Elite Universities Promote Racism
Have you heard the recent story about the Harvard Professor, Henry Gates, who accused a police sergeant, James Crowley, of racism and racial "profiling"?
The police responded to a 911 call from a neighbor who observed 2 men breaking into Prof. Gates' house. It turned out that Gates himself had broken into his own house because he forgot his key. When the police arrived, they asked Gates for identification to verify that he lived there. Gates immediately became belligerent, verbally abusive and uncooperative with the cops. He accused the white police officer of racism.
The ridiculous and untrue allegations of racism, racial profiling were affirmed by President Obama during his press conference last Wednesday. Obama accused the police of acting "stupidly" and he said that anyone would have been angered by the situation that Prof Gates found himself in. Here is the video of Obama's comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LucTPdK8VTc
Of course it is ridiculous that anyone would have been angry in that situation. Most people would have thanked the police and their neighbor for "looking out" for them and politely cooperated with the police. Only someone with a "chip on his shoulder" would be angry with a police officer who was protecting his own property in response to a call from his neighbor. The police report confirms that this particular Harvard professor has anathema for white policemen. IMHO, this professor, like many others, are teaching their own prejudices to their unsuspecting and naive students.
Click here for the official police report on this incident: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/Police%20report%20on%20Gates%20arrest.PDF
If you examine all of the known facts in this case, it appears that Prof. Gates is guilty of racially profiling the white police officer. It appears that Prof. Gates was guilty of a "hate crime" because he broke the law by becoming disorderly and verbally abusive with a police officer, based solely on the officers race. Obviously the charges were dropped because Prof. Gates has the best lawyers in the world at Harvard Law school at his disposal who will spare no expense defending this petty case.
It turns out that Prof. Gates teaches African American studies at Harvard. IMHO, African American studies classes are designed to promote racial disparity in America by blaming white people for the condition of blacks. These classes emphasise white racism against blacks, while ignoring or actually justifying black racism against whites. Click on the following link to read an excellent article that makes this point.: http://patterico.com/2009/07/24/the-officer-didnt-stereotype-henry-louis-gates-henry-louis-gates-stereotyped-the-officer/
In my opinion, we should strive to become a color blind society. This goal will not be achieved by pigeonholing people into distinct racial and ethnic groups and then pitting one group against another in an effort to achieve equal outcomes in all areas. I believe that we should judge each incident on it's own merits without regard to race and/or ethnicity what-so-ever. I believe this is what Martin Luther King meant when he said: "Don't judge by the color of one's skin, but by the content of their character".
Clearly, Professor Gates judged Sergeant Crowley solely because he was a white police officer questioning a black man. In my opinion, Professor Gates exhibited racist behavior by prejudging the police officer based on his race.
This behavior is right out of the liberal playbook. Liberals like to divide people into two groups, victims and victimizers. According to what I hear from the mainstream media and from university professors, most all blacks and Hispanics are victims. Most all police are victimizers, especially the white cops. I suspect that Prof. Gates believes in this dichotomy with every fiber of his being. The reason why I say this is because the good professor is still claiming to be a victim of racial profiling in this case.
During previous years I have had similar discussions regarding other cases of so-called police brutality. My point has always been that the best way to avoid being a victim of police brutality is to be respectful and cooperative when dealing with the police. Do not run from the police unless you are sure that you can get away. If you are caught after running, your chances of getting beaten increase dramatically. If you verbally and/or physically combative with the police, you might get hurt. This happens to be true regardless of race, however, when a black man is abused by a white cop the victim often plays the race card. With the support of the liberal media, the charges are usually dropped against the alleged criminal and charges are brought against the police officer. It is obvious that this environment makes it difficult for police to effectively and safely perform their duties while protecting themselves and the public.
Why don't schools and universities teach their students be respectful and cooperative when dealing with the police? Instead they teach today's youth not to cooperate with cops and to push their "rights" to the limit. In effect, they are teaching them to infuriate the police to the point of abuse. In many cases, the victim hopes that abuse takes place, so that they can get publicity and/or sue. Also, the slightest hit of racism and/or abuse can help to get the original charges dropped.
From what I read about this case, it appears that Prof. Gates egged-on sergeant Crowley in an effort to prove his belief that white police treat black men unfairly. In my extensive experience with police, they generally treat you the same way that you treat them.
