Black Shards Press – Electronic Gumbo is Our Specialty

A Country Gone Mad

04.10.2010 (6:30 am) – Filed under: England,Race,Stupidity ::

The United Kingdom is our parent country in many respects; however, it seems that our cousins across the Atlantic have gone mad, first with their kow-towing to Muslim extremism in their streets and now by actively seeking out – and presumedly correcting – racist toddlers:

Teachers are being forced to report children as young as three to the authorities for using alleged ‘racist’ language, it was claimed last night.

Munira Mirza, a senior advisor to London Mayor Boris Johnson, said schools were being made to spy on nursery age youngsters by the Race Relations Act 2000.

More than a quarter of a million children have been accused of racism since it became law, she said.

Writing in Prospect magazine, she said: ‘The more we seek to measure racism, the more it seems to grow.

Wow, that’s a profound statement.  Of course, the more I seek to count yellow cars, the more of them I seek to find.  Moreover, even if the thought police were proven correct, racism is a natural part of the human concern.  Ugly, yes.  Undesirable, yes.  A matter for government action?  No.

Justice System Fails, Cop Killer and Child Rapist Run Free

30.11.2009 (10:17 pm) – Filed under: Crime,Law,Race,Society ::

East of Houston, Baytown residents are looking over their shoulders tonight as a repeat rapist and child molester runs free, possibly in their town. Meanwhile, most of a continent away, Seattle residents are likewise afraid after 4 police officers were gunned down by Maurice Clemmons in a coffee shop in that city. Not a good day for law enforcement, nor to be a resident of either city today.

After leaving Huntsville, Texas, Arcade Comeaux, who’d been in a wheelchair for some years, managed to pull a gun on prison guards while in transit and escape in Baytown. Local law enforcement, masters of the non sequitur, had this to say about their duped my Comeaux:

“Comeaux was in a wheelchair, which he claimed was necessary for his mobility,” [TDCJ spokeswoman Michelle] Lyons said. “Since he was able to flee on foot, his claims of limited mobility obviously are in question.”

Obviously. It’s unclear how long or how frequently Comeaux, twice convicted of aggravated sexual assault, once with a child, has been confined to the wheelchair; however, he was using it as far back as 1999 when he tried to murder his wife during a prison visit.

In Seattle, Maurice Clemmons, who has a previous murder conviction in Arkansas, allegedly told associates to watch the news because he was going out to kill some cops. Unfortunately he succeeded, although it is now thought that he may have been wounded in the process.

This writer has only sympathy for the murdered police officers. It’s easy to understand how a cold-blooded killer could get the drop on them in an off-duty situation. What’s not so easy to understand is how Clemmons, a sociopath with a long history of violence, was allowed to roam the streets after serving only 11 years for his first murder.

Former Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee knows the answer to that riddle. As well he should – then-governor of Arkansas, Huckabee commuted Clemmons’ sentence for the murder in 1990 and allowed him to go free.  Huckabee admitted as much today, expressing regret for his decisions and respect for the slain officers. He added this about Clemmons’ history in his state:

He  was arrested later for parole violation and taken back to prison to serve his full term, but prosecutors dropped the charges that would have held him.

Last year I endorsed Huckabee for the Republican nomination for the highest office in the land. Today Huckabee faces his Willie Horton moment, one that will in all likelihood end his political career. While it took, in Huckabee’s words, a series of errors to allow Clemmons the opportunity to kill the 4 Seattle officers, the former governor’s mistake, that of excessive mercy, was the first and most egregious violation of the public trust in that chain of mistakes.

You see, there is a profound difference between a botched prison transfer that allows an animalistic brute like Arcade Comeaux to escape through force of arms and that of a public policy decision that deliberately sets violent criminals free to kill again, as Maurice Clemmons has done. That difference is, of course, that Governor Huckabee, the highest official in his state, should have known better than to substitute his judgment for that of the men and women of the juries that sentenced Clemmons to decades in prison for his crimes. Prison guards can be bribed or hoodwinked; at their level of responsibility, perfection is not possible. But we expect more from our leaders, of which Huckabee was one.

