[assman]

(03-07-2014 01:42 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 01:25 PM)assman Wrote:  

It's pretty easy to identify liberal policies that have contributed to the breakdown of the black family (and really, family of all races though the exposure to liberal policies is felt most acutely in inner cities and thus disproportionately impacts blacks).

So why wouldn't elimination/abandonment of those policies help stem the breakdown?

I'm not entirely convinced of that. I think at the fundamental level we're dealing with cultural problems. You might argue that if welfare weren't available, a woman might think twice about having an out of wedlock kid. But why would a woman do that whether welfare is available or not? A girl that's been raised right isn't going to have kids with deadbeats that won't stick around.

Think of this on the margin. I.e., for a woman who was raised right and wouldn't dream of having a child out of wedlock, the availability of welfare won't matter. But for a woman with an upbringing that didn't instill good values, the availability of welfare can lead her to make decisions that she otherwise wouldn't.

Any time you shift the burdens and responsibilities of an action away from the decision-maker, you create incentives for irresponsible behavior.

[assman]

(03-07-2014 04:25 PM)vinman Wrote:  

As a black libertarian I'm kind of like a unicorn. A rare creature. I can honestly say I've never been disrespected to my face in discussions with conservatives. I can't say the same for enlightened progressives.

It seems to me that libertarianism would appeal more to the average black guy than the average white guy - in the sense that black guys (at least as adults, not necessarily as teens) don't seem to buy into cultural indoctrination as much as white guys.

I could be wrong about that, but just my general sense from the blacks and whites I've known - the black guys are more likely to live in reality than the white guys (in particular, the liberal white guys). Heh, I'm doing a shitty job of explaining this, but some of you might get what I'm saying.

I would disagree with the earlier contention that blacks will always vote Democrat. I think conservatives and libertarians have to do a much better job of outreach, in particular to black men.

[speakeasy]

(03-08-2014 09:58 AM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 03:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 02:04 AM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 08:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Well, that's an interesting way of framing things. More accurately leftists believe in higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a social safety net. Blacks pay taxes too. And well to do blacks pay a lot in tax. At least half or more of the welfare cases are poor whites. It's not so black & white, pun intended.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the majority of welfare recipients are white. You have to keep in mind, though, that something like 70% of the population is white and only 12-13% is black. If whites and blacks were on welfare equally, only a little more than 10% of all welfare recipients would be black.

Welfare in the U.S., in all of its many forms, is a net transfer from whites to blacks. Just like it is also a net transfer from men to women. Both of those groups get dramatically more than they put in, percentage wise. For this reason, it would be ridiculous to expect women or blacks to EVER not support leftists. Dems/leftists could do almost anything, no matter how outrageous, and these demos would always support them because of this.

Whites and men, of course, are huge net losers in the system. This is one reason why promoting white guilt (and "male guilt") is so fundamentally important to leftists. Without it, what halfway sane white person would support or even put up with a system that fucks them over in favor of other, often adversarial demographics? Constant social shaming about racism is absolutely necessary to sustaining socialist policies in the U.S.

You see it as a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. I see it as transfer of wealth from haves to have-nots. Both are true depending what light you see it in. It's important to remember a few things:

1) Most blacks are not on public assistance. Most work for their money.

Sources are from here, if they are unreliable, whatever I don't have the time to turn this into a scholarly article.

Its says that 46.3% of black families are single female led households making an average of $25000/year. That is THE sweet spot number for public assistance. Food stamps of $3600/year, Earned income Tax credit of another $3000, subsidized daycare of $2500/year per kid, medicaid based medical care worth an easy $7200/year. Also being single females with low income, with access to benefits the state hunts down fathers for child support, giving them publicly assisted debt collectors. That is 40% of their income coming from public assistance. That is not 'working for their money'

I don't know what proportion of families makes up the income demographic but the same site has over 50% of blacks making less than $35k/year, you can still get earned income tax credit of $1000 at that amount on top of a standard deduction and exemption for a single person of about $15000 so you're really only paying %10 tax on 20,000 plust the EITC is an effective tax rate of 2.8%...again not what I call 'working for the money' tax and social policy are helping the majority of black income earners.