The only motivation that I can think of for the professor's behavior was to purposely get himself arrested and/or verbally abused and then make a big stink about it. Since Gates is a friend of Obama's, I wouldn't be surprised if he had that question planted at Obama's news conference. Questions at past Obama news conferences have been staged. Obama's answer might have been prepared.
If the professor thought that he was in any danger what-so-ever, he would have shown respect for the cops. Liberals are often very brave when they are in no real danger. This episode played out exactly like Prof. Gates intended. As a result of this incident he has been invited to the White house to have a beer with President Obama and to discuss the issue of racial profiling. Prof. Gates, like many successful liberals, is a master manipulator. The sad part is that he is deceiving and manipulating America's youth in his classrooms every day.
Showing posts with label racial profiling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racial profiling. Show all posts
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Father-Daughter Talk
The following is a humorous little story that I read in a local newsletter,"The Chatterbox". This eloquent little story clearly exposes the folly of liberalism and the hypocrisy of what is being taught to our gullible youth on today's college campuses. I couldn't have put it better myself. This story was well written and made an excellent point.
Father Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her last year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Libertarian, which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Libertarian Party!"
This story is just another example of how liberals call on the rest of us to follow their ideology. Often, they deem themselves exempt from their own rhetoric, because they consider themselves more compassionate and intelligent. In other words, they know what is best for the rest of us. Individual responsibility based on universal spiritual principles is the basis of conservatism. Equality of outcome is what liberals are always preaching, regardless of individual behavior. They are driven by emotions that make them feel like they are doing good, when in fact, the unintended consequences of their actions, often exacerbate to problems that they are attempting to solve. Examples are:
affirmative action in education and the workforce
Affirmative action, by definition, results in minorities that are less capable, competent and motivated than their peers in universities and the workplace. This may lead to animosity directed toward less qualified minorities from their peers who have sacrificed and struggled to get better grades and hone their skills. They are often left feeling embittered when they are passed up for college admittance and jobs due to affirmative action programs which place less qualified minorities in front of them. This will actually perpetuate the myth that minorities are not as intelligent or capable as their fellow students and co-workers. Minority students and workers who are placed in universities and jobs above their capabilities are more likely to fail. They themselves will be worse off in the long run because they are placed in schools and jobs that they do not have the necessary skills, abilities and motivation to be successful at. Affirmative action sets up the people who it is supposed to help, for failure.
tax the rich and give to the poor
This policy will discourage achievement, productivity and the creation of wealth. By over-taxing wealthy, successful people, they will be less motivated to risk their capitol through business investment. It also contributes to the spiritual degradation of the "poor".
Business investment is what creates jobs for the poor and middle class. If the profits are taxed away from the rich, they simply will not be motivated to invest and create jobs. Also, high taxes leave the rich with less money to spend on luxury items, like furs, yachts, mansions, private planes, etc. Entire industries will lose their customer base. This means that millions of small businesses, contractors and middle-class employees will lose their source of income that is derived from manufacturing and servicing these luxury items.
What liberals fail to see is that poor and middle class people have the ability and opportunity to move up the economic ladder when properly motivated by profits and the chance of becoming rich. By punishing the rich, you are actually reducing the "poor" and middle-class's chances of improving their lot in life and becoming the rich themselves. Most of today's millionaires are self-made men who have worked their way up from poor and middle class backgrounds. The US does not have a class system that is set in stone. People are constantly moving up and out of lower economic situations every day. Man's natural motivation to succeed works best when not deterred by taxes on the rich and government subsidies for the "poor".
Families, Churches, and private charities are best at helping the truly needy. When people give voluntarily, it improves their character as well as efficiently filling a need. It is better to give than receive. This is a universal spiritual principle that applies to voluntarily giving. Having your wealth seized by the government, for what politicians have convinced constituents are altruistic purposes, is of no spiritual benefit to anyone. Also, the government bureaucracies that are charged with helping the poor are inefficient at best and corrupt at worse. Voluntary charity is spiritually uplifting. Forced redistribution of wealth can have a corrupting effect on all who are involved.
When people are over taxed, they feel embittered, used and unmotivated. A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. The data shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent. The lower 50 percent of wage earners, paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes.
