Clubbing Seals: Bold Rhetoric
Dan Trabue asks Mark to reconsider his horrifying remarks. He is certain Mark is neither an elitist nor a racist. I'm sure Dan is neither of these things either, but I am surprised by what 'horrifies' him.
Perhaps what's 'horrifying' to Mark (and myself) is the system of social slavery the poor, urban, welfare-class have cynically been made to embrace. The Democratic platform says (in spirit... not in so many words):
"Why would you want to vote for a party that seeks to make you more responsible? We just want to give you EBT cards, welfare, cheap government housing... the Republicans want to 'help' you do better for yourselves by asking you to get out and work harder... well, we Democrats think you already work hard, and we want to make sure you continue to get 'free' assistance, as long as you remain unmarried, have lots of kids out of wedlock, and do not make more than this ($X.XX) paltry sum on your own each year. Yes, we're here to take care of you, and all we ask in return is that when march into the voting booth you remember who's taking care of you."
The Democratic party has traditionally stood for, and defended slavery. When the Republican party formed in opposition to the Democratic Party over the evils of slavery, war ensued; championed by a Republican president Lincoln.
Democrats opposed the black vote.
Dmocrats imposed Jim Crow.
Democrats opposed integration of public schools.
Democrats opposed the civil rights movement.
And amazingly-- by sheer audacity and the sure knowledge that their new slaves on their NEW plantation wouldn't catch on to the lie --Democrats have successfully managed to paint themselves as Civil Rights Pioneers. And yet nothing could be further from the truth. They have mastered the art of riding the coat-tails of others' agendas and accomplishments.
Dan is offended by Mark's statement, "Minorities generally vote Democratic"? I'm offended that he and many others defend the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in regard to the poor.
Neither Mark, nor myself want the poor to stay poor. Nor do we want them to go without food or shelter. What we do want is a government program that insists on excellence; which is best realized by nurturing the hopes and dreams of the poor in addition to their bellies and personal welfare.
The Democratic solution is a failure in every sense that matters to the recipient of welfare. The Democratic solution is a rousing success in every sense that matters to the Democratic Party.
I'm offended by Uncle Sam's Plantation, and Dan's (seemingly) and millions of others defense of it.
Poverty and our 'Compassionate' system of Welfare do as much damage or more to the American Dream and those who dare dream it, than would the abolition of the Electoral College. There is a lot RIGHT with America, but there is, more and more each day, a lot WRONG with America.
Ask yourself why poor as dirt immigrants to America can enter this country all but penniless and in short order move up the economic ladder, while millions who were born and raised here struggle beneath the oppressive yoke of social slavery?
It's personal pride, and a strong work ethic.
It's a greater than forty-hour work week; Forty hours of on-the-clock work a week... or less... guarantees nothing but mediocrity. Success requires more than bare minimum effort.
And we do not teach this in public schools. That many students graduate and go on to college to obtain Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate degrees is a testament not to Public Education, but to the forces that shaped the individual. Pain is a great motivator. Hardship is a great motivator. But Welfare dulls the senses and gives a false sense of security. Very few people who live under Welfare, ever escape Welfare; under the current system there is little incentive to.
As a system, Welfare clubs to death the hopes and dreams of everyone who can't seem to find an exit. And the recipients of Welfare have all the promise of baby seals, but they too are trapped on the ice, defenseless against club-wielding butchers.
All of which reminds me of a song that, to my mind, epitomizes personal responsibility. Indolence is the unitended consequence of American Welfare... And it's the number one killer of hopes, and dreams.
Perhaps what's 'horrifying' to Mark (and myself) is the system of social slavery the poor, urban, welfare-class have cynically been made to embrace. The Democratic platform says (in spirit... not in so many words):
"Why would you want to vote for a party that seeks to make you more responsible? We just want to give you EBT cards, welfare, cheap government housing... the Republicans want to 'help' you do better for yourselves by asking you to get out and work harder... well, we Democrats think you already work hard, and we want to make sure you continue to get 'free' assistance, as long as you remain unmarried, have lots of kids out of wedlock, and do not make more than this ($X.XX) paltry sum on your own each year. Yes, we're here to take care of you, and all we ask in return is that when march into the voting booth you remember who's taking care of you."
The Democratic party has traditionally stood for, and defended slavery. When the Republican party formed in opposition to the Democratic Party over the evils of slavery, war ensued; championed by a Republican president Lincoln.
Democrats opposed the black vote.
Dmocrats imposed Jim Crow.