I want to circle back again though and remove the color from the equation, this problem exists with the poor in america period. Tax and public assistance polices don't help 'the working poor' they help the employers. If someone earns %40 of their income from government incentives the employer theoretically has to pay the other %60 to support a full time employee. Thats what I don't like and think is broken, go ahead and jack the minimum wage up to $12 but also drop earned income tax credit, medicaid assistance, obamacare tax credits, subsidized daycare and pass those saving back to employers so they can then afford the minimum wage. Middle man eliminated and now individuals and families have the free choice of use for their paycheck. clothes, big screen TV's or savings, education and diapers.

Why are trying to guess the percentage of black people are welfare by looking at income statistics when you can just grab the TANF(used to be called AFDC, this is what we normally think of as "welfare assistance") statistics?

First off, about 1.6% of the country's households are on TANF. The average monthly number of TANF families was 1,847,155 in FY 2010 out of about a total 115 households in America. 32% of those TANF households were black which means about 591,087 black households were on TANF that year. There are 9.8 million black households in America. That would mean a grand total of 6% of black households are on TANF. Meaning 94% of black households are NOT on welfare. Last I checked 94% would qualify as "most".

I put all my sources for numbers below. If you feel I'm wrong on something, feel free to check me on it.

Some other interesting things of note, TANF only accounts for 0.7% of the federal budget. So why it's made into this boogieman issue I don't know. And relative few families are using it, even during the down economy. That there are people walking around ANGRY about welfare recipients is hilarious given all the other shit our taxes go to that is unmitigated waste. And the perception of welfare queens having lots of kids so they can collect is bullshit.

Quote:

The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.4, including an average of 1.8 recipient children. One in two recipient families had only one child. Less than eight percent of families had more than three children. The average number of children in closed-case families was 1.8. Nearly one in two closed-case families had one child, and only seven percent had more than three children.

^^^ Got that folks? I don't even want to hear people claiming that women are having huge numbers of kids to get welfare. LESS THAN 8% of welfare mothers had more than 3 children.

Far more welfare is given to corporations. Look at Walmart:

Quote:

Wal-Mart. Always high subsidies. Always.

The same is true in all other industries, too. The government gives tons of favors to the largest corporations, increasing the significant advantage they already have over smaller competing businesses. If, in the court of public opinion, Wal-Mart has been tried and convicted for the murder of main street, mom-and-pop America, then the government could easily be found guilty as a willing accomplice. Wal-Mart receives hundreds of millions of dollars of subsidization by local governments throughout the country. These subsidies take the form of bribes by local politicians trying to convince Wal-Mart to come to their town with the dream of significant job creation. Of course, from that follows a larger tax base. For example, a distribution center in Macclenny, Florida received $9 million in government subsidies in the form of free land, government-funded recruitment and training of employees, targeted tax breaks, and housing subsidies for employees allowing them to be paid significantly lower wages. A study by Good Jobs First found that 244 Wal-Marts around the country had received over $1 billion in government favors.

Sources:
--------------------------------------------------------
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/reso...2009/tab08

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/reso...0-ys-final

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spe...tatistics/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl..._expe.html

[Tail Gunner]

(03-08-2014 04:50 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Some other interesting things of note, TANF only accounts for 0.7% of the federal budget. So why it's made into this boogieman issue I don't know.

Yea, only seven-tenths of one percent of the national budget!

A tremendous amount of money (about ten billion dollars) -- taken from productive people trying to raise families and lead productive lives.

And that is just one welfare program.

It is beyond my comprehension that people can even think in such a manner.

[speakeasy]

^^^ But everything is relative and needs to be put into perspective. You will hear right-wingers complaining about "welfare queens" more than they complain about the hundreds of billions wasted on occupying Iraq(also taking from productive people trying to raise families and lead productive lives).