And in the aftermath of the debacle Mike Huckabee helped to create through his excessive charity to Maurice Clemmons we see the ultimate justification for politicians to be tough on crime. It should now be obvious that our leaders’ support for law enforcement and long sentences for violent, repeat offenders is not just a set of slogans to be trotted out during their campaigns for office. Rather, it is a recognition of the highest form of public trust, that of our physical security.

There are those politicians and social justice advocates, primarily liberals, who have gone on record saying that harsh prison sentences for murderers are the result of both explicit and implicit racism, that enforcing the law is inherently unfair to African-Americans, and that the higher-than-average representation of blacks serving life sentences and on death row is proof of a racially-flawed justice system.

Yet 4 police officers are dead as a result of Huckabee’s overly liberal policy of reducing prison sentences for murderers he was responsible for keeping behind bars. That fact cannot be obfuscated by the faux intellectualism of criminal apologists. Would-be leaders who espouse these misbegotten value systems should be remembered on election day and removed from office.

In the final analysis, law-abiding citizens do not seek to prosecute or incarcerate men of any class, creed, or color because of their appearance. Rather, it is the actions of such brutes that bring upon them the condemnation of society and rightly so. Our laws are clearly defined and the penalties for breaking them should be applied with equal precision.

Eric Holder’s Speech on Race Right On the Money

19.02.2009 (7:07 am) – Filed under: Race,Welfare ::

image

Attorney General Eric Holder gave America reason to believe in him today through a speech he gave to Justice Department employees and comments he made afterward:

“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said.

Race, Holder said, “is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable… If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us.”

“If we’re going to ever make progress, we’re going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified,” Holder told reporters after the speech.

It’s undeniable that racism still exists in the United States and that it still holds black Americans back in some respects.  But is that really a problem?  If so, is it one the government should continue to attempt to solve?  And if so, should it continue use the funneling of massive amounts of money to black communities in the form of welfare, housing, education, and affirmative action subsidies as its primary tool?

more »

Obama’s Race Problem – Real or Imagined?

20.09.2008 (10:49 pm) – Filed under: Gay Rights,Politics,Race ::

Using Princeton political scientist Tali Mendelberg as a source, John Judis wrote:

…her ideas and those of other academics help to shed light on what has happened so far in the primaries and what might unfold once Obama wraps up the nomination. Their findings suggest that racism remains deeply embedded within the psyche of the American electorate–so deep that many voters may not even be aware of their own feelings on the subject. Yet, while political psychology offers a sobering sense of the difficulties that lie ahead for Obama, it also offers something else: lessons for how the country’s first viable black presidential candidate might overcome the obstacles he faces.

Now this from the AP’s Ron Fournier:

Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them “lazy,” “violent,” responsible for their own troubles.

Incendiary words.  But what are the numbers Fournier is making so much of?

Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word “violent” strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with “boastful,” 29 percent “complaining,” 13 percent “lazy” and 11 percent “irresponsible.” When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment.

One unasked question is, “What would blacks’ answers be to similar questions about whites?”.  That would be another interesting study to see done.

Certainly there is racism alive and well in white American voters.  One measure of blacks’ reciprocal prejudice is the 80+% number who plan to vote for Barack Obama in November.  Do 4 out of 5 black Americans truly believe that Obama would be a better leader for American than John McCain?  Unlikely, particularly considering the North Carolina Democratic primary:

He’s also the presidential candidate who they desperately long for to wipe away the horrid taste of the Bush years. But the enthusiasm is also fueled by the fact that he is black.

In exit polls in North Carolina, nearly a quarter of black voters admitted that race was the big factor in motivating them to vote for Obama.

What’s even more telling is that many blacks feel entirely justified in voting for Obama because he is black; i.e., these voters feel that their prejudice is legitimate.