Democrats opposed integration of public schools.
Democrats opposed the civil rights movement.
And amazingly-- by sheer audacity and the sure knowledge that their new slaves on their NEW plantation wouldn't catch on to the lie --Democrats have successfully managed to paint themselves as Civil Rights Pioneers. And yet nothing could be further from the truth. They have mastered the art of riding the coat-tails of others' agendas and accomplishments.
Dan is offended by Mark's statement, "Minorities generally vote Democratic"? I'm offended that he and many others defend the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in regard to the poor.
Neither Mark, nor myself want the poor to stay poor. Nor do we want them to go without food or shelter. What we do want is a government program that insists on excellence; which is best realized by nurturing the hopes and dreams of the poor in addition to their bellies and personal welfare.
The Democratic solution is a failure in every sense that matters to the recipient of welfare. The Democratic solution is a rousing success in every sense that matters to the Democratic Party.
I'm offended by Uncle Sam's Plantation, and Dan's (seemingly) and millions of others defense of it.
Poverty and our 'Compassionate' system of Welfare do as much damage or more to the American Dream and those who dare dream it, than would the abolition of the Electoral College. There is a lot RIGHT with America, but there is, more and more each day, a lot WRONG with America.
Ask yourself why poor as dirt immigrants to America can enter this country all but penniless and in short order move up the economic ladder, while millions who were born and raised here struggle beneath the oppressive yoke of social slavery?
It's personal pride, and a strong work ethic.
It's a greater than forty-hour work week; Forty hours of on-the-clock work a week... or less... guarantees nothing but mediocrity. Success requires more than bare minimum effort.
And we do not teach this in public schools. That many students graduate and go on to college to obtain Bachelors, Masters, and Doctorate degrees is a testament not to Public Education, but to the forces that shaped the individual. Pain is a great motivator. Hardship is a great motivator. But Welfare dulls the senses and gives a false sense of security. Very few people who live under Welfare, ever escape Welfare; under the current system there is little incentive to.
As a system, Welfare clubs to death the hopes and dreams of everyone who can't seem to find an exit. And the recipients of Welfare have all the promise of baby seals, but they too are trapped on the ice, defenseless against club-wielding butchers.
All of which reminds me of a song that, to my mind, epitomizes personal responsibility. Indolence is the unitended consequence of American Welfare... And it's the number one killer of hopes, and dreams.
Momma loves her baby,
And daddy loves you, too.
And the sea may look warm to ya, babe,
And the sky may look blue.
Oooooo babe.
Oooooooo baby blue.
Oooooo ooohh babe.
If you should go skating,
On the thin ice of modern life,
Dragging behind you the silent reproach,
Of a million tear-stained eyes,
Dont be surprised when a crack in the ice,
Appears under your feet.
You slip out of your depth and out of your mind,
With your fear flowing out from behind you,
As you claw the ice.
The Thin Ice
Pink Floyd
from the mind of... Eric | 12:39 PM
28 Comments:
Eric suggested:
"Dan is offended by Mark's statement, "Minorities generally vote Democratic"?"
And then went on to write a whole, long convoluted post based on that premise. If, you'll look, Eric, what I said was:
Saying that most black people (most gay people, most Jews, etc) are too stupid to know what's going on is an elitist, racist remark.
I was NOT objecting to Mark noting that minorities tend to vote Democratic. That's just a fact.
I was objecting to Mark making the assumption that the reason minorities vote for Dems is because, in Mark's words:
"Minorities generally vote Democratic, because so many of them don't pay attention to what is really going on"
THAT is what is elitist and racist. It is the suggestion that minorities are "too dumb to not fall for a biased media."
Come on. If you're going to disagree with me, disagree with what I've said and don't make up a strawman to beat down.
But, if I were someone who supported the Republican party, I'd be a bit embarassed by the reality of a near total rejection of that party by a whole race of people. Instead of blaming "them dumb blacks," I'd be questioning my party.
No strawman, Dan; I understood your context. I simply chose to explore another context roused from slumber by Mark's statement and your objection to it.
Neither do I think "them dumb blacks" are incapable of seeing the truth, provided they are exposed to it.... Imus.
I'd appreciate you not putting words like that in my mouth.
Eric, I apologize for putting those words in your mouth. I know you don't think of them "dumb minorities" like that.
Nonetheless, that's exactly the implication each time someone like you or Mark say these sorts of things.
And, if we're not going to put words in the others' mouths, then don't do it yourself ("Dan is offended by Mark's statement, "Minorities generally vote Democratic"?"). Especially if you understood that's not what I was saying.