"Amurika, fuck yeah! More troops! More military spending! Blank checks to Blackwater and Halliburton! But goddamned I'm sick of the 1.6% of people on welfare bleeding me dry!"

Perspective. That's all I ask.

[It_is_my_time]

(03-08-2014 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^^ But everything is relative and needs to be put into perspective. You will hear right-wingers complaining about "welfare queens" more than they complain about the hundreds of billions wasted on occupying Iraq(also taking from productive people trying to raise families and lead productive lives).

"Amurika, fuck yeah! More troops! More military spending! Blank checks to Blackwater and Halliburton! But goddamned I'm sick of the 1.6% of people on welfare bleeding me dry!"

Perspective. That's all I ask.

I don't think anyone here thinks we need to spend more money on military.

We spend more on military than the next top 10 countries combined.

The problem is, the military industrial complex owns both parties. Obama made a slight cut to the military, but it targets the pay of the regular grunts and vets, more than it will all the unbelievable waste. But it is a start.

My point is, BOTH parties are for military spending, it is too much of a PR topic. Cut military spending and the media spins you as a bad guy.

So we look at the other issues. And in the other issues, the Democratic party is squarely in line with the feminists and targets and tries their best to steal from good hard working men, of ALL races.

[Dr. Howard]

(03-08-2014 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^^ But everything is relative and needs to be put into perspective. You will hear right-wingers complaining about "welfare queens" more than they complain about the hundreds of billions wasted on occupying Iraq(also taking from productive people trying to raise families and lead productive lives).

"Amurika, fuck yeah! More troops! More military spending! Blank checks to Blackwater and Halliburton! But goddamned I'm sick of the 1.6% of people on welfare bleeding me dry!"

Perspective. That's all I ask.

Thanks for continuing the discussion, I'm going to reply here only because the TANF reply is too long. I didn't use TANF because you had referred to Public Assistance and not welfare, public assistance is broader in scope and easier to get than TANF. Its also hard to get onto, which is why the numbers are so low. The trailer park families I know get by with the tax programs I mentioned while trying to get on the golden calf of disability vs. TANF.

I also agree, the 'welfare queen' doesn't exist and its because TANF has been locked down, a poor mother can't just do 'nothing' anymore and collect welfare, she'll need a part time job at minimum wage to then put her on the elibility list for EITC. That was the reason for its creation, along with subsidized daycare, section 42 housing etc. It is supposed to enable people to work, but the stacking of these all together creates minimal incentive to work hard/smart. I fully agree that poor families earn the first $25k in that category, but the next $20k in tax refunds and subsidies given to them on top of that $25k is not earned.

In short, I don't think TANF is a good reference because it has been reduced to such a small program, as shown in your references. I've never met anyone on it but I know plenty of poor people of multiple skin colors using EITC, food stamps, medicaid and daycare vouchers.

As for scales of programs, Food Stamps is 46 million users vs 2 million for TANF for example, non-elderly medicaid I can't find usage numbers on but if you are eligible for food stamps you are likely also eligible for it, so I'd say they represent a larger pool of public assistance to look at. So lets look at ethnic proportion.

Step 1, US demographics 77.9% white 13.1% black as a whole, so any program should have those same ethnic demographics if all things are equal for who is using them. If the US is made up of 78% white and 13% black, the users of social assistance should have the same proportion if there is no other influence.

Step 2. ethnicity demographics for food stamps 37.6% white 23.6% black

Step 3. ethnicity demographics for non elderly medicaid %42 white 20% black

Step 4. It looks to me like there are a disproportionate amount of black people using large public assistance programs in america compared with the ethnic makeup of the population but that is to be expected when blacks make up 35% of the enthic demographic of people in poverty in america.

So, this is why I disagree with the original statement of 'most black people work for their money'...they don't. As stated in an earlier post, %50 of blacks earn less than 35k/year, and 'low income' is defined as twice the poverty limit so about 30k per year depending on family size. Public assistance, by nature, targets low income wage earners. It just so happens that the majority of blacks are also low income wage earners, thus the most eligible for public assistance, thus the least likely to be working for their own money unless there are people not claiming tax credits or other low income assistance that they are eligible for.

