I'll preface this by saying that I've never attended a Tea Party demonstration. I do like the initial principles that were espoused by the Tea Party: limiting government, promoting free enterprise, and protecting individual freedom. I am skeptical about where this movement may be headed, given the philosophical predilictions of those who have jumped on board with the Tea Partiers in recent months.
Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the Tea Party, where it can do a lot of good, and what it needs to do to avoid being "hijacked" by people who don't understand the true principles of the movement.
Let's be real, here...the Tea Party Movement is too large to be considered a bunch of "fringe right-wing wingnuts". This movement is something that has appeal to conservatives, libertarians, and third-way/centrist Democrats who saw the prosperity that came with the 1990's and the continuation of non-expansionist government policy.
There are those who think that it is a racist movement, since it is anti-Obama. I'm a bit tired of this rhetoric. As long as Obama is black, there will always be someone who claims any attempt to push back against his agenda is rooted in some kind of blatantly racist motive. Since Obama will always be black, there will always be someone who pulls the race card to discredit the push-back.
While I'm sure there are those who may hold such sentiments within the movement (as there are in all political parties), it is an obviously small minority. There are too many people who favor the Tea Party principles that it isn't some kind of tiny fringe group who happen to make a lot of noise. Get over it, race-baiters, the Tea Party principles of good, limited government are more in line with Ron Paul than with Pat Robertson, despite what others may want you to think.
While many may knock Sarah Palin, she said some things that many people across the majority of the political spectrum (except for dedicated "progressives"). In fact, I was watching MSNBC after Palin's speech, and they had the always-thinking Lionel talking about what Palin said. I do not remember who was hosting the post-speech commentary, but I know it was someone who was a part of the left (I think it was Ed Schultz, but I could be wrong). However, Lionel told the host that in Palin's speech "she said things that, if it wasn't Sarah Palin saying them, you would agree with."
Palin's general stance on the fact that government should roll back it's size and scope is one that many, many people can agree with. Given Palin's populist appeal, she can be a lightning rod for the Tea Party Movement to push forward with more support.
The movement (and using Palin as a lightning rod) is not without faults, though.
First of all, the Tea Party Movement (in principle) should really have nothing to do with religion. However, using Palin as a lightning rod will naturally attract a lot of social conservatives. The same social conservatives who supported the Republicans who allowed government spending and budget deficits to expand on their watch for 6 years under George W. Bush. If we want to move in a different direction, we have to change fiscal thinking and reduce government's size and scope. This will require moving away from the social issues, as they are not part of the Tea Party's principles.
There are those who want to push very "Christian" ideals in the Tea Party (I guess sensing an opportunity to "start over and get it right" in their opinion). Some of the ideas I've heard tossed around have involved pushing Christianity in schools (or "keeping God in school"). I've found this to be odd, because all through my 13 years of primary education, I only found "God" to be a part of school twice...once, in Kindergarten, at a Lutheran school...and the other in 8th grade, at a Catholic school. The rest of the time, I was in public school, and I don't remember there being a God to remove...so how can we put him back if he wasn't there in the first place?
OK, obviously I was going for a little humor there, but the point is made. We can teach kids the basic morals of civilized society (which yes, I do believe are derived from religious beliefs of many different kinds...which goes to show you that religions aren't as different as some may think). Most of the people who are pushing these things are new to the Tea Party, and see it as some kind of new conservative party, instead of a push for fundamental change in governmental philosophy back to the foundation set by our founding fathers.
Secondly, the Tea Partiers must recognize that the Republicans are jumping on board because the concepts of limited government and personal freedom (sound familiar libertarians?) are part of the core of conservatism (see the Reagan quote in the subtitle of this blog)...which the Republicans moved away from over the past decade or so. They know to win back the populous, they need to adopt these aspects of the Tea Party. However, those who hold true to the Tea Party's principles need to make the politicians move to them, and not the inverse.
See, if they move towards the Republican Party in it's current state, you're moving towards such politicians as Tom Tancredo (whose stance on immigration is more than just anti-illegal immigrant), the hardline SoCons (who want to ban gay marriage and all abortions, as well as bring about more theocratic philosophy), and RINOs.
So I warn the Tea Party...stick to the principles that the majority of people believe in (which is a mostly libertarian-based philosophy with some conservative elements). Keep government's size and scope in check, allow for free enterprise for all, a strong national defense that is for defensive purposes (emphasis on "defensive"), and reforms of ineffective government policies (like current immigration laws).
