Charges of Racism and its Chilling Effect on Policy Debate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 10th, 2014

Politics 101

Flying is so Safe already that to make it any Safer is nearly Statistically Impossible

Air travel is the safest way to travel.  People are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than in an airplane.  Air plane accidents and incidents are so rare these days that when one happens it is huge news.  For weeks some networks devoted near 24/7 coverage of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.  Even though they had nothing to report.  But that didn’t stop them from going to air to speculate about what happened.  Because an airplane just disappearing like that is extremely rare.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigates aircraft accidents and incidents to determine the cause.  And to come up with new ways to make aviation safer.  But improving safety any more is getting difficult.  And costly.  They put a cost on the loss of life and compare that to the cost for the airlines (and the people who buy their tickets) to implement a proposed change.  And then judge the likelihood that spending that money will actually save any lives.  They could reduce the number of deaths from flying to zero simply by grounding all aircraft permanently.  But the flying public wants to fly.  And is apparently willing to fly even if there is a slim chance of dying.

When a plane crashes because of an event that is statistically likely to happen, say, one in 100 million flights it’s hard to justify the added expense.  As that cost will not make flying any safer statistically.  This is the problem with making flying safer today.  It is so safe already that to make it any safer is nearly statistically impossible.  And spending more resources to try and make it safe 100% of the time is just not possible.  And it’s just too costly to try.

Racism is so Trivial in the Aggregate that it could not prevent a Black Child from growing up to be President

There are a lot of people on the left who say we need a dialogue on race.  Because there is still racism in this country.  Not Southern Democrat Jim Crowe racism.  But systemic racism that stacks the deck against blacks.  Despite that ‘racist’ America having elected a black president.  Twice.  Who appointed a black man as attorney general.  Eric Holder.  America’s top cop.  This couldn’t have happened without a majority of white voters voting for President Obama.  As blacks make up only approximately 13.1% of the population while whites make up approximately 77.9% (see United States Census QuickFacts).

So there may be some racism in America.  But clearly not a lot of it.  For if there was a lot of it there would have been enough people to vote against President Obama.  But there wasn’t.  And he won reelection.  Even though his record wasn’t that good.  On the economy.  Or on national security.  So there would have been a lot of reasons to vote against him.  Especially if the American people were racist.  But this didn’t happen.  Suggesting that America is not as racist as those on the left would have you believe.

Sure, there is racism in America.  As there is everywhere.  And always will be.  But is it systemic?  Is it impossible for a black child to grow up to be the president of the United States?  To be the top cop in the land?  No.  Because these things have happened.  So is it necessary to focus the Justice Department only on racial injustice in the United States?  Even those on the left will concede that things are a lot better now than they ever were.  So should the Justice Department focus on removing the last vestiges of racism when if doing so will be very difficult if not impossible?  As some people simply cannot be reasoned with?  If these people were running the country perhaps it would be.  But they’re not.  These instances of racism are isolated incidents.  So trivial in the aggregate that they could not prevent a black child growing up to be president.

Despite all of their Efforts to End Racism they haven’t reduced the Need to End Racism

A lot of people voted for President Obama to end racism once and for all.  To move away from our racist past.  But it seems like the left finds more racism than ever since President Obama’s election.  In fact, they call any criticism of President Obama an act of racism.  Making it difficult to criticize the president.  As no one wants to be labeled a racist.  In fact the left uses this to try and shut down debate over policy issues.  Unable to defeat conservatives in the arena of ideas (as conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1) they are quick to try and shut down debate with charges of racism.

Even Attorney General Eric Holder responded angrily when testifying in Congress.  Later when speaking to a mostly black audience he asked was there ever an attorney general or a president treated as poorly as he and President Obama?  (Yes, there were.  Especially when they were Republican).  Implying that the people’s representatives, and, therefore, the people, were racist.  So he can stand morally indignant as he stood in contempt of Congress.  The victim.  A lot in the media have come to his support.  While few criticized him.  Because no one wants to be called a racist.  And because no one does it is a very powerful way to shift attention away from any wrongdoing by shifting the attention to those accusing you of said wrongdoing.  A tactic right from the far-left strategist Saul Alinsky’s playbook (see Corrupt AG’s Feigned Outrage Shouldn’t Be Distraction posted 4/10/2014 on Investors.com).

The NTSB is trying to remove the last vestiges of air travel deaths.  Which is more and more difficult to do these days as there are so few ways left to improve aviation safety.  There are a lot of people trying to end racism.  But if you listen to them the problem of racism has never been worse.  Despite the success of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.  Who actually benefit from this perceived racism.  As they can discount any criticism of them because they’re black.  And the American people are racist.  Despite these same American people being responsible for their success.  For a country with a 77.9% white population could have been racist enough to prevent the election of a black president.  And they were given two opportunities to show just how racist they are.  But didn’t.  Still, the charge of racism is a powerful weapon in their arsenal.  Which is why despite all of their efforts to end racism they haven’t reduced the need to end racism.  For if they did that they may just have to answer for their policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Did a Racist America vote for a Black President and 12 Years a Slave?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

On a recent Daily Show they did a skit about racism in America.  A lot of people say there is no more racism in this country.  So they showed how racist people were in their little sketch.  But with a black president one has to ask themselves is there structural racism in the United States?  Or were they finding racism where there really wasn’t any?  Perhaps we can ask a higher authority (see Oscars: ’12 Years a Slave’ puts spotlight on Hollywood’s approach to race by John Horn posted 3/4/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

Was it ultimately a race about race?