I don't really have to post links do I?

I do agree with corporate welfare being misused as well. Ask a canadian business about how they use SRED credits and you will see abuse as bad as those trading food stamps for booze.

[assman]

On topic:

[berserk]

"Liberal" is an american New Speak word for cultural-marxist. Liberal in Europe means Libertarian and Classic Liberalism have nothing in common with modern american liberalism. In Europe we call them either socialists or social-liberals. A social-liberal is a deconstructivist cultural-marxist while a socialist is, well, a socialist.

It seems strange to me that americans refuse to call a spade a spade. When I read about american liberals, I largely hear exactly the same sentiments as socialists and cultural-marxists in Europe. Cultural-marxism btw isn't a word I made up, it originated from the Fabian socialist society and the socialist Frankfurt school and is just as nefarious if not more than communism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

"...An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially from Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity;[1] are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy..."

Read the above and tell me that isn't exactly what an americal liberal is about?

Now, when you understand that a liberal is really a marxist is when you can understand, that the prime directive of a marxist is always and has always been to create strife, distinction and separation in order to create a revolution, which in the marxist cult, the revolution takes on almost a religious edge.

The marxist therefore always needs a victim group to use as their pawn in legitimizing their power grab. Once living standards rose post WW2 in Europe, the former 'proletariat' was now lower middle class and not interested in communism anymore. That meant the need for new group of victims to fill the role of the proletariat.

That became blacks and women in America and foreign workers/turks in Europe.

If you study history you will see that the methods used to seduce the black community, the turk/arab community and women were exactly the same as the proletariat in the industrial age.

Of course, one could say that conservatives, another word which has lost meaning in the US, missed the boat in recognizing some critical legitimate social issues such as by themselves making everyone more equal under the law and themselves giving more minorities a chance, to let them prove themselves in business and government.

In the end, it is still important to see what is really going on, the ghost of marxism is alive and well in feminism and liberalism.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(03-09-2014 10:22 AM)berserk Wrote:  

If you study history you will see that the methods used to seduce the black community, the turk/arab community and women were exactly the same as the proletariat in the industrial age.

They're now trying to do this to Latin-Americans here in the US.

[assman]

(03-09-2014 10:22 AM)berserk Wrote:  

It seems strange to me that americans refuse to call a spade a spade.

Conservative/libertarian Americans who aren't asleep at the switch recognize what American liberalism is. Hell, these liberals sometimes even call themselves progressives - the politically correct term for socialists and communists in America.

[Hispanic_Reasoning]

(03-09-2014 11:29 AM)assman Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 10:22 AM)berserk Wrote:  

It seems strange to me that americans refuse to call a spade a spade.

Conservative/libertarian Americans who aren't asleep at the switch recognize what American liberalism is. Hell, these liberals sometimes even call themselves progressives - the politically correct term for socialists and communists in America.

I find it funny they call themselves progressives, lol. Last time I remember, Progressivism isn't about destroying society and bringing in degenerate cultural factors.

[Bad Hussar]

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread.

But basically the answer is: Because black Americans are not allowed to have personal "agency".

Why are they not allowed to have agency?
Because the supposed modern "left" in the country, which is at least as much of an embarrassment to liberal ideas as the "family values" right wing is to conservative ideas, wants them to be counted as all-in on whatever social drive they have decided is the "cause du jour". In reality more than 50% of black people in the country would be against whatever ridiculous issue they latch on to, but for the sake of appearances they must be seen to be in agreement. If they were allowed personal agency this disagreement would undermine the position of those pushing it.

[lskdfjldsf]

"Last time I remember, Progressivism isn't about destroying society and bringing in degenerate cultural factors."