Otherwise, you will allow the more extreme elements that have joined your movement to allow you to continue to be marginalized by politicians and the media elite.
As for Palin for President in 2012? I doubt it. She is better in her role as a spokesperson and rally artist for a governmental philosophy, but I do not necessarily see her as a leader of a nation, as she carries a lot of negative baggage. Then again, if she can prove to me that she is a better candidate in 2012 than she was in 2008, I might change my mind. However, right now, I can't say that I could go with her as a potential presidential candidate.
On that note (2012), I would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but that's just me :)
**Addendum To This Post - 8:16 PM**
Leslie Carbone, one of my favorite intellectuals anywhere, addresses some of my same concerns in her latest post, "The Problem With Palin", and brings up a few new issues as well.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Monday, February 8, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Freeman Says What Most Blacks Won't, and a Little History For You
Morgan Freeman stated in a recent interview that he finds Black History Month to be "ridiculous". When asked how we can get rid of racism, he plainly stated "stop talking about it."
As someone who can be classified as a "minority", I can agree with these sentiments. I do not need a special month dedicated to the history of my hispanic heritage (though there is one). I also find the concept ridiculous. History is history, and the history of blacks, whites, hispanics, and everyone else in America should be integrated into "American History", plain and simple.
Speaking of Black History Month, here is a little history they don't teach you...
Ever notice that S.B. Fuller is never mentioned in Black History text? Of course you didn't, because you probably don't know who Fuller is. Fuller, who lived from 1905-1988, was a notable black entrepreneur who founded Fuller Products Company, publisher of the New York Age and Pittsburgh Courier, head of the South Side Chicago NAACP (the same area Barack Obama represented in the Illinois State Senate), president of the National Negro Business League...and believed that it would be through capitalism, not government intervention and socialism, that black people would move ahead.
See, Fuller rose from being a poor child in rural Louisiana who dropped out of school in the 6th grade, and built his wealth on an investment of $25 that he turned into millions over several years. Fuller believed that capitalism, if utilized by the black community, could lead to civil rights and equality a lot faster than if the government mandated it. Fuller believed capitalism is colorblind, stating "It doesn't make any difference about the color of an individual's skin. No one cares whether a cow is black, red, yellow, or brown. They want to know how much milk it can produce." Mind you, he made this statement in the 50's, when racism and segregation were still rampant.
However, he made comments that angered the left-leaning black leaders at the time, which have blackballed Fuller from almost all Black History lessons.
For instance, in 1963, when inducted into the National Association of Manufacturers (the first black to be inducted), he stated "a lack of understanding of the capitalist system and not racial barriers are keeping blacks from making progress." He also stated that "If the Negro had the amount of initiative, courage, and imagination required, he could control the retail selling in his own community. Since he represents 10 percent of the population of America today, he would be able to employe 1,065,000 people. There are 1,788,325 retail establishments in America and yet in New York City, where there are over 1,000,000 Negroes, they do not own over 15 businesses which employ over 10 people."
Now, Fuller didn't state it there, but he did believe that discrimination did play a role as well. In U.S. News and World Report interview, he stated that "The Negroes have been free for 100 years. But, during that time, the white man has not told Negroes the truth. He has always taught the Negroes that they were at a disadvantage. He never told Negroes that they should do business for themselves, that they should clean up their own community and that they should accept community responsibility."
(side note...don't we still use that term "disadvantaged" for minority youth in inner cities? Fuller believed this is not the method in which you empower minorities)
In the same interview, Fuller also stated "Negroes are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin. They are discriminated against because they have not anything to offer that people want to buy."
Fuller also used to talk about he wanted blacks to stop begging the white man with "a handful of gimmes and a mouthful of much obliged".
Fuller's statements were meant as a wake-up call to blacks to start pooling their resources and go into business for themselves and empower themselves. However, black leaders saw this as "blaming the victim". Despite the fact that Fuller was essentially stating the same things that Booker T. Washington stated several decades before, black leaders (and leftist whites) saw Fuller's comments as being against their agenda because it was pro-free enterprise.
Thus, since Fuller's beliefs did not fall in line with "affirmative action" or any of the other agendas of those who advocated civil rights mandated by government intervention, his contributions to society and civil rights has slid down the Orwellian memory hole.