That IS a strawman exactly. You're not arguing against what I said (it's wrong to accuse blacks of being too stupid to read the news and make informed decisions), but arguing against what you SAID my complaint was.
Then I would attribute it to a misunderstanding on MY part. But not a strawman. Apologies back at you.
Mark's remark wasn't horrifying, just typically shallow and unthinking. I'd be surprised if the urban poor, or rual poor, of any race, listen, watch or read much media at all, being busy, you know, trying to get by.
EL's comparisons of today's Democratic Party with the Southern-based states-rights-purists of a half-century ago, are, as usual gratuitious and off point.
Ditto, EL's characterization of the party''s general approach to dealing with the poor as trying to keep 'em dolwn and dependent. We can debate the longterm effectiveness, and morality, of government programs, but Limbaugh's BS was BS when he started saying it, and it's BS still.
Limbaugh!? No one mentioned Limbaugh. Why then invoke his name?
You know how it goes, Lash...
If you don't buy into the Liberal Agenda, then you are a mind-numbed robot, and you get your marching orders from Limbaugh!
He obviously is the only conservative who might form an original opinion, after all.
So, when in doubt, attack Limbaugh!
ER, you don't ever actually listen to Limbaugh, do you?
Because he was the first person, with any audience, that I heard arguing that Democratic programs meant to help the poor (read: minorities) actually were evviiilllyyy intended just to keep them voting Democratic for the hand-out, an idea that seems to underly some of what you wrote here: "Perhaps what's 'horrifying' to Mark (and myself) is the system of social slavery the poor, urban, welfare-class have cynically been made to embrace."
That's why. If you came up with that idea on your own, then I apologize.
Maybe this is kinda like when you suggest that every effing government program we on the other side propose is socialist in nature.
"From each according to his means, to each according to his needs..."
Nope.
Nothing Socialist about that.
I'll ask again, ER.
DO YOU EVER LISTEN TO RUSH LIMBAUGH?
Or have you formed your opinion based on what you THINK he says and stands for?
On what other people have TOLD you about him?
Do you actually KNOW what you are talking about, or are you talking out of your... hat... as usual?
EL keeps tripping over the 1960's. For someone who loves that era's music, he has absolutely no knowledge of the politics of that time. He doesn't know anything about how Rosevelt's New Deal and the civil rights movement won huge support for the democrtic party from minorities. He doesn't see how those same programs changed the entire political spectrum of the southeast. Now that he's slacking off from the blog maybe he'll have time to read a book or two.
EL doesn't pay much attention to recent history either. Otherwise he'd know his tired trope about welfare queens and other layabouts sucking on Uncle Sam's teat is no longer relevant.
Quote from wikiipedia (the writing is more consise than I could do).
The welfare reform movement reached its apex on August 22, 1996, when President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill, officially titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]
One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive. Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).[Haskins 2006; Blank 2002].
This comment has been removed by the author.
And he resorts to Wikipedia as his authority! Apparently BenT isn't aware of all the fraud that continues to infect the EBT system, and welfare as a whole.
An article from the Cato Institute, dated December 3, 1996, begins thusly:
"The president says that he has "ended welfare as we know it." Congressional leaders brag that they have forced an end to the failed 30-year experiment of the welfare state. Think again. The welfare reform bill that President Clinton signed into law may be one of the biggest examples of welfare fraud yet perpetrated on the American people.
"Even as the president was signing the bill, his administration was rushing through last-minute waivers to exempt many welfare recipients from the bill's provisions. States have long been able to seek permission from the federal government to opt out of certain provisions of the welfare system. Under the new law, a state will generally be able to continue operating under the waivers even if the state's welfare program conflicts with the bill's provisions. Moreover, even without those waivers, the bill is so riddled with loopholes and exemptions that most of its provisions are little more than paper promises." [Emphasis mine]
The internet is literally bleeding from its ears with websites, from states to federal agencies, calling for honest citizens to turn in welfare cheats.
Bill Clinton didn't reform Welfare, he merely dressed the pig up a bit and sent it on its merry, cheating way.
You people like to scoff at WorldNetDaily as a reliable source for news and information, yet cling to Wikipedia!? What a bunch of dunderheads!
I chose to delete my first reply to BenT... it was less than charitable.
