereotype and harden our thinking.

I've been called a bigot here as well, so at least in this predicament, we are now on the same side.

Posted by Offside at January 21, 2008 04:25 PM

Post a comment