The best picture Oscar is meant to honor the year’s greatest achievement in film, and “12 Years a Slave” had no shortage of supporters before winning the top honor Sunday. But for all the film’s artistry, the undercurrent of many “12 Years a Slave” conversations hinged on race and how Hollywood has for decades given short shrift to one of the most inglorious chapters in the nation’s history…

All the same, two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see “12 Years a Slave,” thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so…

Though most Oscar ceremonies carry a bit of suspense, the tension inside the Dolby Theatre on Sunday night was palpably different.

Would “Gravity,” an apolitical thriller about a space accident, return to earth with the best picture? Or would Oscar voters endorse “12 Years a Slave,” a film that many feared was so unsettling they put off viewing it until the last moment, if they watched it at all? Or as DeGeneres said in her opening monologue, “Possibility No. 1, ’12 Years a Slave’ wins best picture. Possibility No. 2, you’re all racists.”

Well, there you have it.  The movie 12 Years a Slave won.  Therefore, we are not racists.  It’s good to have settled that once and for all, isn’t it?

Imagine the poor filmmakers whose movies didn’t have to win the best picture Oscar to prove America wasn’t racist.  But I’m sure they’ll get over losing eventually.  I mean, what’s winning when there is the greater good to serve?  Besides, how important is winning an Oscar anyway?  It’s not like they have an annual ceremony where people are overwhelmed by emotion and have better career prospects after being honored by the Academy.  Well, come to think of it, there is.  So apparently winning an Oscar is a big deal.  Unless, that is, there is a social statement to make.  Then it means nothing to the people who lose even if they had a better picture.  While at the same time meaning everything to the winner.  Even if it’s only a social statement made with a potentially inferior film.

Of course we’ll never know what film was the best film.  Not when people vote for a film they’ve never watched because they felt it was the right thing to do.  Gee, do you think that’s how President Obama won both of his elections?  For it sure looked like people voted for him without ever looking at his record.  I mean, even the Nobel people awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama even though he didn’t do anything yet to earn it.  It was for the peace he was going to make.  A bit risky giving out awards for future achievement.  As we can see by the world becoming a less peaceful place during the Obama years.  Unrest in the Middle East.  Two uprisings in Egypt.  Civil War in Syria.  Al Qaeda in Iraq.  Air strikes in Libya.  Four dead Americans in Benghazi.  Drone strikes killing innocent civilians.  Iran working on a nuclear program.  North Korea testing rockets.  Russia invading Crimea.

Perhaps the Nobel people will ask for their Peace Prize back.  For unlike an Academy Award where the judging is subjective events on the ground are objective.  And real.  Whatever the Nobel people thought President Obama was going to do it is clear he didn’t do much to advance peace.  Making it look like the Nobel people voted for President Obama the same way some of the Academy members voted for 12 Years a Slave.  Because it seemed like it was the right thing to do.  Making a decision based solely on race.  Hmmm, making a decision based solely on race?  That reminds me of something.  I think there is a word for that.  What was that?  I can’t recall.  It just slipped my mind.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FDR hated Gay Men and used Undercover Men to Deviously out Gay Men in the Navy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 1st, 2013

Week in Review

When it comes to liberal icons they don’t come bigger than FDR to the left.  He is their god.  His New Deal began the transformation of the country into the quasi social democracy it is today.  And because of this they will never find any wrong with what the man did.  And he did what the left would call some pretty horrible things.  Like the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.  And this (see To crack down on gays in the Navy, FDR created a special unit that performed oral sex on men in order to out the gay ones  posted 9/1/2013 on OMG Facts).

It’s incredibly ironic, but prior to his presidency, FDR signed off on a secret Navy unit to seek out homosexuals…

It later became known as the Newport Scandal. Newport, Rhode Island’s Naval Base had numerous complaints of sexual solicitation by males around the base. So, FDR’s Navy unit sought to entrap these men. Surprisingly, the unit was ordered to perform oral sex on suspected homosexuals on base, including a clergyman! Once the story broke, FDR claimed memory lapse and never admitted to signing off on the operation.

Apparently liberal icon FDR didn’t care for the homosexuals.  He would have opposed having gays serving openly in the military.  And he would have opposed Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Because he hated homosexuals and didn’t want them serving in the military.  Apparently.  Based on his entrapment policy of seducing gay men.  Even men who might only have thought about being gay.  What a mean, horrible man FDR was.

But the left worships him.  And will discount these things as being a part of those times.  Just like Senator Byrd being a member of the KKK.  It was just something that Democrats did back then.  It didn’t mean that they were racists.  And the fact that FDR persecuted homosexuals doesn’t mean that he was anti-gay.  But if Paula Dean should say the ‘n’ word back in those times, well, it’s obvious that she’s a racist today.  Because she’s not advancing the liberal agenda.  So she should never be forgiven.  And should burn in hell.  Apparently.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

According to a Baltimore School Teacher it’s not Bad Teachers but Bad Students that are the Problem

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2013

Week in Review

The left keeps saying we need to have a dialog on race.  Which means do nothing, excuse bad behavior and spend more money.  That’s their idea of dialog.  Because for them there’s nothing to talk about.  For when it comes to racial issues they have two simple rules.  Rule #1:  Whites are to blame.  Rule #2: When blacks are to blame see Rule #1.  Why?  To curry favor in the black community.  To get them to vote for them.  And that’s all they care about.  Even if they worsen the condition in the black community in the process.  Because they don’t care about the plight of black people.  They just want their votes.