That’s not universally true, of course, and one interesting example of that fact is that black voters are solidly against same-sex marriage:

The Obama/Proposition 8 situation [a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage] appeals to those opposed to same-sex marriage, who are banking on a high turnout by blacks and conservative Latinos. “There’s no question African-American and Latino voters are among our strongest supporters,” said Frank Schubert, the co-campaign manager for Yes on 8, the leading group behind the measure. “And to the extent that they are motivated to get to the polls, whether by this issue or by Barack Obama, it helps us.”

Hopefully this will be the last American presidential election – or any election – where race is such a blatant issue.  Win or lose in 2008, Barack Obama has proven that a black man can lead this country.  It could even be him, if his policies were more mainstream.

Dan Riehl says something I’ve written about several times:

…were Obama conservative to Right-leaning, I’d vote for a guy like that in a minute and I suspect many other Right-siders would, too. In my opinion, were a Colin Powell or a Condaleezza Rice slightly more to the Right and able to appeal to values voters, they’d have strong backing from Right-side voters throughout much of the land, despite some existing stereotypes propagated by the media.

If only.

Only Racists Vote for McCain

23.08.2008 (8:40 pm) – Filed under: Politics,Race ::

That’s the pile of bullshit that Jacob Weisberg dropped at Slate this morning.  Small wonder that the majority of Americans now recognize a distinct liberal bias in the media.  How could they not?

Weisberg:

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama’s missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let’s be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

I guess it has nothing whatever to do with his utter lack of credentials, his ultra-liberal voting record (one that’s been deliberately crafted to avoid controversy in this election cycle), or his plans to significantly increase taxes and government spending.

According to Weisberg, not only would voting in John McCain as president be a vast conspiracy of racial discrimination, it would also be cause for a vote of no-confidence in the U.S. by the rest of the world:

To the rest of the world, a rejection of the promise he represents wouldn’t just be an odd choice by the United States. It would be taken for what it would be: sign and symptom of a nation’s historical decline.

Just curious, but what exactly is it about Russia, for instance, that the U.S. should want to emulate?  Or England, France, or Spain?  Or Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, or Venezuela?  What drivel.  There are very few nations that the U.S. could learn anything from, Australia and South Korea being two of that elite group.  Far better for the U.S. to keep setting the pace and hope that the others will someday grow up and catch up.

Weisberg does make one decent point that I’ve touched on before:

We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation, and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives.

This is the only reason that a vote for Barack Obama makes any kind of logical sense given his lack of qualifications and the monopoly on power his election would give to the Democrats.  It is also a powerful argument. 

Weisberg says that 27% of whites say too much has been made of the problems facing black people.  Count me as one of them.

Electing Barack Obama would remove one of the major crutches that black society relies on to explains its problems.  It would also free African-Americans from the grasp of Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc., leaders who have profited immensely from racial divisions and who have done a lot to make sure those divisions continue.  An Obama presidency would invalidate them by making their positions, policies, and authority irrelevant.  Small wonder Jackson wants to castrate Obama.

I am sympathetic to that reason for an Obama vote, just as I’m sympathetic to those who say that we should elect anyone who’s not a Republican given the mess they’ve made of the last 8 years.

But Barack Obama’s race is not a legitimate reason to vote for him any more than it’s a good reason to vote against him.  Similarly, voting for Democrats simply because they’re not Republicans is the last refuge of the ignorant and uninformed.

Neither has anything to do with race, despite Weisberg’s hysteria, and neither would be a good decision for America.

Obama: No Slavery Reparations

02.08.2008 (11:32 pm) – Filed under: Politics,Race ::

No presidential candidate running in a competitive campaign would dare stake out a position in favor of giving reparations to the ancestors of African slaves and, happily, Barack Obama, pure political animal that he is, is no exception.

“I have said in the past — and I’ll repeat again — that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” the Illinois Democrat said recently.

Some two dozen members of Congress are co-sponsors of legislation to create a commission that would study reparations — that is, payments and programs to make up for the damage done by slavery.

