Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=all]You don’t like 50 cent and Jay-Z?[/quote]
All: I liked Jay Z back when he was slinging rock and before he married that talentless hack, Beyonce. You do know he’s officially dropped the hyphen between the Jay and the Z, right? That rap shit’s no fun when you corporatize it, monetize it and take it all up-market and shit.
Gotta keep it real, baby! Fitty and Jay Z are cheap corporate whores, just like Bieber and Lady Gaga, but that’s a discussion for another thread.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] The deployment of race-positive social programs institutionalized the underclass and created a series of perverse incentives, not least of which was the common practice of having ever more children because the state essentially “paid” you to do so.[/quote]
Welfare is not race positive but income and asset based.
I don’t think that welfare paid women to have kids. But it make made is less painful to be reproductively responsible.
You can’t expect teenagers and 20 somethings in destitute situations to be sexually responsible. All they have to do is screw like rabbits. And young girls look for love when there’s nothing else. For young uneducated men, scoring girls is the thing to do. Witness the military despite the edicts from commanders.
But welfare is much better now that fathers are pursued for payments.
We could have avoided a lot of pain by having aggressive, proactive sex education, pills and condoms available for free at school. Science shows that it works.[/quote]
FIH: I think you misunderstand the meaning of “race-positive” versus “race neutral” government social policies. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued the difference far more eloquently than I ever could, and I refer you to his writings on this, along with his very prescient forecast about the outcome and future of the black family and community.
Yes, welfare (in its previous iteration) was race-positive. Yes, it did, in essence, pay for procreation. There is extensive reporting on this, the same reports serving as the underpinnings for welfare reform.
As I said earlier, I believe Sex Ed is an excellent idea. But, to gain traction, you are going to have to attack an element of Black culture that lionizes violence, misogyny and the exploitation of women. Good luck with that and I’m not saying that sarcastically. As Steele points out, Blacks are part of a “protected” class and to speak out about the obvious issues is to run the risk of being labeled a racist.
ParticipantScaredy: No, not completely unreasonable. But what other things contributed to that situation you reference?
And, your argument presupposes that the $20k check gets spent wisely.
A good friend of mine does scouting/recruiting for a Big Ten school. He has told me, repeatedly, about visiting homes all over the country, where people live in fairly abject circumstances, but there’s a plasma big screen TV, a nice ride outside and the kids are sporting iPhones and expensive kicks.
Problem is more thorny than any of us imagine and my concern would be reparations simply becomes another gubment handout.
Participant[quote=squat300]Was not slavery and the years subsequent a far greater disgrace than internment during wartime?
Have we as a nation ever done anything to redress the wrong?
Affirmative action, I guess…not much of an apology.[/quote]
Scaredy: The issue is complicated by a couple key facts. The Union forces were fighting against slavery (among other issues), and over 300,000 Union soldiers died in the American Civil War. The Confederate States of America were economically devastated by the war.
So, how does one assess reparations? Who pays? Does the US Government pay? The same government that expended huge amounts of blood (the Civil War remains the bloodiest in American history, with casualties exceeding ALL other wars combined) and treasure restoring the Union?
Do you levy the Southern states that comprised the Confederacy? Who gets paid (how does one assess the validity of a claim)? On this last one, the recent Pigford fiasco is instructive. If you haven’t heard about this debacle, it’s worth your time to read up on it. The road to hell and good intentions and all.
Participant[quote=ctr70]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html?mod=hp_opinion
Here is an opinion piece in the WSJ from Shelby Steele that really nails it all. He is a black scholar at Stanford and very articulate. Would love to see this guy debate Al Sharpton.[/quote]
That was an excellent opinion piece. Sadly, it will either be ignored by those who should read it most, or Mr. Steele will be derided as “not authentically black” or a sellout.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Allan, I think there is plenty of blame to go around.
But where is the government in providing birth control and family planning? Do we want poor destitute people to have kids who will become criminals. How about looking at the source.
You said something about destroying the black family. How about teaching young black girls family planning skills and providing them the means (super cheap and easily within reach) to control their own bodies?[/quote]
FIH: Hey, couldn’t agree more. But the government bears quite a bit of responsibility here. The deployment of race-positive social programs institutionalized the underclass and created a series of perverse incentives, not least of which was the common practice of having ever more children because the state essentially “paid” you to do so.