In today’s society you cannot criticize blacks behaving badly without the left calling you a racist.  Even if you don’t mention race.  If you say ‘Joe is behaving badly’ and Joe is black then your comment ‘Joe is behaving badly’ reeks of racism.  Because of this people are reluctant to criticize blacks behaving badly.  Because it will bring the wrath of the left down upon you.  Stirring up trouble for you where you work and where you live.  Which is the last thing most people want.  So they don’t criticize blacks behaving badly.  Which only encourages some blacks to behave badly (see A brave Baltimore teacher speaks the truth about schools, students by GREGORY KANE posted 8/1/2013 on the Washington Examiner).

Dave Miceli doesn’t know me from a hole in the ground, but he’s my new hero.

Anyone that can dredge up the guts to teach in Baltimore’s public schools automatically becomes a candidate for hero status in my book, especially if said anyone has taught in these schools for 20 years, as Miceli has.

But it was his bold, insightful, no-punches-pulled letter to the editors of the July 15 edition of the Baltimore Sun that put Miceli on my hero’s list…

“I have taught in the Baltimore public school system for the past two decades. What we need is better students. We have many excellent teachers. I cannot count the number of students who have physically destroyed property in the schools.

“They have trashed brand new computers, destroyed exit signs, set multiple fires, destroyed many, many lockers, stolen teachers’ school supplies, written their filth on the tops of classroom desks, defecated in the bathrooms and stairwells, assaulted teachers (beyond constantly telling them to perform certain impossible acts upon themselves) and refused to do any homework or class work.

You can bet that Baltimore school honchos and some elected officials want Miceli fired so badly they can almost taste it. Oddly enough, what probably saves Miceli from being canned are two things that conservatives — rightly so, in most cases — feel are precisely what’s wrong with American education.

That would be teachers’ unions and tenure. With his two decades of teaching, Miceli has tenure. Members of the Baltimore Teachers Union — and its leaders — probably don’t know whether to love or lynch the guy.

So Miceli probably knew that he wouldn’t be fired for his letter, but he’s courageous for saying what he said in a city that’s majority black, with a school system that’s majority black, and where most of the elected officials are black Democrats.

A majority black city?  A majority black school system?  And a majority of black elected officials?  So it’s safe to say that at least some of these students behaving badly are black.  And if these predominantly black Democrat cities have a high black unemployment rate perhaps the conversation we should be having is why aren’t these students doing their homework?  Why aren’t they doing their class work?  For if they aren’t doing their school work how are they going to possess the skills an employer would expect of a high school graduate?  And if they’re not doing their work in high school how are they going to be able to go on to college.  Which is just a much harder high school?

Perhaps this is the reason for the high black unemployment rates in our big Democrat-controlled cities.  Because the left sacrifices these kids for political reasons.  So they can blame racist white Republicans for preventing these kids from doing their homework and their class work.  For remember rule number 2.  Which states, “When blacks are to blame see Rule #1.”  Which states “Whites are to blame.”  Even when it’s black teachers in a black school district in a black city run by black Democrats.

This is the dialog the left wants to have.  So the right understand these two rules.  So they, too, do nothing, excuse bad behavior and spend more money.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT179: “If you keep finding racism where it doesn’t exist you will never bring the races together.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 19th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Teens who listen to Gansta Rap want People to think that they are Badass Gangbangers

Everybody is in agreement that George Zimmerman was not a racist.  That his trial for the shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin was fair.  But few like the verdict.  And blame the verdict on systemic racism in the United States.  Demanding a dialog on race.  With even the president finally weighing in.  Saying young black men grow up in a world where they are stigmatized by everyday traumatic events.  Like hearing people locking their car doors when they approach.  And women clutching their purses and holding their breath whenever a black teen or young man enters an elevator.

Stigmatized?  Traumatized?  Doubtful.  These are the same teens who listen to gangsta rap.  Who want people to think that they are badass gangbangers.  Who wear their pants low around their buttocks.  Sagging.  Like their hip hop heroes wear.  And prisoners.  (The penal system issues clothing a size or two too large.  And doesn’t let prisoners have belts.  To prevent suicides.  Or using them as a garrote.  So prisoners’ pants sag.)  Who they view as some of the baddest of badasses.  And they like to wear hoodies.  Because a lot of people fear people wearing hoodies.  As a lot of people who rob stores and banks wear hoodies.  (Because hoodies help conceal the face and make identification more difficult.)

So it is unlikely that these teens and young men are stigmatized.  People reacting in fear is probably the reaction they’re going for.  For it’s all about manliness.  Teens and young men, whatever race, want to look manly.  And tough.  That’s why a lot of them get into fights.  And why any personal slight is taken as a dis of the highest order.  For it threatens their manliness.  Because a person only dares dis someone they are not afraid of.  Someone they feel they can fight and win.  That is, someone whose manliness they do not respect.

The Political Left has long demonized White America as Racist

The president wants a dialog on race.  To bring the races together.  But who exactly is pushing them apart?  When the political left keeps saying America is a racist country and that a young black man’s life isn’t worth as much as a young white man’s life is that bringing the races together?  Or pushing them apart?