As someone who can be classified as a "minority", I can agree with these sentiments. I do not need a special month dedicated to the history of my hispanic heritage (though there is one). I also find the concept ridiculous. History is history, and the history of blacks, whites, hispanics, and everyone else in America should be integrated into "American History", plain and simple.
Speaking of Black History Month, here is a little history they don't teach you...
Ever notice that S.B. Fuller is never mentioned in Black History text? Of course you didn't, because you probably don't know who Fuller is. Fuller, who lived from 1905-1988, was a notable black entrepreneur who founded Fuller Products Company, publisher of the New York Age and Pittsburgh Courier, head of the South Side Chicago NAACP (the same area Barack Obama represented in the Illinois State Senate), president of the National Negro Business League...and believed that it would be through capitalism, not government intervention and socialism, that black people would move ahead.
See, Fuller rose from being a poor child in rural Louisiana who dropped out of school in the 6th grade, and built his wealth on an investment of $25 that he turned into millions over several years. Fuller believed that capitalism, if utilized by the black community, could lead to civil rights and equality a lot faster than if the government mandated it. Fuller believed capitalism is colorblind, stating "It doesn't make any difference about the color of an individual's skin. No one cares whether a cow is black, red, yellow, or brown. They want to know how much milk it can produce." Mind you, he made this statement in the 50's, when racism and segregation were still rampant.
However, he made comments that angered the left-leaning black leaders at the time, which have blackballed Fuller from almost all Black History lessons.
For instance, in 1963, when inducted into the National Association of Manufacturers (the first black to be inducted), he stated "a lack of understanding of the capitalist system and not racial barriers are keeping blacks from making progress." He also stated that "If the Negro had the amount of initiative, courage, and imagination required, he could control the retail selling in his own community. Since he represents 10 percent of the population of America today, he would be able to employe 1,065,000 people. There are 1,788,325 retail establishments in America and yet in New York City, where there are over 1,000,000 Negroes, they do not own over 15 businesses which employ over 10 people."
Now, Fuller didn't state it there, but he did believe that discrimination did play a role as well. In U.S. News and World Report interview, he stated that "The Negroes have been free for 100 years. But, during that time, the white man has not told Negroes the truth. He has always taught the Negroes that they were at a disadvantage. He never told Negroes that they should do business for themselves, that they should clean up their own community and that they should accept community responsibility."
(side note...don't we still use that term "disadvantaged" for minority youth in inner cities? Fuller believed this is not the method in which you empower minorities)
In the same interview, Fuller also stated "Negroes are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin. They are discriminated against because they have not anything to offer that people want to buy."
Fuller also used to talk about he wanted blacks to stop begging the white man with "a handful of gimmes and a mouthful of much obliged".
Fuller's statements were meant as a wake-up call to blacks to start pooling their resources and go into business for themselves and empower themselves. However, black leaders saw this as "blaming the victim". Despite the fact that Fuller was essentially stating the same things that Booker T. Washington stated several decades before, black leaders (and leftist whites) saw Fuller's comments as being against their agenda because it was pro-free enterprise.
Thus, since Fuller's beliefs did not fall in line with "affirmative action" or any of the other agendas of those who advocated civil rights mandated by government intervention, his contributions to society and civil rights has slid down the Orwellian memory hole.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Oh, Here We Go...
I was waiting for something like this to come out...that Tiger's "shunning" of being black is why he doesn't have the black community lining up to defend him like they did with O.J., Barry Bonds, etc..., and that he wouldn't be in this position if he just said "I'm black" instead of his multiracial term, "cablinasian".
See, that's the problem. You should defend someone simply because you share a race with them. Also, Woods should not have to proclaim one of his races over another to garner the support of a race. Woods should stand alone and be judged for his actions.
See, that's the problem. You should defend someone simply because you share a race with them. Also, Woods should not have to proclaim one of his races over another to garner the support of a race. Woods should stand alone and be judged for his actions.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Pre-Return Thoughts...
- If anyone thinks this will be some kind of a "historic blowout" for either candidate, you're HIGHLY delusional. Neither candidate will win by more than 2-3%. The electoral college will be close for McCain if he wins, like a "less than 20 electoral votes victory" kind of close. If Obama gets the nod in the toss-up states, he will have a victory in the electoral college that looks like Clinton's wins in 92 and 96...solid, but nothing spectacular.