ParticipantFIH: But we have made progress. Tremendous progress. The problem is someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson decrying the parlous state of race relations in this country, when the facts tell a far different story. They’re peddling a false narrative and manufactured outrage for self-aggrandizement and personal gain.
The George Zimmermans of the world aren’t the gravest threat to black youth. Other black youths are. Why isn’t Sharpton screaming about that? You know and I know.
Do I believe profiling is a panacea? Nope, it’s simply a tool, to be used with other tools.
Do I believe racism is dead in America? Nope. But I do honestly believe we are making progress every day.
And the Sharptons and Jesse Jackson’s deter and detract, not advance, that progress.
ParticipantOuttamojo: Totally agree with you. He did not. However, between the Cervini case and the Trayvon Martin case, I don’t see some sudden tsunami of these type shootings.
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law has been thrown around quite a bit, but it was not a factor in the case. In the Cervini case, the shooter (per the law) should have given ground, but did not. The law is as imperfect as those people adjudicating it, but I shouldretain, within reason, the right to defend me and mine from harm.
Participant[quote=outtamojo][quote=squat300]
“The message is that we can all go out and get guns and feel anybody that we feel is threatening us and lie about the fact,” said Jim Cervini,…”That, in a nutshell, is what I personally fear the most about the Zimmerman shooting.
Being in law enforcement is tough enough with training so when ordinary citizens try to play cop bad things seem to happen.
Supposedly they are neighbors.[/quote]“When seconds count, the police are only minutes away…”
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]We may profile but we should not condone it or even talk casually about it. Certain things are just not acceptable. And it’s not ok for profiling to be part of institutions such as the police.
Blogstar said kids are not racist. I pretty much agree. Racist parents bring up racist kids. Younig people are better than the older generations.
For those who think that profiling or “intuition” is ok, how about profiling based on other parts of “looks” such as beauty, weight, height, fashion, etc…?[/quote]
How about FBI profilers? I don’t think you’re approaching profiling from quite the right perspective. I want law enforcement to profile, if they’re using good intel and good inputs. I want cops using their intuition (which is a product of training and experience). As a former soldier, I’ll tell you that instinct and intuition saved my happy ass numerous times. You ignore such things at your peril.
Ask any good intel operator if he’d rather have intel developed from SIGINT/ELINT (Signals Intelligence/Electronic Intelligence) input or HUMINT (Human Intelligence).
ParticipantCtr: Wow. Amazing post and good on you for having the balls to post it.
I made some of the same points to a liberal friend and she airily dismissed it as being factually incorrect (it wasn’t) and then saying I should be careful about such comments, lest I be perceived as a racist.
And that’s how the game is played. No facts, please, and, if you bring facts, well, you must be a racist.
I want to retch every time I see the Good Reverend Sharpton. I wonder why none of his colleagues on MSNBC every bring up Tawana Brawley or Crown Heights. Then I remember: It’s a game. If you don’t play along and mouth the appropriate slogans with the appropriate fervor, then you run the real risk of the “R word” being appended to you. Like the scarlet letter.
Participant[quote=squat300]Juries never find any particular truth.
The only question they answer is whether doubt exists and whether the doubt is reasonable.
Jury might think Zimmerman attacked Martin, but have some doubt, and acquit.
It is only ever about doubts, uncertainties and reasonable possibilities….[/quote]
Scaredy: ALL juries, or simply those involved in criminal cases?
Participant[quote=squat300]”Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”
why do black males commit crimes at higher rates?[/quote]
Scaredy: Daniel Patrick Moynihan had some very poignant and very prescient thoughts on this, along with his views on the damage that race- positive (versus race-neutral) government policies would cause.
We destroyed the black family and with it the black community and created a permanent and pernicious underclass.
Sadly, this, along with politicians (both GOP and Dem) wanting to be perceived as strongly in support of “Law & Order” policies, like mandatory sentencing and Three Strikes, has criminalized an entire segment of our society.
For the record, I still think it’s about class and not just race.
ParticipantCardiff: Now, imagine for a second you’re a second-term president and that you’re beset on all sides with a variety of problems, both domestic and foreign policy related. Your strategy is not only being called into question by your opponents in the GOP, but erstwhile allies in your own party.
Your approval numbers are sinking, you’re facing the admittedly difficult implementation of your signature piece of legislation (which is highly unpopular with the populace at large) and you’re heading into the mid-terms where a lackluster base is the norm and not the exception.
How would one fire up a key segment of that base? A key segment that self-identifies with this particular president based on race?
-
AuthorPosts