What does it do to a young black person growing up hearing this?  Does it make him or her like white people more?  Or less?  Does it make them want to assimilate into the American culture?  Or, because they perceive that culture as white, do they want to be part of their own culture? To differentiate themselves from that ‘racist’ white culture?   It would appear they do.  For they even have changed who they are.  To further separate them from white America.  Where whites are Americans.  But blacks are African-Americans.  Even if they were born in America.

So it’s not white America driving the races apart.  It’s the political left who has demonized white America as racist.  And it’s African-Americans who grow up learning that America is racist.  Who grow angry and a little racist themselves.  I mean, who wouldn’t?  If we teach them that in the schools, if they see it on television and hear it in the music how are they not going to grow up hating white people at least a little?  And magnify any instance of racism into proof of that racist society they’ve learned about all their lives?

Affirmative Action probably creates a little Racism

The president said he experienced the trauma of people fearing him when he was a young black man.  Acknowledging that he knows how racist this country is.  This country that elected him, a black man, president.  Twice.  Did a racist country do this out of white guilt?  Or was it just affirmative action that got him to the White House?  Or was it his positive message of bringing the country together?  This country that has never been so divided on race?

The racial problems we have in this country appear to have less to do with racism.  And more to do with politics.  When affirmative action (actions taken based on race) lets less qualified blacks into college over more qualified whites that isn’t racism.  But complaining about it is.  When you can fire whites in the workplace easier than you can fire blacks that isn’t racism.  But complaining about it is.  Affirmative action is supposed to correct past wrongs.  By punishing people who were not responsible for those past wrongs.  Which probably creates a little racism.  Not against black people per se.  But against a system using racist policies (affirmative action) to give some people an unfair advantage.  That is, using racism to redress racism.

America is not a racist country.  Yes, there are racists in the country.  But they are the exception.  Not the rule.  For President Obama could not have won election twice without white people voting for him.  But racism exists.  In large part because of the political left.  Who teaches black kids that white people are racist.  And finding racism where it doesn’t exist.   So blacks learn at an early age to shun white America.  Even calling themselves African-Americans.  To further widen the racial divide.  And black teens and young black men wear their pants low.  They wear hoodies.  To look like badass gangstas.  And when they frighten white women in an elevator it’s the white women who have a problem.  Because they are frightened by badass gangstas.  For these white women, too, have heard what a racist country we live in.  And may fear these badass gangstas may want to redress that racism.  So they lock their car doors.  And clutch their purses.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liberals don’t Win Elections in the Arena of Ideas

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 20th, 2013

Politics 101

Public Schools teach Kids that Republicans are Racist Homophobes who hate Children, Poor People and Immigrants

Americans are historically conservative.  Gallup shows that approximately 40% +/- of the people call themselves conservative.  While only approximately 20% +/- call themselves liberal.  Most of the rest call themselves moderates.  Gallup shows this as a general trend from 1992 through 2011 (see Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S. by Lydia Saad posted 1/12/2012 on Gallup).  Yet President Obama is a liberal pushing liberal policies.  So how did a conservative nation vote in such a liberal president?

Well, there are the usual suspects.  The public schools are teaching our children to be liberal.  Thanks to teacher unions.  Who contribute generously via their union dues to the Democrat Party in return for favorable policies from the Department of Education.  So our public schools work to ‘free’ our children’s minds from the influence of their parents.  The push for public-funded childcare is just a way to get our children away from their parents sooner.  For the younger they start the longer their education/indoctrination will last.

While our kids are in our public schools they learn the ‘important’ things.  Global warming is a reason to tax and regulate business.  Capitalism is unfair and evil.  Government is good.  While glossing over the Founding Fathers and their creation of a government based on the assumption that government is bad.  And the less of it the better the people were.  No.  Our kids don’t learn that.  Instead they learn worthless things and come out of our schools knowing very little about their country.  Or their government.  Just watch Watters’ World on The Factor.  And listen to how little our young people know when Jesse Watters asks some basic questions.  You’ll get the ‘deer in the headlights’ look when asked a question school children could have answered a generation or two earlier.  But despite their lack of knowledge on anything that isn’t trending in social media they will tell you that Fox News is biased.  And that Republicans are racist homophobes who hate children, poor people and immigrants.  Which is why they vote Democrat.

Democrats expand the Welfare State to get People Dependent on Government Benefits

So there’s public education.  And for those who go on to college our public universities will pull these kids even further left.  Then there’s the mainstream media.  Which is liberal.  Reinforcing everything our kids heard in school.  And all the people they look up to in the entertainment world tend to be liberal.  Further reinforcing what these young people heard in school.  Even though only 20% call themselves liberal that 20% is a young person’s world.  So a liberal view does not seem like the minority view it is to them.  Which is why they vote Democrat.

Then there are public sector unions.  And labor unions.  Who have a vested interest in keeping Democrats in office.  These unions collect dues from their members.  And spend a large portion of those dues to help Democrats win elections.  In return these Democrats implement union-favorable policies.  Also, these union members will act as foot soldiers during elections.  Helping to get out the vote.  Making phone calls.  Going door to door.  And helping to get people to the polls to vote Democrat.

