 |
Log In
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Search Blog Entries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blog Entries
|
|
|
Call Barack the Wahhhhhmbulance! |
| Posted by: tony on 05/20/2008 01:07 AM (Read: ) |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said on Monday that Republican critics should stop picking on his wife Michelle.
"These folks should lay off my wife," Obama said in an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America."
Or what will you do, Barry? Negotiate with them?
How about this, if Michelle doesn't like the political heat, why doesn't she get out of the political kitchen. If she kept her thoughts to herself, they would not be able to be used as political ad fodder.
|
|
Filed in :: Uncategorized |
Permalink
| Discuss (0)
|
|
But Is He Black Enough? |
| Posted by: tony on 08/20/2007 08:53 PM (Read: ) |
I was reading Leonard Pitts from the Miami Herald who is syndicated in my local paper. He is talking about the discussion of whether Barak Obama is "black enough".
Leonard states:
Forget `black enough'
For the benefit of Tucker Carlson, the ''black enough'' question proceeds from the lamentable fact that some black people have subconsciously bought into centuries of racist rhetoric that holds black to be synonymous with hardscrabble, poorly educated and scorned by whites.
Obama is upwardly mobile, Harvard educated and beloved by many liberal whites. So he is regarded by some with suspicion. However, as he noted in Las Vegas, he is certainly physically definable as a black man and his legislative history shows an affinity for issues of importance to black people.
So the question of whether he's ''black enough'' reveals more about the people asking than the man being asked. Liberal and black and conservative and white, we have projected our own realities upon this guy, have written like mad upon the blank slate.
This is a legitimate question. Because Barak Hussein Obama is a blank slate. He's handsome, articulate, charismatic, and has really no record to run on. As a matter of fact, the record he has is dismal.
What he does have is brown skin.
Professional boxing has long been dominated by talented black and hispanic men. There has always been talk about the "great white hope" who is the white man who will, against all odds, rise to the top and beat all the black and brown men for the world championship.
Barak Obama is the "great black hope".
Since this is his primary attribute, and whether he likes it or not, he's running on it, it's reasonable to discuss it.
I think the big question of "whether he's black enough" is tied to the question "is institutional racism over in America?" If we can elect a black president (or even vice president) we can say with a certain degree of confidence, that yes, institutional racism is over in America.
When John Kennedy was elected president it marked the fact that institutional anti-Catholicism was over in America. Oh, you have pockets of anti-Catholicism here and there in certain areas, but the election of Kennedy proved that people had gotten over the anti-Catholic bigotry and were able to vote for a Catholic for president.
There are those for which the end of institutional racism would mark the end of their careers. Race Entepreneurs™ like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to mind. It is in their best interest to perpetuate the myth that institutional racism is alive and well because we didn't really elect a black president, we elected an "uncle tom" or an "oreo" or whatever the latest term of derision is for someone who is believed to be "black on the outside and white on the inside".
I for one would love for Obama to prove his black bona fides. It might even be worth it to vote for him if I thought it would put the likes of Jackson and Sharpton out of business.
|
|
Filed in :: Uncategorized |
Permalink
| Discuss (0)
|
|
Why Can't Stupid Ideas Stay Dead |
| Posted by: tony on 06/22/2007 12:05 AM (Read: ) |
 Like the Night of the Living Dead, some stupid bills just won't stay in their graves.
Sister Toldjah tells us about the resurrection (or "zombification", if that is a word) of the "Fairness" Doctrine.
ADVISORY: New Report Documenting Conservative Domination of Political Talk Radio
Conference call to discuss new CAP, Free Press report
Washington, DC – A major new study of all the news/talk radio stations controlled by the top five commercial station owners documents in detail the massive imbalance between conservative and progressive talk radio broadcast each weekday.
The study, set for release this Thursday, June 21st, 2007, by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans and providing a range of information on important public issues.
Statistical analysis of all 10,506 licensed-stations reveals how media ownership and consolidation over the past decade has contributed significantly to the one-sided nature of political talk radio. The report outlines specific policy solutions to address the imbalance and ensure that the commercial use of public airwaves serves local and community needs.
If this wasn't so chilling, I'd find it humorous.
I used to listen to the local AM talkers in my local area. We had a conservative talk radio station, that pre-empted the talking for every local sports event, we had a conservative station that didn't do that, and we had a sports talk radio channel.
One day I tuned into the "non-preempted conservative talk station" and discovered it had morphed into "progressive talk radio" and it features Air America.
I was curious about what they were talking about, so I tuned in. I was treated to one screechy, hate-filled woman bashing Bush after another. And they really didn't have their facts right.
It wasn't even entertaining. So after a couple of days, I turned it off and never returned.
