9. There is a solution, and it comes from Chloe Valdary, a student at the University of New Orleans,...
" Many people believed that the election of a black President would advance America to a new era of racial harmony.
That belief proved to be mistaken.
.... many people feel that they have to treat blacks with kid gloves. They think this is noble... enlightened... progressive. It's not. It's demeaning and condescending. In fact, it's racist.
Rioting and looting are acceptable forms of behavior? Why? Because the rioters and looters have no other options? Really? In free, democratic America, you have no other options? Does this apply to all ethnic groups? Hispanics? Southeast Asians? Pacific Islanders? Of course not.
.... the enlightened ones -- are ready with a pre-packaged list of excuses when blacks riot and loot. Worse, when it comes to judging black behavior, even facts don't matter. All that matters is the skin color of the teenager and the skin color of the cop.
Anyone, whether white or any other color, who excuses blacks for bad behavior just because they are black obviously doesn't consider blacks their equal. Rather, they view blacks, in effect, as children who are unable to adhere to the standards to which every other group is held. Think carefully about that. The only difference between this view and that of white supremacists is that white supremacists are honest and open: in their view blacks are inferior to whites. Period.
But those who condescend to blacks cloak themselves in self-righteousness. So, somehow that makes it okay. The bad behavior happens -- a riot in Ferguson -- and they nod knowingly: "They couldn't take it anymore. Who can blame them?" I'll take the white supremacist any day.
.... as a black human being, I want to be -- I must be --judged by the same standards as everybody else...
Treat blacks equally. Always. In every way. Not differently. Not better. Not worse. Not like we're demons. Not like we're angels."
I dunno PC. In any singular instance I do like to judge people on their actions. I also believe in prosecuting the rock throwers, looters and vandals that we can catch. Just like any rock throwers at Kent State deserved punished.
I disagree with your assessment of the effects of welfare.....it is an economic theory / percentage difference of opinion. Our system (thankfully) uses funds from the whole society to pay the National Guard to protect my assests from the looters. You, me, we probably have more to protect than the average looter but it protects them also.
Welfare(& unemployment et ) gives my white neighbor a softer landing when his overextended self looses his job. Saved him from defaulting on his 200k loan lol!
It also keeps crack pipe Annie from starving to death. Or Meth head Mike from needing to kidnap kids for ransome to scrape by.
Now I wish welfare was handed out in more of a "work for it" manner. CCC like and all and perhaps we can find a middle ground with that.
1. "I disagree with your assessment of the effects of welfare..."
Simple to explain....you're an example of the 'low information voter' that keeps Democrats in power.
My post is based on fact.
. Proof? Sure. The government conducted a study,
1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf
a. Further results: dissolution of families:
“
This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons. First,
increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.”
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf
b. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.” Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.
2. Here's the result of your senseless policies:
"This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”
[1]
Since that time,
U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is
three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending,
progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America
You, and every other simpleton who supports Liberals/Democrats are responsible for the outcomes you decry.