Democrats also try to expand the welfare state.  To get people dependent on the government.  So these people look to government as their sole provider.  And after awhile being dependent on the government these people become completely dependent on the government.  And fear losing their government benefits.  For after being out of work for so long the thought of reentering the workforce is frightening.  Which Democrats tell them Republicans want to do.  They want to take away their benefits.  And force them into hamburger-flipper jobs.  Which Democrats point out are beneath them.  Even if they have no education or jobs skills beyond entry level employment.  So they vote Democrat.  To protect their benefits.

Liberals win Elections by Indoctrination, Quid Pro Quo, Dependency, Fear, Patronage and Abuse of Power

But it doesn’t end with simply getting people dependent on government benefits.  They implement policies that attack and destroy conservative institutions that encourage people to stand on their own two feet.  So they just don’t have to rely on people’s desires and wants.  But can tap into their fears.  Which is why FDR passed Social Security into Law.  And why LBJ expanded Medicare.  For these two great liberals knew they could make the elderly permanent Democrat voters by putting the fear of God in them that Republicans will cut their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  So a large percentage of seniors vote Democrat.  As they won’t be able to pay their bills or see a doctor if they lose their Social Security and Medicare benefits.  Because they trusted the government to provide for them in retirement.

And then there’s Obamacare.  Which will do to all non-seniors what Social Security and Medicare did to seniors.  Put the fear of God into them that Republicans will kill them by cutting their Obamacare benefits.  But it’s more than just the fear.  Obamacare will require a massive bureaucracy.  Layers of new government jobs.  Public sector union jobs.  Which will do what public sector unions and labor unions do on a grand scale.  But the big way Obamacare can help Democrats win elections is having the IRS enforce it.  Having the IRS determining who is eligible for a subsidy.  Determining how much someone can afford to pay for their Obamacare.  And determining how much to fine someone.  Allowing the IRS to ‘Tea Party’ the political opposition.

This is how liberals win elections.  Not by winning in the arena of ideas.  But by indoctrination, quid pro quo, dependency, fear, patronage and using the power of the executive branch for political ends.  They’ve become everything the Founding Fathers feared.  Who wrote the Constitution specifically to prevent things like this from happening.  Who didn’t believe the Constitution was a living document for future generations to interpret and adjust for the times.  Because they didn’t write it to give people stuff.  They wrote it to restrict the powers of the federal government as much as possible.  Because it is government’s nature to oppress and abuse her people.  So you don’t want them to have a lot of power.  For Lord Acton’s words are just as true today.  Power corrupts.  And absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Something at least 40% of the American people understand.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT171: “The IRS scandal shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 24th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

There is no Free Speech in the Workplace these Days unless You’re a Liberal

You’ve probably noticed something in today’s workplace.  You can tell who the liberals are.  And you have a pretty good idea who the moderates and conservatives are.  How?  Easy.  Liberals are very outspoken in the workplace.  They have no problem talking politics.  Or making nasty comments about conservatives.  Especially the Tea Party conservatives.  Who they will openly disparage in the most vulgar terms.  Especially when talking to fellow liberals.  And they will always have a snide remark for the conservatives in the workplace.

Moderates, on the other hand, are friendly and easy going.  They prefer to avoid politics.  And will be friendly with people on both sides of the aisle.  While conservatives will be polite and respectful to their coworkers.  Avoiding politics for the most part.  But when they do talk politics they will lower their voice, look to see who is within earshot and will only talk politics with a fellow conservative.  Why is this?

Because there is no free speech in the workplace these days.  Unless you’re a liberal.  For a liberal can call George W. Bush an idiot.  They can call the American people who elected him idiots.  And can say that he was an illegitimate president because of that fiasco in Florida and those hanging chads.  Which, incidentally, had Al Gore won they would never have counted hanging chads to determine how many votes to reverse because they thought the voters were confused.  But if you call President Obama an idiot in the workplace they will call you a racist.  And they may discipline you for a hate crime.  They may even do this if you criticize his failed Keynesian economic policies.  Which they will still call racist.  And a hate crime.

Liberals believe that their Stubbornness and Narrow-Mindedness is Open-Minded and Enlightened

And it’s difficult for a conservative to have liberal friends.  For if they know you are conservative it won’t be long before one of them will say something about how you want to take food away from children.  Or how you want to screw the working people to give rich people a tax break.  Or how you’re a racist.  They’ll say it in a joking manner.  Drawing laughs from others in the group.  But you don’t dare criticize them.  You don’t ask them to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  Not if you want to keep them as a friend.  For they can joke about how uninformed and out of touch you are.  But they’ll never be able to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  For they are most likely just repeating what they heard or saw in the popular culture.  Or heard in a union meeting.

You may have all the history in the world on your side.  You may be current with all the economic and financial issues of the day.  You may even have a degree in history or economics.  It won’t matter.  You can cite Adam Smith, Montesquieu, David Ricardo, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc., all day long.  But it won’t matter.  You can explain Say’s law and prove it in contemporary terms how supply creates its own demand.  For example, no one was demanding the Internet.  In fact, when it first came around it took a long time to convince people of its value.  The supply (the Internet) came first.  Then the demand (our enjoyment of the World Wide Web) followed.  Eventually.  Proving Say’s law.  But it just won’t matter.  Because your liberal friends will just laugh with all-knowing condescension at how uninformed and out of touch you are.  Then they may just get mean.  And start with the name calling.