That's very much a matter of debate - liberals don't want to destroy society, they put policy proposals forward because they think it makes society better. I despise the ideology as much as anyone, but it's necessary to keep a sense of perspective on what actually drives the ideology and motivates liberals. They have good intentions and honestly think their ideas will make the world better.

However....

What bugs me is the term "progressive" itself. It implies moving things forward and changing them in a better way (New Speak), when in reality, it's simply changing things for the sake of changing things. When someone says "I am a progressive!" my immediate response is to say "No, you're a liberal."

Liberals don't understand the basic concept of cause and effect. They are completely devoid of the innate sense of cynicism that protected society and allowed it to evolve and flourish into what it is today. They are driven by emotions and feelings, rather than truth and logic. To liberals, outcome is more important than opportunity. It's like building a house of cards and wanting to change the cards at the top by removing those at the bottom. They are too self absorbed and self righteous to realize that the "cruel and oppressive" structures in our society worth changing (in spheres of governance, race, or gender relations) are what allow them to have the wealth, knowledge, and safety to demand those changes in the first place.

We are now to the point where we are pulling the most structurally integral cards from the bottom of the house (the nuclear family, gender roles, etc.) without fully comprehending what the long-term implications are as a collective species. Despite the tremendous technological advancements we've made over the past centuries, particularly in education and information, it's an unparalleled shortsightedness that will inevitably lead to our demise socially, culturally, and biologically.

[megatron]

(03-07-2014 12:21 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:02 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

It's not that liberals have blacks on a leash, it's that conservatives have nothing to offer that's appealing to blacks on the whole. Add in an instance of the Southern Strategy every 4 years and it's no big surprise.

Even if you think these are good things why would these Republican ideas be popular with any black person that's looking at things from a perspective of rational self-interest?

1) Ending affirmative action. Even if you think it's fair, that's obviously not in the self-interest of a black person and it's certainly not going to be a draw for black voters.

2) Ending Affordable Care Act. Blacks have the worst life-expectancy and are least likely to be insured and have affordable options to health care. Why would voting for the party that wants to take away ACA be attractive?

3) Lowering taxes on the rich. Since blacks are more likely to be poor, why the fuck do they care about lowering taxes on millionaires?

4) De-funding public education. Black kids are more likely to go to fucked up schools, why would they want to vote for the party that hates the NEA?

5) On guns. We all know how many black men die from gunfire in the inner-city. Why are blacks going to vote for the pro-NRA crowd that thinks we need MORE guns.

6) Unemployment insurance. Black unemployment rates are double the white rate. Why vote for the party fights the extension of unemployment benefits?

I'm not making a personal pro/con argument about any of the above. I'm just saying that for an average black American voting from the perspective of rational self-interest, there's just not much to like about Republicans/fiscal Libertarians and conservatives. Gay marriage is about the only area blacks intersect with conservatives.

This pretty much sums it up. I don't buy the whole "Libs tell Blacks what to do meme." Its simply a matter of chosing which shit sandwhich to eat, you'll simply pick the one with less shit.

Also, with the exception of Cosby or maybe even Dr. Carson, the average "Black Conservative" on the public sphere has zero credibility among Blacks. Its quite transparent that they are only talking reckless about Black folk because they are getting a check.

Yeah.

And one major one I forgot:

7) Conservatives fighting minimum wage increases when blacks disproportionately work in minimum wage and low-paying jobs.

People vote mostly along the lines of economic interests and I can think of nowhere that conservatives and blacks overlap with regard to fiscal policy.

Btw, I'm not even sure it's fair to call Bill Cosby a conservative. Just because he's criticizing some bad shit going on the ghetto doesn't make him a conservative. He's just telling the truth. I'm guessing he voted for Obama and probably has left-of center economic views. But blacks who criticize ghetto behavior are often branded "conservative" even if they aren't conservative in any economic/political sense. Whereas Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are true conservatives and believe in right-leaning economic theory.

Just read how Germany has one of the lowest teenage unemployment rates in the world (ours is shitty and getting worse every year). Guess what: they have no minimum wage.