Slavery is a national disgrace and reparations a national disaster in the making.  While 18th & 19th century slavery in America is historically notable only for the melatonin disparity between owners and chattel, it was nonetheless a vile institution deserving of its end.

If black Americans feel they are due an apology then I say let’s give them one. 

As for reparations, what else can we call the 45 years of welfare programs costing untold billions of dollars that have largely been directed to the African-American community?  Some would say it’s an investment in a neglected segment of society.  Well then, has the investment been worth the cost?

Starting teacher’s salaries in inner-city Houston are 50% higher than those paid to new teachers in suburban and rural areas.  Within the rules of a failing system, the powers that be are attempting to attract teaching talent to these areas.  But how many teachers will take the bribe in return for the abuse and danger they will be facing in their new environment?  Frankly I wonder if any doable amount of money can turn such institutions around.  It can be done, I think, given the will to create a new system of education and vast expenditures.  But neither is likely to become reality.

Reparations supporters aren’t happy with Obama:

Vernellia Randall, a law professor at the University of Dayton, bluntly responded: “I think he’s dead wrong.”

She said aid to the poor in general won’t close the gaps — poor blacks would still trail poor whites, and middle-class blacks would still lag behind middle-class whites. Instead, assistance must be aimed directly at the people facing the after-effects of slavery and Jim Crow laws, she said.

“People say he can’t run and get elected if he says those kinds of things,” Randall said. “I’m like, well does that mean we’re really not ready for a black president?”

I’m like, well we’re not ready for a president of any color who’s going to say the kind of things that foster perpetual victimhood among black Americans. 

If Barack Obama really wants to help black Americans he’ll talk more about getting off of welfare, off of drugs, off of the streets, into committed relationships, into churches that heal rather than create hate, into school and staying there, and making sacrifices that improve young people’s lives.

He’s done it before.  Now that he’s the Democratic nominee he could really begin to lead the black community.  Spurning reparations is one small step in the right direction.  But Obama can and should do much more.  Ultimately black Americans have to help themselves.  To do that they need someone to show them how.  By winning, Barack Obama could be that person.

It’s exciting to watch, even for a middle-aged honky.  It’s doubtful Obama will get my vote, though – he’s on the wrong side of the fiscal policy debate.

Obama not Black Enough?

09.07.2008 (10:19 pm) – Filed under: Politics,Race ::

That’s what Jesse Jackson seems to think, apology or no.

Once again stealth journalism reveals the unpleasant truth about our so-called leaders.  This is the Jesse Jackson we always knew was lurking just below the surface of his image.  Gotta love it.

Question:  Will he be castigated as thoroughly as a honky would be for making the same statement?  If not, why not?

h/t Gateway Pundit

Barack Obama Leads With the Race Card

21.06.2008 (2:41 pm) – Filed under: Politics,Race ::

image

He still hasn’t been officially nominated as the Democratic candidate for president yet, but Barack Obama has taken control of the Democratic National Convention, trotted out a cheesy knock-off of the presidential seal, and now, like a Euchre player leading with off-suit ace, he’s played the race card early by stating Republicans will use his race against him.

“We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards.”

Have they really?  Or is this a new example of what David Brooks calls the two Barack Obamas?  I’m inclined toward the latter.  Nothing I’ve seen implicates John McCain or the Republican party in racially oriented politics.

In fact, Mike Huckabee, McCain’s best bet for vice-president, recently wrote that Republicans needed to attack Obama specifically on issues of substance and not engage in personal attacks.

I think what we have here is an example of Fast Eddie Obama trying to pull a sucker-punch off on McCain before the bell rings to start the fight.

“Anyone who opposes me is a racist” is the mantra of the Obama campaign and it’s a line that has already worked wonders against the now-vanquished Hillary Clinton, a candidate far superior to Dr. Barack.  Now it’s McCain’s turn to counter the one charge that no white candidate can refute.