Which is why there are closet-conservatives.  While there is no such thing as a closet-liberal.  Because a liberal doesn’t have to be guarded about what they say.  But a conservative does.  A conservative cares deeply about where the country is heading by following the failed Keynesian policies of the past.  They would like to engage in the political process.  To engage their friends in debate.  To try and persuade them to change their political views.  But their friends don’t want their views or opinions challenged.  And will resent you for even trying.  While being exasperated that you won’t change your views and opinions to match theirs.  Calling you stubborn and narrow-minded.  While they believe that their stubbornness and narrow-mindedness is open-minded and enlightened.

Does the IRS’ Suppression of the Conservative Voice during the 2012 Election make the Obama Presidency Illegitimate?

A conservative cannot win by coming out of the closet.  Not in today’s workplace.  Or in his or her circle of friends.  Even if you have a good liberal friend where you can both speak your minds because your liberal friend will have liberal friends.  How many times have you been at a party with your liberal friend and all of a sudden year hear a snide remark about your political beliefs from a complete stranger?  It makes you wonder how that even came up in conversation.  And you wonder what else your friend told this stranger about you.  And who else knows your ‘dirty little secret’.  That you are a conservative.

This is where it gets a little scary.  For in your liberal circle of friends there could be some government workers.  Maybe an IRS agent.  And the last thing you want to make public is that you’re a Tea Party conservative making donations to conservative candidates.  Because when it comes to party politics it’s a little like living in a police state if you’re a conservative with money.  For money equals free speech today.  Because money pays for political ads.  Like those ads the Democrats flood the airwaves with during an election campaign.  For they are well funded.  They have rich Hollywood elites at thousand-dollars-a-plate fundraisers.  Public school teachers.  And public sector union members.  Who all send a portion of their union dues to Democrat coffers.  Whether they want to or not.  So some conservatives want to donate money, too.  To level the playing field.  And get their voice heard against this well-funded liberal drumbeat.  But making political donations can bring an unpleasant spotlight on you.

Case in point Frank Vandersloot.  CEO of Melaleuca.  Which made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.  Just as liberal Bill Maher made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting President Obama.  Soon a Democrat website for the reelection of President Obama published Vandersloot’s name.  And unleashed a personal assault on him.  And his business.  Business then suffered.  Soon after the IRS audited him.  Twice.  And the Department of Labor audited him.  Something Bill Maher did not suffer for his million dollar donation to a super PAC.  It cost him almost $80,000 in legal fees.  But the audits came up empty.  No fines.  Or penalties.  In fact the IRS owes him a refund.  Which he was still waiting for as of May 2013.

Was this harassment of Vandersloot just a coincidence?  The recent IRS scandal suggests that it wasn’t.  And shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.  For when conservatives donate to super PACs they don’t get treated like Bill Maher.  They get treated like Frank Vandersloot.  Which really dissuaded other conservatives from coming forward to exercise their free speech.  Resulting in suppressing the conservative voice during the 2012 election.  And suppressing, as a result, conservative voter turnout.  Suggesting that the Obama presidency is the illegitimate presidency.  Not the Bush presidency.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT148: “You only know what someone taught you.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

If we Grew up on a Deserted Island isolated from Hate we’d Probably Grow up Better Adjusted to live with One Another

No one is born a racist.  It’s something you have to learn.  Someone has to teach it to you.  If a parent is a racist chances are the child will be bombarded with racial slurs growing up.  And become a racist.  Just like his or her parent.  But if you raised a bunch of babies of different races together on a deserted island in isolation would any of them grow up to be a racist?   No.  For they wouldn’t even know what racism is.  Because the life they knew would be normal.  It would be normal for black, white, brown, red and yellow to live together.

Catholics and Protestants have spent a few centuries killing each other.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  People have been persecuting Jews since forever.  The Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas have been killing Israelis for decades.  Shiite and Sunni have also been killing each other for a very long time.  These people have hated each other so much that they just want to see the other dead.  Yet if you took a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Palestinian, a Shiite and a Sunni baby from their parents and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t grow up wanting to kill each other.  They wouldn’t even know they were supposed to hate each other.

Europe was just itching to go to war.  Nationalistic fervor was just bursting at the seams.  Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, French, Russians and British were ready and waiting.  Filled with nationalist pride.  Just jonesing to open a can of whup-ass on anyone that wasn’t from their own great nation.  Having learned nothing from the Crimean War.  Or the American Civil War.  Thinking they would march their magnificent armies onto the field of battle, fight a glorious battle and watch the enemy throw down their arms and run away.  Even though tactics hadn’t changed much from the Crimean War and the American Civil War.  Though the weapons were far more lethal.  Making World War I one of the bloodiest wars of all time.  But had you taken a German, an Austrian, a Hungarian, a French, a Russian and a British baby from their parents at the turn of the century and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t have grown up wanting to go to war with each other.  As they wouldn’t know that they were supposed to hate each other.

Of all the Things the State did Poorly perhaps the Worst was being Husband and Father

When our parents grew up they often went to bed without locking the doors to their houses.  Even during the days of Prohibition when armed gangs shot each other in the street with automatic weapons.  Today we have deadbolts and alarm systems.  And metal detectors at our schools.  For kids today are taking guns to school.  And they’re shooting people.  This didn’t happen during the days of Prohibition when gangs were armed with Thompson 45-caliber submachine guns.  Why?  Because during Prohibition there weren’t violent video games, graphic violence in movies & television and rap & hip-hop songs glorifying gun violence.  So even though we have less lethal weapons on the streets today we have more gun violence than before.  Because kids have been so desensitized to violence that killing people just isn’t a big deal to them.  Raise these kids on a deserted island away from this violence in our pop culture, though, and they’re not going to kill indiscriminately.  Instead they’ll stay innocent kids longer.