[megatron]

(03-08-2014 06:04 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^^ But everything is relative and needs to be put into perspective. You will hear right-wingers complaining about "welfare queens" more than they complain about the hundreds of billions wasted on occupying Iraq(also taking from productive people trying to raise families and lead productive lives).

"Amurika, fuck yeah! More troops! More military spending! Blank checks to Blackwater and Halliburton! But goddamned I'm sick of the 1.6% of people on welfare bleeding me dry!"

Perspective. That's all I ask.

I agree with you, but welfare entitlements (SS, Socialized Medicine) account for the vast majority of our debt. It dwarfs our (bloated, I agree) defense budget.

[megatron]

Here's conclusive proof that Democrats don't give two shits about Blacks and their plight of poverty: they want to import millions of low-skilled immigrants and grant amnesty to illegals. Blacks will lose TONS of jobs because of this, because the fact is there's a very large segment of Blacks who work at manual labor or low-skilled jobs.

[Tail Gunner]

(03-10-2014 12:25 PM)megatron Wrote:  

Here's conclusive proof that Democrats don't give two shits about Blacks and their plight of poverty: they want to import millions of low-skilled immigrants and grant amnesty to illegals. Blacks will lose TONS of jobs because of this, because the fact is there's a very large segment of Blacks who work at manual labor or low-skilled jobs.

In addition, Democrats have absolutely no fear of enacting amnesty and thereby alienating their black voting base, because African-Americans give the party a free pass regardless of what it does. Despite the fact that African-Americans might think otherwise, they have zero clout within the Democratic Party -- which entirely takes them for granted.

[megatron]

(03-10-2014 02:12 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-10-2014 12:25 PM)megatron Wrote:  

Here's conclusive proof that Democrats don't give two shits about Blacks and their plight of poverty: they want to import millions of low-skilled immigrants and grant amnesty to illegals. Blacks will lose TONS of jobs because of this, because the fact is there's a very large segment of Blacks who work at manual labor or low-skilled jobs.

In addition, Democrats have absolutely no fear of enacting amnesty and thereby alienating their black voting base, because African-Americans give the party a free pass regardless of what it does. Despite the fact that African-Americans might think otherwise, they have zero clout within the Democratic Party -- which entirely takes them for granted.

Yep. Amnesty and millions of Blacks losing their jobs is a win-win for Democrats. The fact is, the more successful a Black American becomes, the less likely they are to blindly vote for Democrats. But if they're prevented from climbing out of the ghetto, they'll be lifetime supporters. The ideal position for ALL Blacks, Minorities and Women, for Democrats to forever rule the US, is for them be poor (but not too poor), unmarried and unemployed (or at best, working for the Gov't).

[assman]

(03-10-2014 02:12 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

In addition, Democrats have absolutely no fear of enacting amnesty and thereby alienating their black voting base, because African-Americans give the party a free pass regardless of what it does. Despite the fact that African-Americans might think otherwise, they have zero clout within the Democratic Party -- which entirely takes them for granted.

Certainly seems that way. In addition to amnesty, there is the gay marriage push. But the Democratic Party have no fear the large black Christian section of their base will leave.

There is an opportunity here for Republicans and Libertarians to help some conservative blacks escape the Democratic Party plantation. But they have to go to the churches and get in front of the people because it sure seems black America is only hearing from the left.

[Tail Gunner]

Recent Thomas Sowell column: "The Left Versus Minorities"

On point, as always.

Quote:

The Left Versus Minorities
Thomas Sowell | Mar 11, 2014

If anyone wanted to pick a time and place where the political left's avowed concern for minorities was definitively exposed as a fraud, it would be now -- and the place would be New York City, where far left Mayor Bill de Blasio has launched an attack on charter schools, cutting their funding, among other things.

These schools have given thousands of low income minority children their only shot at a decent education, which often means their only shot at a decent life. Last year 82 percent of the students at a charter school called Success Academy passed city-wide mathematics exams, compared to 30 percent of the students in the city as a whole.