- The throwing out of Republican election officials, and the intimidation of GOP voters by Black Panthers and other groups in Philadelphia is despicable...but the left won't say a word about it.
- The exit polls that showed a Kerry blowout in '04 will show an Obama blowout in '08. Ignore them, and watch the ACTUAL RETURNS.
- If the networks call the election for Obama before the polls close in the Mountain Time Zone, then the networks have reached a new low in how far in the tank for Obama they are.
- If Obama wins, consider the positive, prosperous eras of both Ronald Reagan AND Bill Clinton to be over and done with...and an economic and social malaise, brought on by socialist policies, will set in by 2012.
- I think the fact that the leftist bloggers call white people voting for McCain "racist", but 95% of black people voting for Obama (many of which cite his race as the deciding factor) is "OK" with them. I also abhor the fact that my being a hispanic who supports McCain makes me a "race traitor" of some kind, in the eyes of a few bloggers.
We'll see how things go as the returns roll in, most Eastern Time Zone polls close in 24 minutes...
- The throwing out of Republican election officials, and the intimidation of GOP voters by Black Panthers and other groups in Philadelphia is despicable...but the left won't say a word about it.
- The exit polls that showed a Kerry blowout in '04 will show an Obama blowout in '08. Ignore them, and watch the ACTUAL RETURNS.
- If the networks call the election for Obama before the polls close in the Mountain Time Zone, then the networks have reached a new low in how far in the tank for Obama they are.
- If Obama wins, consider the positive, prosperous eras of both Ronald Reagan AND Bill Clinton to be over and done with...and an economic and social malaise, brought on by socialist policies, will set in by 2012.
- I think the fact that the leftist bloggers call white people voting for McCain "racist", but 95% of black people voting for Obama (many of which cite his race as the deciding factor) is "OK" with them. I also abhor the fact that my being a hispanic who supports McCain makes me a "race traitor" of some kind, in the eyes of a few bloggers.
We'll see how things go as the returns roll in, most Eastern Time Zone polls close in 24 minutes...
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Murtha: "No question Western PA is racist"...
What an idiot. First he was wrong about the Haditha Marines. Then, he was despondent because Pelosi didn't like him as much as Steny Hoyer. Now, we've got this.
Way to motivate your state for your candidate, Jack.
Way to motivate your state for your candidate, Jack.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Whoa!
The Hillary collapse continues...
As they barnstorm through New Hampshire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband are often introduced by supporters who once backed another candidate but converted to her cause.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.
Ouch...that's got to sting for the Clinton camp. However, a few hours later came this report from Major Garrett.
Clinton also said Obama and Edwards have acted like hypocrites during the race and appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movements, saying it wasn’t hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law.
So MLK's leadership in the Civil Rights Movement wasn't what led to the Civil Rights Act, it was LBJ all along! All those marches, the beatdowns by riot police...it was really pointless. Blacks could've stayed at home, because LBJ was going to give it to them, anyway!
That's American History in Hillary's world.
(h/t NY Times Caucus Blog, The Bourbon Room)
As they barnstorm through New Hampshire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband are often introduced by supporters who once backed another candidate but converted to her cause.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.
The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.
Ouch...that's got to sting for the Clinton camp. However, a few hours later came this report from Major Garrett.
Clinton also said Obama and Edwards have acted like hypocrites during the race and appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movements, saying it wasn’t hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson’s decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law.
So MLK's leadership in the Civil Rights Movement wasn't what led to the Civil Rights Act, it was LBJ all along! All those marches, the beatdowns by riot police...it was really pointless. Blacks could've stayed at home, because LBJ was going to give it to them, anyway!
That's American History in Hillary's world.
(h/t NY Times Caucus Blog, The Bourbon Room)
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Lakota Tribe Renounces Treaties With U.S., Declare Independence
The Lakota Sioux, whose tribe is ingrained within American history due to Chiefs Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have announced formal independence from the United States and declared themselves a sovereign nation.
Native American rights activist Russell Means made the announcement at a Washington, D.C. church.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,"
Those 5 states are Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
A delegation of Lakota leaders have been visiting the embassies of Bolivia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Chile. Who wants to bet $10 that Hugo Chavez recognizes their sovereignty immediately?