Liberal talk radio crashes and burns, simply because it's not entertaining. The ideas don't sell. When I listened to Air America that couple of days, the only advertiser I heard was Mother Jones Magazine. What advertiser wants to advertise on a program with that kind of message...
Screechy Host: "Bush is in bed with the eeeeeevil corporations which are sucking this country dry with their corporate welfare!!!"
Smooth Announcer: "This program was brought to you by IBM"
Yeah, right.
The other thing is, liberal talk radio appeals to victims. Victims don't make anything of themselves, they are too busy being victims. Hence, victims don't have a lot of disposable income, therefore liberal talk radio is not a "target rich environment" for any advertiser wanting to make money.
So I'll go for the Fairness Doctrine as soon as they amend it to include any educational institution which receives public funds.
Update: Fred weighs in on the Fairness Doctrine.
Insiders say it was the collapse of the radio show "Air America" that led to this attempt to retool the Fairness Doctrine as a form of de facto censorship. I guess the idea is that, if you can't compete in the world of ideas, you pass a law that forces radio stations to air your views. In effect, it would force a lot of radio stations to drop some talk show hosts -- because they would lose money providing equal airtime to people who can’t attract a market or advertisers. |
|
Filed in :: Uncategorized |
Permalink
| Discuss (0)
|
|
We Have A Benevolent Communist Dictatorship In Our Home |
| Posted by: tony on 08/20/2006 01:08 PM (Read: ) |
Today when I was sitting in Dunkin' Donuts I got to thinking about a conversation I had with our daughters while my family was in the car traveling from shopping.
It seems that my younger girl was ticked off that my older girl got a new pair of jeans, and she didn't get anything (her school clothes were purchased the previous week). She gave the standard "kid response" to many things that happen in their life:
"It isn't fair!!!"
I said: "No honey it isn't fair. And sometimes it won't be fair, because as long as you live in our house, you will be living in a benevolent communist dictatorship. It is the purest 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' that you will ever find. If you need jeans, we'll buy them for you. If your sister needs braces for $5000.00 we'll buy them for her. That doesn't mean we owe you $4960.00. It means we'll use the resources at our disposal to make sure you're taken care of to the best of our ability".
Communism works for our family. It works because we have dictatorial power, and more importantly because we love the members of our commune. We are also able to determine the difference between wants and needs. We will provide the needs like food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, etc. We may provide the wants such as a new mp3 player, certain fashionable clothes, makeup, special meals and ingredients to prepare them, etc. We will not provide those wants chat we consider dangerous such as piercings, tattoos, birth control, unsupervised parties, alcohol and drugs, etc.1.
Communism works for us. And it works for us mainly because we love each other, and we have each other's best interest in mind.
What got me thinking about this was the conversation I overheard at the next table between two women in their 30's. One of them actually was dressed in a tie-dyed T-shirt and they were railing about how bad the Bush administration was and how important it was to get him out of office.
A quote tie-dye-lady made, got me thinking about the conversation with my children:
This country has been brainwashed into thinking that socialism is bad. They say (sneering) it will lead to communism!"
I held my tongue. I definitely think it's impolite to inject myself into a conversation in which I'm not included, especially one between women. I, as a manly man, generally treat women (even clueless liberal women) with respect. What I would have liked to say is: "That the university systems can graduate people as clueless as you about the way the world works, says volumes about its failure."
Those who think socialism and communism are good things deny basic human nature. Most discussions about socialism start with "if only...", instead of looking at people as they are warts and all.
Our family works because we love each other. The "producers" love the "non-producers" because we know through our love and guidance, they will grow into "producers", "producers" who will love their own little "non-producers" and take care of them until they can produce.
If you have a few non-producers, it's not a problem. Some families even do well with 10 or so non-producers, and one family even does ok with 16 non-producers.
Now, imagine 30 non-producers for every 2 producers. Pretty soon you simply run out of resources. There aren't enough hours in a day to earn enough to take care of all the non-producers. Now add to that the fact that those wants that I identified above are redefined as "needs". Add to that, that when giving our money to non-producers, it can be used for booze, drugs, and other things that are not only not essential, but are downright dangerous.
The second problem with it is that there is no incentive for those whose livlihoods rely on the administration of these programs to finally "succeed" and make each and every one of the non-producers self-sufficient. The more people that they can convince the government "need" their services, the more of the administrators they can hire to "help" the poor.
This whole "social program" thing is slated for failure, because success in any form minimizes the reliance on those social programs.
What makes socialism and communism fail is simply human nature.
--
|
|
Filed in :: Uncategorized |
Permalink
| Discuss (0)
|
|
|
|
|