Why would anybody who has any concern at all about minority young people -- or even common decency -- want to destroy what progress has already been made?

One big reason, of course, is the teachers' union, one of Mayor de Blasio's biggest supporters. But it may be more than that. For many of the true believers on the left, their ideology overrides any concern about the actual fate of flesh-and-blood human beings.

Something similar happened on the west coast last year. The American Indian Model Schools in Oakland have been ranked among the top schools in the nation, based on their students' test scores. This is, again, a special achievement for minority students who need all the help they can get.

But, last spring, the California State Board of Education announced plans to shut this school down!

Why? The excuse given was that there had been suspicious financial dealings by the former -- repeat, former -- head of the institution. If this was the real reason, then all they had to do was indict the former head and let a court decide if he was guilty or innocent.

There was no reason to make anyone else suffer, much less the students. But the education establishment's decision was to refuse to let the school open last fall. Fortunately a court stopped this hasty shut-down.

These are not just isolated local incidents. The Obama administration has cut spending for charter schools in the District of Columbia and its Justice Department has intervened to try to stop the state of Louisiana from expanding its charter schools.

Why such hostility to schools that have succeeded in educating minority students, where so many others have failed?

Some of the opposition to charter schools has been sheer crass politics. The teachers' unions see charter schools as a threat to their members' jobs, and politicians respond to the money and the votes that teachers' unions can provide.

The net result is that public schools are often run as if their main function is to provide jobs to teachers. Whether the children get a decent education is secondary, at best.

In various parts of the country, educators who have succeeded in raising the educational level of minority children to the national average -- or above -- have faced hostility, harassment or have even been driven out of their schools.

Not all charter schools are successful, of course, but the ones that are completely undermine the excuses for failure in the public school system as a whole. That is why teachers' unions hate them, as a threat not only to their members' jobs but a threat to the whole range of frauds and fetishes in the educational system.

The autonomy of charter schools is also a threat to the powers that be, who want to impose their own vision on the schools, regardless of what the parents want. Attorney General Eric Holder wants to impose his own notion of racial balance in the schools, while many black parents want their children to learn, regardless of whether they are seated next to a white child or a black child. There have been all-black schools whose students met or exceeded national norms in education, whether in Louisiana, California or other places around the country. But Eric Holder, like Bill de Blasio, put his ideology above the education -- and the future life -- of minority students.

Charter schools take power from politicians and bureaucrats, letting parents decide where their children will go to school. That is obviously offensive to those on the left, who think that our betters should be making our decisions for us.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassow.../page/full

[TonySandos]

I have a theory that the most intelligent and logical individuals in a society of mediocrity will be hated or misunderstood. Thomas Sowell, with all his thoughtful prose, is an example of this.

The radical left has kept poll numbers consistent by appealing to emotion with what sounds right. Notice how teachers unions on the surface present what appears to be a case for education opportunity while they really hinder primary education for their own benefit.
20/20 had an episode on this and so did frontline about how education system wide vouchers put power in the students hands rather than in the schools. the reason this isn't popular is because it would greatly diminish the power of the teachers unions, which benefit teachers more than students anyway.
Watch the series 'chicagoland' to see examples of this. nearly all the protesters seen against rahm emanuels reform are members of teachers unions. they even despicably enlist a teacher union members son to voice their message to the city. emotional appeal over logic.

if the right ever wants to compete with that, they don't need to recruit to their party necessarily. they need just to show metaphorical open arms and opportunities to blacks disenchanted with far leftism. let these outliers go libertarian or otherwise. you can combat the chokehold by simply proving alternatives

[Fortis]

Did not read the thread, but I just wanted to pose some questions:

Speaking of Black Conservatives, I've really been quite taking with Thomas Sowell. I finished "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" and I immediately began to wonder, "Why isn't this guy more famous?" I think he's a lot more intellectual than pretty much every other liberal and conservative I've ever read. Now, I won't claim to be the most well-read guy when it comes politics, but he has a real way of writing that doesn't strike me as condescending or patronizing. He is a master of compiling and interpreting data in a real thought-provoking way. A lot of intellectual types suffer from the problem of being too smart for their own good and I think that Might be Sowell's problem. He's too raw for the left. Putting him on TV too often would make people uncomfortable. He speaks the truth too well, but I think he might just be too smart to be a real figure head on the right. His intelligence would probably make him inaccessible to many. His lack of fame may also be one of the reasons that he's able to write the way that he does. He doesn't have to pander at the level than many other people do.