Politicians often pit one class against another in order to secure political power. They offer programs to "help" the "poor", but the "poor" often feel resentment because government assistance is never enough. Human nature is such, that getting something for nothing, breeds laziness, apathy and resentment. This results in a permanent underclass that remains dependent on inadequate government programs. They remain beholden to the politicians that dole out the freebies. As a result much of this underclass will become unmotivated to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and remain in and endless cycle of poverty. An unmotivated underclass is a drain on our economy as well as spiritually degrading for the poor themselves.
Taxing the rich and subsidising the poor contributes to negative economic growth as well as a vicious cycle leading to spiritual depravity. Although many liberals have noble altruistic motives, the unintended consequences of their "feel good" solutions often exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve.
Father Daughter Talk
A young woman was about to finish her last year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Libertarian, which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.
He stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she studied all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?" She replied, "Mary is barely getting by." She continued, "She barely has a 2.0 GPA," adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter visibly shocked by her father's suggestion angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Libertarian Party!"
This story is just another example of how liberals call on the rest of us to follow their ideology. Often, they deem themselves exempt from their own rhetoric, because they consider themselves more compassionate and intelligent. In other words, they know what is best for the rest of us. Individual responsibility based on universal spiritual principles is the basis of conservatism. Equality of outcome is what liberals are always preaching, regardless of individual behavior. They are driven by emotions that make them feel like they are doing good, when in fact, the unintended consequences of their actions, often exacerbate to problems that they are attempting to solve. Examples are:
affirmative action in education and the workforce
Affirmative action, by definition, results in minorities that are less capable, competent and motivated than their peers in universities and the workplace. This may lead to animosity directed toward less qualified minorities from their peers who have sacrificed and struggled to get better grades and hone their skills. They are often left feeling embittered when they are passed up for college admittance and jobs due to affirmative action programs which place less qualified minorities in front of them. This will actually perpetuate the myth that minorities are not as intelligent or capable as their fellow students and co-workers. Minority students and workers who are placed in universities and jobs above their capabilities are more likely to fail. They themselves will be worse off in the long run because they are placed in schools and jobs that they do not have the necessary skills, abilities and motivation to be successful at. Affirmative action sets up the people who it is supposed to help, for failure.
tax the rich and give to the poor
This policy will discourage achievement, productivity and the creation of wealth. By over-taxing wealthy, successful people, they will be less motivated to risk their capitol through business investment. It also contributes to the spiritual degradation of the "poor".
Business investment is what creates jobs for the poor and middle class. If the profits are taxed away from the rich, they simply will not be motivated to invest and create jobs. Also, high taxes leave the rich with less money to spend on luxury items, like furs, yachts, mansions, private planes, etc. Entire industries will lose their customer base. This means that millions of small businesses, contractors and middle-class employees will lose their source of income that is derived from manufacturing and servicing these luxury items.
What liberals fail to see is that poor and middle class people have the ability and opportunity to move up the economic ladder when properly motivated by profits and the chance of becoming rich. By punishing the rich, you are actually reducing the "poor" and middle-class's chances of improving their lot in life and becoming the rich themselves. Most of today's millionaires are self-made men who have worked their way up from poor and middle class backgrounds. The US does not have a class system that is set in stone. People are constantly moving up and out of lower economic situations every day. Man's natural motivation to succeed works best when not deterred by taxes on the rich and government subsidies for the "poor".
Families, Churches, and private charities are best at helping the truly needy. When people give voluntarily, it improves their character as well as efficiently filling a need. It is better to give than receive. This is a universal spiritual principle that applies to voluntarily giving. Having your wealth seized by the government, for what politicians have convinced constituents are altruistic purposes, is of no spiritual benefit to anyone. Also, the government bureaucracies that are charged with helping the poor are inefficient at best and corrupt at worse. Voluntary charity is spiritually uplifting. Forced redistribution of wealth can have a corrupting effect on all who are involved.
When people are over taxed, they feel embittered, used and unmotivated. A few weeks ago, the Internal Revenue Service released data on tax year 2003. The data shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top 25 percent paid 83.9 percent. The lower 50 percent of wage earners, paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes.