Anyway, the Lakota have withdrawn from their various treaties with the United States, some of which are over 150 years old. This is apparently legal, per article six of the Constitution.
Phyllis Young, another long-time Lakota activist, tried to soothe relations by saying "We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren,"
Why am I skeptical of that statement?
Native American rights activist Russell Means made the announcement at a Washington, D.C. church.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,"
Those 5 states are Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Wyoming.
A delegation of Lakota leaders have been visiting the embassies of Bolivia, South Africa, Venezuela, and Chile. Who wants to bet $10 that Hugo Chavez recognizes their sovereignty immediately?
Anyway, the Lakota have withdrawn from their various treaties with the United States, some of which are over 150 years old. This is apparently legal, per article six of the Constitution.
Phyllis Young, another long-time Lakota activist, tried to soothe relations by saying "We are not trying to embarrass the United States. We are here to continue the struggle for our children and grandchildren,"
Why am I skeptical of that statement?
Sunday, December 16, 2007
New Addition to National Blogroll
This blog has actually been around since December of 2004, but still pumps out some really good blog posts. It's also another sign of the growth of diversity in the Republican Party and for conservative politics, in general.
Go check out Hip Hop Republican, which is what many have tagged me as being (even though I'm a fan of all kinds of music, I'm a hip-hop fan first...which may surprise some).
Go check out Hip Hop Republican, which is what many have tagged me as being (even though I'm a fan of all kinds of music, I'm a hip-hop fan first...which may surprise some).
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Democrat In Trouble Over "Buckwheat" Comment...Blames Eddie Murphy
I kid you not.
The whole controversy stems over a comment by Louisiana State Representative Carla Dartez. Rep. Dartez was speaking to Hazel Boykin and thanking her for her "get out the vote" efforts. Boykin is the mother of Jerome Boykin, President of the NAACP in Morgan City, LA.
Dartez wrapped up the conversation with the phrase "Talk to you later, Buckwheat."
Now, both Boykins are working hard to ensure Dartez isn't elected as she faces Joe Harrison in a runoff, since Dartez only won with a plurality of the vote a week ago.
Dartez's reason for using this line: She bought an Eddie Murphy tape a few days ago, and Eddie used the name Buckwheat.
Basically, she simply said that since Eddie Murphy said it, so it's O-Tay! Err, OK!
You know, I guarantee that you won't see the "macaca"-style moral outrage from Democrats on this one. I wonder why.
The whole controversy stems over a comment by Louisiana State Representative Carla Dartez. Rep. Dartez was speaking to Hazel Boykin and thanking her for her "get out the vote" efforts. Boykin is the mother of Jerome Boykin, President of the NAACP in Morgan City, LA.
Dartez wrapped up the conversation with the phrase "Talk to you later, Buckwheat."
Now, both Boykins are working hard to ensure Dartez isn't elected as she faces Joe Harrison in a runoff, since Dartez only won with a plurality of the vote a week ago.
Dartez's reason for using this line: She bought an Eddie Murphy tape a few days ago, and Eddie used the name Buckwheat.
Basically, she simply said that since Eddie Murphy said it, so it's O-Tay! Err, OK!
You know, I guarantee that you won't see the "macaca"-style moral outrage from Democrats on this one. I wonder why.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Griffin Gets The Hook
Eddie Griffin, a comedian known for playing in not-so-big hits but is a mildly funny guy nonetheless, had his act cut short at an event hosted by Black Enterprise magazine due to apparently excessive use of "the n-word". When Black Enterprise publisher Earl Graves announced Griffin being pulled, the crowd apparently gave a standing ovation.
Al Sharpton has praised Graves and Black Enterprise for trying to eliminate the use of the word.
After seeing Don Imus and Michael Richards get lambasted by Al Sharpton over their use of the word, it's nice to see that (finally) the anger and ahborration of this word is being pointed at anyone who uses it, not just those of a different race.
Al Sharpton has praised Graves and Black Enterprise for trying to eliminate the use of the word.
After seeing Don Imus and Michael Richards get lambasted by Al Sharpton over their use of the word, it's nice to see that (finally) the anger and ahborration of this word is being pointed at anyone who uses it, not just those of a different race.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Any Reason...Any Reason At All
(h/t UCV)
So now "activists" are claiming that somehow the Geico Cavemen are racist against black people. All the commercials do is lampoon "moral outrage" over stereotypes (and promote supposedly cheaper auto insurance rates).