If the 1996 welfare reform law had loopholes and opt-out provision reducing its effectiveness, then it's because republicans put them there. Bill Clinton signed the bill against the desires of his own party. Guess what though. "The consequences of welfare reform have been dramatic. As expected, welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly (57%) in the years since passage of the bill. If the bill is such a give away, then why did the republican congress in 2002 reauthorize it? That was just after 9/11, if George Bush and the republican congress wanted to they could have scrapped the entire program; they had so much public support at that time.
...
PS: What happened to "A STANDARD POLICY of mine dictates that whatever I've posted, stays posted, however much I regret what I've posted."
Well, BenT, you seem to have no problem insulting me, knowing we have to work together in the same room. What I wrote only upped the ante, and I DO recognize that we have to work together. I also remember the time BenT pounded the desk with bone-breaking force shouting "I. AM. NOT. AN. IDIOT!!!", all because his feelings were hurt.
Like I said, I have to work with you. Why then would I wish to provoke you to another such display? Or to something worse? You may not believe this, but I like you, and have NO desire to engage in a tit for tat insult-fest with you. I looked at my comment for a good ten minutes after it posted and saw clearly my intent in posting it. And I have no doubt everyone else here would have seen it. I admit this only because you asked for an explanation, and even if it hurts me in the offing I'd rather tell the truth about it than lie.
No, I don't like to backspace. But please forgive me if I choose to break my own policy just spare your feelings and our working relationship.
Where did I insult you? Do you know about the realignment of southern dixiecrats? Do you remember the welfare reform debate of 1996?
I do take it very seriously when someone treats me as if I am an idiot. When someone throws out false data to get to false conclusions, it seems to me that person must see me as some sort of idiot. When someone makes sweeping generalizations, I feel I am being treated like an idiot. Perhaps you feel differently?
I do know that such characterizations raise my heart rate (probably the most aerobic exercise I get). However, my anger never burns hot for long, And I would never take any experience from your blog into work. There is entirely too much context and subtlety that is lost in communicating through typed text.
"There is entirely too much context and subtlety that is lost in communicating through typed text."
Agreed
True, I said what I said without giving it much thought at all. That I admit to. But it is how I perceive the majority of Americans, regardless of race, color, or sexual perversions.
I apologize for the appearance of bigotry in my statement.
Be that as it may, if you were to go out to the mall, and stop people at random and ask them to give you a quick synopsis of the day's national news, you will most likely get a concise encapsulation from a very liberally biased perspective. That is what the majority of Americans receive, and without further thought and/or investigation, it is that very Liberally biased news that influences their votes.
I am not shallow, as ER contimues to insist. I think.
I believe there is ample evidence that ER simply regurgitates the tripe that Liberal professors and apostate pastors with somewhat suspect College degrees espouse, rather than giving much actual original thought to the issue in question. Look at his blog. He usually just reprints or links to something someone else he agrees with writes.
On the other hand, I rarely refer to what someone else says, opting to comment from my own perspective. Even if it is sometimes rather uninformed, it is still my own personal opinion. Bottom line: There is more evidence that I actually think than there is that ER does.
I would suggest there is more evidence that ER is influenced by Liberal pundits than I am by Conservatives.
And I mean that in a good Christian way.
Mark points to a lack of "Orignal" thought among those on the Left....
I, too, see very little ORIGINAL thought on Liberal blogs and news sites... VERY little.
As an aside, I see evidence of it in the recent Plagarism 'scandal' at Katie Couric's blog. CBS fired the producer, who copied virtually verbatum from a Wall Street Journal report... Which Katie read on air as well. She got a pass, which was to be expected. But considering the sizable chunk of cash they threw at her to sign onto the Tiffany Network, you'd think they could expect a little original thought from the 'Perky Miss Kate', rather than the 'regurgitated' tripe Mark so eloquently desribed.
Mark, EL, DDadio, Ms Green. You are all very far right on the political spectrum. So for you almost every media outlet seems to be liberal. For a rabid, pro-choice, eco-fanatic, social liberals, almost all media seems geared to a more conservative viewpoint. It is a mater of perspective.
The media industry as a whole has no other institutional bias beyond increasing their profits. Individuals in that industry may have viewpoints they espouse, but they are countered by others who have opposite viewpoints. For Katie Couric, there's Brit Hume. For Keith Olberman, there's Bill O'Reilly.
The media industry does not speak uniformly on any issue. Don't point to "liberal" media to hide the shortcoming of the conservative party to woo minorities.
EL, do you think Reg & Angie read every story at WTVY? Do you think they check whether the reporters are stealing facts from The Dothan Eagle? Is that even the producers' reponsibility?