Politicians often pit one class against another in order to secure political power. They offer programs to "help" the "poor", but the "poor" often feel resentment because government assistance is never enough. Human nature is such, that getting something for nothing, breeds laziness, apathy and resentment. This results in a permanent underclass that remains dependent on inadequate government programs. They remain beholden to the politicians that dole out the freebies. As a result much of this underclass will become unmotivated to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and remain in and endless cycle of poverty. An unmotivated underclass is a drain on our economy as well as spiritually degrading for the poor themselves.
Taxing the rich and subsidising the poor contributes to negative economic growth as well as a vicious cycle leading to spiritual depravity. Although many liberals have noble altruistic motives, the unintended consequences of their "feel good" solutions often exacerbate the problems they are trying to solve.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Don Imus, Aging Hipster or Racist?
Don Imus is back in the news again with charges of racism leveled against him. This is what he said on the radio:
Wolf: "Defensive back Adam 'Pacman' Jones, recently signed by the Cowboys. Here's a guy suspended all of 2007 following a shooting in a Vegas night club."
Imus: "Well, stuff happens. You're in a night club, for God's sake. What do you thinks gonna happen in a night club? People are drinking and doing drugs, there are women there, and people have guns. So, there, go ahead."
Wolf: "He's also been arrested six times since being drafted by Tennessee in 2005."
Imus: "What color is he?"
Wolf: "He's African-American."
Imus: "Well, there you go. Now we know."
The attack on Imus is wrong on several levels. Since Imus's crack about "nappy headed hoes" last year, Imus went on Al Sharpton's radio show and apologized profusely. He apologized to the the girls basketball team at Rutgers personally. Last fall, Imus got a new radio show on WABC in New York. Imus hired a new staff, including many black people in high paying jobs, for the production of his radio show. On his new show, Imus talked about issues concerning blacks in a typical liberal fashion, portraying blacks as victims in a racist society. He has talked about how police racially profile blacks for harassment and arrest. In other words, Don Imus went out of his way to appease the black activists that he knew were listening to his every word, waiting for a chance to pounce on him for racism. Imus has been walking on eggshells since the Rutgers incident in an effort to appease Al Sharpton and other race-baiters.
The comment Imus made was clearly an attempt at sarcasm, in order to illustrate that Pacman Jones was being harassed and profiled by police because he was black. Of course I don't believe that the police profiled Pacman Jones. Pacman has an extensive criminal history for drugs and violence leading back to his high school and college years in addition to his six arrests since he has been in the NFL. He has been arrested for brawls in strip clubs and violence against women. Don Imus was trying to portray Pacman as a victim of police profiling and also to appease the likes of Al Sharpton.
The greater problem is that Pacman Jones is embraced by so many fans who celebrate the gangster culture that he demonstrates in his personal life. Just like the gangster culture has taken over hip-hop music and the clothing industry, the gangster culture has now become mainstream in professional sports. Many professional athletes have multiple children with different women. They are lauded as "players". They sport hip-hop hair styles and wear gangster like clothing. Look at clothing that men are wearing these days. They are either wearing a sports outfit, often with the name and number of athletes who act like low-lifes off the field, or they are dressing like hip-hop gang-bangers, or they wear a black tee-shirt that displays a negative image and the unsavory name of a band. All three groups are proving to be negative role models.
The celebration of evil in our society is being hastened by the media, arts, sports and clothing industry who are catering to the lowest common denominator in our society. Don Imus is part of the problem. Not because he is a racist, but because he embraces the gangster culture. Imus was trying to be cool, and "hip-hop like" when he used the phrase "nappy headed hoes" to describe girls on the Rutgers basketball team over a year ago. Unfortunately, it is hard for a sixty-eight year old white man in a cowboy hat, to pull this off and still be believable. Had these remarks come from a younger man with baggy pants and tattoos on his neck, notice would not have been taken. In this recent incident, Imus embraces and sympathizes with a criminal football hero who he falsely depicts as a victim of unfair police racial profiling. In both instances (Rutgers' girls and Pacman), Imus was embracing today's twisted popular culture and it was misunderstood as racism.
After the first incident, Sharpton staged token protests against record labels that promote rap and hip-hop music that contain lyrics that encourage drugs, violence and demeaning of women. If Al Sharpton and his ilk truly want to help the downtrodden, they would condemn Pacman Jones and the fans that worship him for his extracurricular activities. They call it "street cred", and it helps celebrities gain popularity. Instead of being rewarded for "street cred", these "bad-boy celebrities" should be condemned and run out of the business. Perhaps that would send a positive message, but that is not likely to happen because the sports industry, entertainment industry and clothing industry, use these misguided celebrities as "cash cows" ready to be milked. There should be rage against what Don Imus said, but the rage is misdirected. Imus should be condemned for coming to the defense of the criminal celebrity, Pacman Jones.