Looks like some people can't take the joke.
So now "activists" are claiming that somehow the Geico Cavemen are racist against black people. All the commercials do is lampoon "moral outrage" over stereotypes (and promote supposedly cheaper auto insurance rates).
Looks like some people can't take the joke.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ignorance On Display
Imagine you're Boise State University running back Ian Johnson. On January 1st, you took the undefeated, and sorely underrated Boise State Broncos to a 43-42 win over the overwhelmingly-favored Oklahoma Sooners in the Fiesta Bowl. In fact, you scored the winning touchdown on the oldest trick play in the book...the "Statue of Liberty" play. Post-game, on national television, you propose to your girlfriend, who is a cheerleader on the sidelines, and she accepts.
Does the script get any better than that?
It doesn't. However, Johnson is having to hire extra security for his Saturday wedding to his college sweetheart, Chrissy Popadics, because of racial threats made to the two of them...only because Johnson is black and Popadics is white. Apparently, these threats are being made from both whites and blacks who object to such a thing as interracial marriage.
In the 21st Century, you'd think that something like this would still be going on. However, ignorance is still out there...and to be honest, I don't care if you're white, black, hispanic, asian, conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, male or female...I think we can all agree that ignorance like this has no racial, political, or gender-based boundaries. I also think that we can all agree that ignorance like this has no place in our society.
Read about this at Yahoo! Sports.
Does the script get any better than that?
It doesn't. However, Johnson is having to hire extra security for his Saturday wedding to his college sweetheart, Chrissy Popadics, because of racial threats made to the two of them...only because Johnson is black and Popadics is white. Apparently, these threats are being made from both whites and blacks who object to such a thing as interracial marriage.
In the 21st Century, you'd think that something like this would still be going on. However, ignorance is still out there...and to be honest, I don't care if you're white, black, hispanic, asian, conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, male or female...I think we can all agree that ignorance like this has no racial, political, or gender-based boundaries. I also think that we can all agree that ignorance like this has no place in our society.
Read about this at Yahoo! Sports.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Some Things Cannot be Forced
Though some people (especially many liberals) believe differently.
Example 1: The Immigration Bill, and the attempts to railroad it through by Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and George W. Bush. The American public thought it was flawed. Over half of the Senate thought it was flawed, and a growing number of those in the House thought it was flawed.
It failed, it's done and over with, and maybe now we can get to creating a more sensible, secure series of reforms on immigration.
Example 2: You can't force integration when it's not sensible. The Supreme Court's ruling on the "racial integration" plans in Louisville and Seattle was the right ruling. It's a waste of money to bus kids all over the place just to simply meet certain "race quotas". It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and is not a sensible plan.
How about this...why not bus kids to the school closest to their residential area. The exceptions being due to students who are expelled from one school and are forced to go to another, private/religious schools (who should have their own bus system if possible), and students attending magnet/TAG schools...which are few and far between compared to regular schools.
Attorney Teddy Gordon, who argued against the Louisville school district's policy, said it best...
"Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size. All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable."
Exactly, in this day and age...we need to start finding race-neutral policies, and put everyone on equal ground. That is the goal of racial equality, isn't it?
Example 1: The Immigration Bill, and the attempts to railroad it through by Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and George W. Bush. The American public thought it was flawed. Over half of the Senate thought it was flawed, and a growing number of those in the House thought it was flawed.
It failed, it's done and over with, and maybe now we can get to creating a more sensible, secure series of reforms on immigration.
Example 2: You can't force integration when it's not sensible. The Supreme Court's ruling on the "racial integration" plans in Louisville and Seattle was the right ruling. It's a waste of money to bus kids all over the place just to simply meet certain "race quotas". It is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and is not a sensible plan.
How about this...why not bus kids to the school closest to their residential area. The exceptions being due to students who are expelled from one school and are forced to go to another, private/religious schools (who should have their own bus system if possible), and students attending magnet/TAG schools...which are few and far between compared to regular schools.
Attorney Teddy Gordon, who argued against the Louisville school district's policy, said it best...
"Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size. All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable."
Exactly, in this day and age...we need to start finding race-neutral policies, and put everyone on equal ground. That is the goal of racial equality, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