Bent: "The media industry does not speak uniformly on any issue."
For all you folks on the Left who despise Rush Limbaugh, there is one inescapable truth he puts forth almost every day, and that is the pure unadulterated fact that the Media Industry DOES in fact speak "Uniformly" on issues...
If you would listen for a week or two you would hear a regular feature... the "Drive-by Media Montage" wherein anchors/reporters from every Liberal Network-- as well as some talking heads at Fox --say the exact same things using the exact same wording... That, sir, is called "speaking uniformly of issues". Which makes your comment so utterly comical in the ears of those who have had their eyes and ears opened. You don't see it because you, like everyone else out there, can't watch but one news show at a time. You don't see it because no one on your side of the ideological fence points it out to you... they're not looking out for you. But make the effort to record and analyze various and sundry Liberal Pogroms (no that's not a typo) and you'll see that all these news organizations do, in fact, sound eerily the same... words, phrases, the same take and foregone conclusions.
But you won't listen to Rush Limbaugh because you've already tried and convicted him... based only on what you've heard from others.
As for myself. I HAVE spent some time listening to Al Franken, and Randi Rhodes. I've even heard Al Sharpton's new show. I've also watched Olbermann, Matthews, Stephanopolis, and the others, AND they are all deliver 'less-than-honest' reporting and analysis on current events.
---
As to Reg and Angie. They're supposed to read their scripts. If they did read them more often they might catch mistakes BEFORE they went to air. Those kind of mistakes are an inescapably part of local news. When it comes to national stories, however, Reg and Angie read the scripts fed by Network... they perpetuate the bias CBS, specifically, projects. That doesn't make Reg and Angie evil people, biased... far from it. They do the job they're assigned. Our producers do the job they're assigned. And since WTVY has no budgetary means to cover national and international news on its own, WTVY MUST rely on its parent network for national and international coverage.
Reg and Angie do the jobs they are contracted to do, and they do it quite well. But neither of these two have the means to filter bias from national and international coverage. It might even be fair to say they have no interest in filtering national and international coverage... It's not their job.
The people I hold accountable for bias is CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and yes, even FOX (on occasion).
Couric on the otherhand, as managing editor, has a lot of say in (and responsibility for...) what makes air on the CBS Evenning News as well as her blog, "Couric and Co." Should she be fired? Not hardly, but the producer certainly got what was coming to him/her. If Ms. Couric is smart she won't fully trust her producers ever again, else-wise she may end up like Dan Rather, who IS guilty of pushing phoney stories. Memogate was merely the last straw for Rather... He got what he deserved.
"All news networks use the same words. This is proof of the liberal conspiracy." When the tornado came through Enterprise we couldn't say people were killed until we had it confirmed. Even then we could only say "AP is reporting eight people killed." Why? Libel, accuracy, and journalistic professionalism.
The same thing happens more often at the national level. When the Washington Post breaks a story, until CBS independently confirms the facts, they have to be very careful of the language they use. So in the first day of coverage after the Walter Reed scandal, all the news networks used the same language as the WaPo to describe conditions at the hospital. They used "horrific conditions" because the post used the words "horrific conditions". Editors at the news networks assumed that if the WaPo editors cleared those adjectives for their story then they must be the correct adjectives to use.
During the 2000 election every single network used the word "Gravitas" to describe Bush's choice of Cheney for V.P. That's just one of hundreds of examples of how media creates and pushes a template for what is to be said on any given topic.
"Editors at the news networks assumed that if the WaPo editors cleared those adjectives for their story then they must be the correct adjectives to use."
No original thought on the part of other outlets who choose instead to parrot everyone else. This isn't reporting... it's a cacophony of noise not unlike what you'd hear from a cage full of finches, and just as irksome.
I read somewhere, and can't find the link, that major networks do strategize with each other on issues. Naturally they keep specific stories and angles close to the vest, but on issues of how to present so-and-so, or such-and-such issue to the viewing public... the fact that they parrot each other suggests the truth of this.
As for WTVY... we're small-fry compared to the big dogs. We have no choice but to rely on others for much of our coverage outside our viewing area. That officials in Enterprise would speak to an AP representative before us only highlights the amount of influence they wield. WTVY may be number one in its market, but we can't compete with AP in terms of influence. The fact that we couldn't get anyone to categorically state that 8 students and one elderly woman weres killed during the March tornados, forcing us to rely on AP, says a lot about how much trust we have with the public in relation to the trust the public gives to larger organizations... Like AP.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home