I can see why he's probably not so famous with a lot of other black people. Sadly, many (not all) black people are so taken with a victim narrative that to suggest that the problems of the black community could be solved by anyone but the government is so offensive. I remember when I used to be that way. I'd hear, "black families need to hold themselves accountable" and I would immediately begin to tune that shit out. But as I grow older, I find it harder and harder to ignore the fact that a lot of the problems could be easily solved if a cohesive family unit was stressed in black communities.

Shame that there is such a strong anti-intellectual strain in the black community as of late. I would love to shop this book out to my family, but I know I would be met with odd looks for reading a black conservative and taking him seriously.

Just read any review of a Sowell book and so many of the reviews are black people who want to call him racist but can't pull it off because he's their colour, so they resort to the low blow of calling him an uncle Tom. He's a strangely situated man in this world. What are your thoughts on him? I may try and grind through some more of his books. They're oddly engaging given the amount of data he throws at you.

[Bad Hussar]

^^^Fortis

An interesting point, that is almost never discussed in modern victim politics is that the members of a supposed victim group are never allowed personal agency. Whatever the group: woman, blacks, gays etc. etc, ad nauseum the "left" (sorry, but I have to put that in ""'s because I don't regard the modern left as true liberals. They are an embarrassment.) consider them helpless victims abused by the rest, and the right view them as people taking advantage of victim status somehow. In my view the left's position is an insult to personal integrity, and the right's is interesting but ultimately wrong. Wrong because there are almost no members of the victim group who effectively extract a net benefit out of the various affirmative action programs for putative victims because these are obviously like a ponzi scheme where only those at the very tippy top extract any benefit at all. It's a deeper point I won't go into right now but being a member of a victim group isn't the kind of free lunch many here make it out to be. The victim group is being used to generate a free lunch for someone else, often in no way related to the apparent victim group.

Anyway, as far as black Americans go, I think given the current situation they should heed Malcom X's advice and go their own way. I understand that most congressional districts are so gerrymandered that most black Americans already live in overwhelmingly black congressional districts. If this is so they should sever the link with the Democratic Party and set up their own party, or parties. They may believe that they can exert more influence in the Democratic Party, but I doubt this is true. I'm afraid the position of black Americans in current Democratic politics is as a victim group. Not just for today or tomorrow, but for ever... and ever...... and ever.........Amen. It is a pretty rotten place to be, and quite literally 99.99% of black people are deluded if they think this situation will net them any personal gain. Listen to Malcom X.

[Libertas]

The one that actually the started the #WhyI'mNotVotingForHillary hashtag that overwhelmed her campaign on day one was actually a young black conservative from North Carolina.

This is going to be an interesting election because as I said elsewhere, Hillary is going to run on feminism and women's identity politics hard. Prissy white girl shit is not going to be attractive to young black men like the guy that started that hashtag.

Now knowing that voting patterns are more or less tribal, and black voters are one of the most tribal groups in the country that transcend region, I of course suspect that the large majority will vote Democrat. However, if, God forbid, Hillary winds up being the nominee, I will be quite interested to see the number of black male voters who turn out for her as compared to previous nominees from the D's. It would be a big test of the ability of the Cultural Marxist coalition to hold together for the future.

It'll depend on who the Republican nominee is too, of course. But it would be a test of the left's victimhood blocs. If black males don't turn out to vote in as many numbers (more likely), and maybe the Republicans pick up a larger share of that vote (less likely), it'll show that underlying tensions are being brought to the surface.