Add to this violence in our pop culture our secular progressive culture.  The Left’s quest to remove religion and God from as much of our lives as possible.  And their attacks on Christianity.  For imposing their moral code on people.  And opposing free love and abortion.  They have gone so far as to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from our government buildings.  And our schools.  Because teaching kids things like ‘Thou shall not kill” is a bad thing.  Or any other morality lesson.  For who’s to say what is right and wrong?  Of course when we teach our kids growing up that there are no moral absolutes it sure weakens the argument for them not to do bad things.  It detaches them from society.  And makes them lack empathy for their fellow citizens.  Making it easier to hurt them.  If you pulled these kids out of our public schools and put them and their parents on a deserted island away from this secular progressive culture and filled them with the fear of God for misbehaving they probably could sleep at night with their doors unlocked.  For hurting one another would be the last thing on their minds.

When LBJ passed his Great Society legislation it included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  An unmitigated disaster for poor people.  For it let men father and abandon their children.  Leaving women to turn to the state to act as husband and father.  And of all the things the state did poorly perhaps the worst was being husband and father.  It just decimated poor families.  Single mothers filled housing projects.  Their children, with no male role model, turned to the street.  Got into a lot of trouble.  And into drugs.  Even taking that behavior into their schools.  Which is part of the reason why metal detectors are needed today at our schools.  Forcing organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to pick up the parenting slack.  Had these deadbeat dads lived on a deserted island untouched by AFDC there would have been less fathering and abandoning of children.  Like there was before AFDC.

Keynesian Policies have Historically Resulted in High Unemployment and Painful Recessions

After World War II the world went Keynesian.  Classical economics (that favored savings over consumption, low taxes, the gold standard, little government intrusion into the private sector and responsible fiscal policy as in DON’T spend so much) that made America a superpower went out the window.  In came the disaster we call Keynesian economics (that favored consumption over savings, deficit spending, printing lots of money, high taxes and a lot of government intervention into the private sector.  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge in the Twenties were the last of the classical economists.  Their policies gave us great prosperity.  JFK adopted policies of the classical economics variety to pull America out of a recession in the Sixties.  Nixon, Ford and Carter were big Keynesians whose policies destroyed America.  Ronald Reagan rebuilt America in the Eighties by returning to policies of the classical economics variety.  As George W. Bush did to pull us out of the bad recession caused by Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble bursting.

So the record shows the success of classical economics.  And the failure of Keynesian economics.  Yet about half the population voted for the Keynesian policies of President Obama in 2012.  Why?  Why did they vote for more of the failed policies of the past?  Because most Americans learn only of Keynesian economics in their economic courses.  While politicians, economists and the mainstream media endorse Keynesian policies as if they have a record of success.  They do this because Keynesian economics does something that classical economics doesn’t.  Empowers big government.  Sanctions class warfare.  Giving them the moral high ground when raising taxes.  And printing money.  Despite these actions causing the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

President Obama won reelection for one of two reasons.  Either people want more free stuff.  Or they don’t understand economics.  Or the consequences of handing out all that free stuff.  For if they understood economics they would not have voted for a Keynesian.  For Keynesian policies have historically resulted in high unemployment and painful recessions.  So even if you’re voting for the free stuff you’d vote for the classical economics candidate.  For without people working there is no income to tax to pay for all of that free stuff.  But few people understand economics.  Which is lucky for President Obama.  In fact, few people understand the disaster that has been the liberal agenda as the liberals control the public schools, our colleges, the mainstream media and the entertainment establishment.  So few are learning the long record of liberal failures.  Which helps liberals win elections.  For you only know what someone taught you.  And if the liars are in charge of teaching us the only things we will learn are their lies.  Unless, of course, we can find some deserted island to grow up on where their policies can’t reach us.  Then when we come back we can make the world a better place.  A place with sound economic policies.  With no racism, no religious intolerance, no blind nationalist fervor, no culture of gun violence and no epidemic of deadbeat dads.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT129: “You can safely criticize and fire a white man for doing a poor job without being accused of discrimination.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 3rd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

It takes Two to Flirt but Only One to Sexually Harass

Today when you hire into a new company chances are they are going to sit you down and make you watch a video on sexual harassment.  Even if you’re not in a supervisory position.  But you will watch a video where some man will be making an uncomfortable workplace for a woman he supervises.  During the Eighties when the military was trying to get more women into the officer corps they taught officer candidates appropriate man-woman touching.  Resting a hand on a near shoulder while looking over her work was okay.  But placing a hand on a far shoulder was sexual harassment.

People like to socialize in the workplace.  And men especially like to socialize with attractive women in the workplace.  Which can create a minefield for an employer.  Even if they have all employees sit through sexual harassment training.   For there is a fine line between flirting and sexual harassment.  Social chatter often goes into subjects inappropriate for the workplace.  An employer may have some midlevel men that begin to spend too much time around the reception desk.  Men responsible for sales or maintaining customer relationships.  Who have become important cogs in the machine.  Even though they may cruise the single bars after work.  But as long as their personal life didn’t interfere with the workplace their personal life was their personal life.  Until, that is, they start flirting with the pretty women in the workplace.