Wolf: "Defensive back Adam 'Pacman' Jones, recently signed by the Cowboys. Here's a guy suspended all of 2007 following a shooting in a Vegas night club."
Imus: "Well, stuff happens. You're in a night club, for God's sake. What do you thinks gonna happen in a night club? People are drinking and doing drugs, there are women there, and people have guns. So, there, go ahead."
Wolf: "He's also been arrested six times since being drafted by Tennessee in 2005."
Imus: "What color is he?"
Wolf: "He's African-American."
Imus: "Well, there you go. Now we know."
The attack on Imus is wrong on several levels. Since Imus's crack about "nappy headed hoes" last year, Imus went on Al Sharpton's radio show and apologized profusely. He apologized to the the girls basketball team at Rutgers personally. Last fall, Imus got a new radio show on WABC in New York. Imus hired a new staff, including many black people in high paying jobs, for the production of his radio show. On his new show, Imus talked about issues concerning blacks in a typical liberal fashion, portraying blacks as victims in a racist society. He has talked about how police racially profile blacks for harassment and arrest. In other words, Don Imus went out of his way to appease the black activists that he knew were listening to his every word, waiting for a chance to pounce on him for racism. Imus has been walking on eggshells since the Rutgers incident in an effort to appease Al Sharpton and other race-baiters.
The comment Imus made was clearly an attempt at sarcasm, in order to illustrate that Pacman Jones was being harassed and profiled by police because he was black. Of course I don't believe that the police profiled Pacman Jones. Pacman has an extensive criminal history for drugs and violence leading back to his high school and college years in addition to his six arrests since he has been in the NFL. He has been arrested for brawls in strip clubs and violence against women. Don Imus was trying to portray Pacman as a victim of police profiling and also to appease the likes of Al Sharpton.
The greater problem is that Pacman Jones is embraced by so many fans who celebrate the gangster culture that he demonstrates in his personal life. Just like the gangster culture has taken over hip-hop music and the clothing industry, the gangster culture has now become mainstream in professional sports. Many professional athletes have multiple children with different women. They are lauded as "players". They sport hip-hop hair styles and wear gangster like clothing. Look at clothing that men are wearing these days. They are either wearing a sports outfit, often with the name and number of athletes who act like low-lifes off the field, or they are dressing like hip-hop gang-bangers, or they wear a black tee-shirt that displays a negative image and the unsavory name of a band. All three groups are proving to be negative role models.
The celebration of evil in our society is being hastened by the media, arts, sports and clothing industry who are catering to the lowest common denominator in our society. Don Imus is part of the problem. Not because he is a racist, but because he embraces the gangster culture. Imus was trying to be cool, and "hip-hop like" when he used the phrase "nappy headed hoes" to describe girls on the Rutgers basketball team over a year ago. Unfortunately, it is hard for a sixty-eight year old white man in a cowboy hat, to pull this off and still be believable. Had these remarks come from a younger man with baggy pants and tattoos on his neck, notice would not have been taken. In this recent incident, Imus embraces and sympathizes with a criminal football hero who he falsely depicts as a victim of unfair police racial profiling. In both instances (Rutgers' girls and Pacman), Imus was embracing today's twisted popular culture and it was misunderstood as racism.
After the first incident, Sharpton staged token protests against record labels that promote rap and hip-hop music that contain lyrics that encourage drugs, violence and demeaning of women. If Al Sharpton and his ilk truly want to help the downtrodden, they would condemn Pacman Jones and the fans that worship him for his extracurricular activities. They call it "street cred", and it helps celebrities gain popularity. Instead of being rewarded for "street cred", these "bad-boy celebrities" should be condemned and run out of the business. Perhaps that would send a positive message, but that is not likely to happen because the sports industry, entertainment industry and clothing industry, use these misguided celebrities as "cash cows" ready to be milked. There should be rage against what Don Imus said, but the rage is misdirected. Imus should be condemned for coming to the defense of the criminal celebrity, Pacman Jones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