He shouldn’t try to do so.  Huckabee’s suggestion seems to be the right one.  Obama would pull us out of Iraq before the job is done, endangering Iraqi lives and the tenuous progress made there as a result.  He would increase spending at home without balancing the expenditures by implementing the necessary increase in taxes, even as he doubles the capital gains tax, a sure-fire net loss for the government.  He would appoint Supreme Court justices who would further a liberal agenda that’s out of step with the American people.

These are legitimate reasons to vote against – and yes, even fear – an Obama presidency.

Update

Cassandra’s hilarious race card (via Sister Toldjah):

image

Voting While Guilty

24.05.2008 (11:12 pm) – Filed under: Political Correctness,Politics,Race ::

At Slate, Ron Rosenbaum says that it’s not wrong to vote for Barack Obama because of his race.  This is an assertion I’m highly resistant to.  I believe my vote ought to be for the candidate who is most likely to do the things I believe are right for the nation – the candidate who earns my vote, in other words.

Ron’s justification?  Guilt caused by men and women long dead, in an era filled with gross miscarriages of justice among which black slavery was arguably among the worst.

Not one of us is a slave owner today, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and there are fewer overt racists than before, but if we want to praise America’s virtues, we have to concede—and feel guilty about—America’s sins

This is, of course, utter tripe.  I can no more feel genuine guilt for actions my ancestors might have taken 6 generations ago than I can foresee the effect my life may have on future generations so far removed from me.

I do regret that black American’s ancestors were brought here in chains and forced to work and live in slavery.  I truly do.  But that has no more to do with me than Ben Franklin flying his kite in a thunderstorm or Lewis and Clark exploring the American northwest.  I can learn from history, celebrate the great things that were done in America two centuries ago, and reject the bad.  But feel guilt, true heartbreaking guilt?  No.

Rosenbaum goes on the play amateur psychologist by disparaging Sigmund Freud, of all people, and conservatives alike.

Shouldn’t conservatives feel guilty about slavery and racism and the consequences thereof, or must they disdain such feelings, however moral, because they are associated with liberals? Do they choose their moral priorities because of their popularity among others?

Or could it be that conservatives disdain liberal guilt about race because they have historically more guilt to bear for the perpetuation of racism and segregation?

Talk about your unfounded ad hominem attacks!  This one is just sad, like the whole idea of voting a man into office to make amends for a historical wrong none of us were witness to.

To heck with guilt.  Let the best man – or woman – win.

Obama and Racist Voters

13.05.2008 (4:28 pm) – Filed under: Finance,Politics,Race,Welfare ::

Barack Obama’s youthful volunteers have met more than a few of America’s less savory characters while on the campaign trail, according to a story in the Washington Post.  Obama’s skin color – he’s black – if you weren’t aware, is for some voters the most important thing about the man.   Sad, but that view is held by voters of all ethnic groups.

Here’s perhaps the most honest reason for the obsession:

One Pittsburgh union organizer told her [Documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy] he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people."

I don’t think that Barack Obama would be uniquely kind to black Americans – the weight of presidential responsibility would, I think, preclude that.  However, I do believe that many people act and vote as if he’s going to fulfill the truism if elected.

Unfortunately I can’t claim to be fully immune from the disease either.  As a fiscal conservative it’s difficult to separate Obama’s stated goal of expanding the welfare state – and thereby increasing expenditures on federal giveaways – from his program of race-influenced, if not race-based, social justice. 

As a matter of philosophy I’m opposed to welfare programs programs, particularly when implemented at the federal level using income tax dollars, regardless of who is being helped by them. 

Yet it’s painfully obvious that blacks benefit more from social welfare programs than other ethnic groups.  For example, an admittedly 10-year-old study in Michigan demonstrates that blacks accounted for 40-50% of some welfare programs while making up only 12% of the state’s population.

Therefore, a vote for Obama is a vote for more subsidies to black Americans.  At the same time, a vote against him can be viewed as taking that money away from them – a racist act, according to some.

I doubt that we’d be having the same kind of conversation about Obama taking care of blacks if Obama were a conservative.  I also doubt that he would be raking in 80% of the African-American vote against Hillary Clinton if he subscribed to that fiscal ideology.