Flirting is a two-way street.  It takes two to flirt.  But it only takes one to sexually harass.  An employer may like to hire a new receptionist who flirts less because it would be easier to hire a new receptionist than hire a new important cog.  This would be the easiest change to prevent flirting from escalating into harassment.  But doing that will require a lot of documentation of disciplinary actions against the receptionist.  Creating an uncomfortable workplace.  And the inevitable lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.  If the employer doesn’t act fast enough this innocent flirting can escalate to an unwelcomed grope in the supply closet.  Then it’s too late.  Now the employer has a lawsuit to deal with.  As well as having to fire the man responsible for the groping.  Causing an even more unpleasant atmosphere in the workplace.  A business disruption.  And an embarrassing task of explaining it to your customers.  At least those affected by the loss of this individual.

Not every Employee may have been the Best Candidate for their Job when the Labor Department encourages Diversity

This is a problem when you mix men and women in the workplace.  Most of the time there are no problems.  People do their jobs and go home to their families.  But problems happen.  Few will make it through their working career without working at a place without some kind of incident.  And it’s rare for a business owner not to have at least one incident in their business life.  Or to know someone who has.  Still, it doesn’t stop them from hiring women.  Not if they’re the best candidate for a position.  And the best candidates typically are those employees that just want to do their jobs and go home to their families.

But not every employee was the best candidate for their job.  Not when the labor department monitors a business’ diversity in hiring. Some businesses are in such a narrow niche market that there aren’t a lot of employees with the requisite skills to choose from.  When the pool of candidates is small chances are the there isn’t a lot of diversity in that pool.  New technologies are sometimes so new that few even know of them.  And the educational system is still playing catch-up.  But anyone ever audited by the government for diversity compliance (typically when federal money is involved) can attest that it is better to be diverse than to be audited.  So you hire people that may not be the best but you hope that with a lot of on-the-job training they will become an important cog in the machine.

Then you have people who just game the system.  Contractors who want to work in big cities have to meet a plethora of requirements just to bid on a project.  Especially when there is federal money involved.  Included in some of these requirements are diversity requirements.  And residency requirements.  They want to award these projects to city-based companies whose workers live in the city.  A noble goal if you’re trying to revitalize the local economy.  But a difficult requirement to meet in some new technologies.  Where they may have only a few companies qualified to do the work to begin with.  But if there is only one who meets the residency requirement this company is going to be at a distinct advantage.  Who can even underbid the project to seal the deal.  And once they have the project they can then bury the city with additional charges and delay the project until they get what they want.

Anyone who Dares to Criticize President Obama and his Policies is Quickly Labeled a Racist

I once sat in some meetings with such a contractor.  He was a smart guy.  He knew the new technology in the project like few others.  Which gave him an advantage in those meetings.  He went on about design mistakes and omissions but it was Greek to everyone at the table.  And nothing ever got done without a fight over additional money.  This guy used the system to delay the project and get the owner to capitulate and pay his additional claims.  Especially when they threatened to replace him with another contractor.  None of which he knew met the residency requirement.  And he said off-the-record to someone that if they did remove him from the project he would sue for discrimination.  Don’t know if that was true but everyone in those meetings acted as if it were.  This guy gave ulcers to everyone on the management team.  But they were always guarded with their comments.  Except for one.  Who let go a verbal barrage in one meeting that stunned everyone.  Saying what everyone wanted to say but didn’t.  Out of fear of being accused of racism.  For criticizing a black man.  So why did this one man speak his mind?  Two reasons.  When he sat in those meetings he was the smartest one in the room.  He didn’t hear Greek.  He just heard a lot of BS.  And he had no problem criticizing a black man.  For he, too, was a black man.

This is why some people like hiring white men.  Because they can criticize them.  And fire them for doing a poor job.  With the least amount of fear that someone will charge them for wrongful dismissal.  Or charge them with discrimination.  Having the ability to easily fire bad (or less than stellar) employees makes business easier.  And less costly.  So an employer has many considerations in the hiring process.  When it comes to older candidates with proven experience it typically is a pure meritocracy.  They hire the best qualified candidate.  For younger inexperienced candidates it may be less a meritocracy than hedging their risk.  Meet any diversity requirements first.  Then maybe hire people that they’ll be able to fire easier if they don’t work out.

It can be risky business criticizing a black man.  Or trying to fire one.  Consider President Obama.  Any objective analysis of his economic policies shows them to be an abject failure.  The official unemployment rate (U-3) hasn’t been below 8% since he’s been president.  The real unemployment rate that counts the underemployed and those who’ve quit looking for work (the U-6 unemployment rate) is just north of 15%.  Which is little better than it was during the Great Depression.  His Keynesian policies are doing no better than the Keynesian policies of Jimmy Carter.  His regulatory zeal has punished business.  It’s even putting the domestic coal and oil industries out of business.  And Obamacare has paralyzed small business with the fear of the unknown.  With no idea what the total cost will be to them they are not hiring anyone unless they absolutely have to.  After an objective economic analysis (leaving the politics out of it) there can be but one conclusion.  President Obama is not good for the American economy.  But anyone who dares criticize him and his policies is quickly labeled a racist.  Which begs the question what would they label those who criticize the president if President Obama was white?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries