Don't Take My Word For It...

Some follow-up links to "My Prejudiced President..." They are all linked from the same main site because it's easier to do it that way. Many of them have also been published elsewhere...

Racism is a History Lesson, Not Current Events

Impersonating a Victim

Who Will President Obama Drum Up Hate Against Next?

The Truth About Cops and Race

A Teachable Moment Indeed

The Distinguished Gentleman and Scholar

[update--just added 27 July]

No Apology for Sargent Crowley

Bill Cosby 'Shocked" at Obama's Statement on Harvard Prof's Arrest

My Prejudiced President...

It's been a while since I've blogged. Honestly, there's just too much to try to take the time to get into writing. Between the debacle of foreign affairs with Iran, Honduras, India, North Korea and other gaffes by the current administration and horrible domestic policies, including (but not limited to) "cap and tax" and ObamaCare, there just aren't enough hours in the day to really succinctly put those thoughts down. Little wonder Obama's approval ratings have slipped into the 50's in some polls and below 50% in at least one and show no sign of slowing (See here and here).

Another issue that got a lot of news attention and air time was the circus surrounding the death of Michael Jackson. How far we've fallen when that becomes such a major news item. Rather than add to the din that his death created, I'll just say that I'm sorry for the loss his family is experiencing. It's a painful experience. However, the time and money that was spent to cover that event, including the memorial service, as well as the grandstanding of people like Al Sharpton, were beyond ridiculous when you consider how they elevated Jackson nearly to the point of sainthood. This for a man who was a drug addicted, child molesting freak. Mourn him...don't worship him.

I digress. This post is supposed to be about my prejudiced President. I didn't vote for him but he did win the election so he is my President. I'm not going to review the entire soap opera that has surrounded the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. You've either heard it or read it by now...or you live under a rock. Anyway, during the televised ObamaCare informercial the other night, Obama said that the Cambridge, Mass., police "acted stupidly" for arresting Gates. If this was all there was to the story, there would be nothing to blog about, to be honest...but I am blogging, so there's more. Let's get his whole quote for context...

"I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that [Gates case]. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

This is laid out nice and neat...three points. First, "any of us would be pretty angry." Well, no. If I came home and was having trouble getting in and my neighbor called the cops (not knowing it was me since it's dark out) thinking it was someone breaking in, I'd be thanking my neighbor for watching out for my house and I'd be thanking the cops who came to check out the situation. Why, for the love of God, should "any of us" be angry about that?! Second, "Cambridge police acted stupidly." I'll come back to this one. Third, "a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately." Regarding that, a) history doesn't change overnight but is has been moving in the right direction for at least the last 40 years, b) the very fact that so many municipal leaders, including mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, city council members, etc. should give pause to any right thinking person about this statement, and c) Obama has once again played the race card.

But back to that second point, that "Cambridge police acted stupidly." The American Heritage Dictionary defines prejudice as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." Obama began his statement saying he didn't know what role race played because he had not been there and had not seen all the facts. Nevertheless, sans teleprompter, his true colors show and we find that he prejudicially calls the Cambridge police actions stupid. By his own admission without all the facts, Obama sides against the police as oppressors and racists.

There are many questions to be answered and I think most of them will be in due time. The charges against Gates were, rightfully, dropped. Exactly what will happen with the Cambridge police officer is also undetermined, with the possibility of filing suit against Gates a possibility as well. Obama has been back peddling today, defending his decision to butt in where he didn't belong while trying to distance himself from Gates in the situation. We've learned that Obama is not a post-racial president. He may become that, but he's not right now. At the moment, he's nothing more than a community organizer with the ultimate bully pulpit. The story will stay alive for a while, but probably not as long as the Michael Jackson circus.

[Image of Obama, Gates and Crowley from ABCNews.com]

Lemmings and Sheeple Are Unpatriotic...

Last year I wrote a blog on Independence Day, so today I went back and reread it. As Congress continues to expand (or attempts to expand) the role of the federal government, I can't help but wonder what our founding fathers would think about such expansion. I'm afraid Jefferson, Madison and others would hardly recognize the "republic" they helped create, and only Alexander Hamilton would be very excited about the difference from then to now.

In spite the encroachment (and impending encroachment) into our daily lives, the freedom we enjoy is still something we shouldn't dare take for granted. The very fact that I can sit at a computer and publicly publish my dissatisfaction with the direction our government has been heading for the past several years is testament to the country in which we live. I can go to church tomorrow without having to worry about government officials coming in and breaking up the service. Groups can freely gather to protest, even though I'm not 100% clear on the correlation of the tea parties to the original tea party of over 230 years ago and I'm not really sure of the point of some of the left wing demonstrations that we occasionally see.

This nation was born out of dissent and disagreement. Anyone selling the "purple country" myth just doesn't know anything about U.S. history. We've always disagreed and had varying ideas about how this country should be run. I hope that that spirit never dies and we never give in to those who would have us believe that dissent is unpatriotic...whether their voices call from the left or the right.

Reverse Discrimination Reversed...

Good news! The headline at CNN says it all: "High Court Backs Firefighters in Reverse Discrimination Suit." In a high profile case, the court overturned an appeals court ruling that the city New Haven, Connecticut, was correct in throwing out the results of an exam used to determine promotions. A group of white and Hispanic firefighters sued the city over throwing out the results, losing in a lower court and in an appeal then winning at the Supreme Court (incidentally, Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor was part of the three judge panel that upheld the lower courts ruling on appeal).

In a feeble attempt to uphold the appellate court ruling, Justice Ginsberg offered that "relying so heavily on pencil-and-paper exams to select firefighters is a dubious practice," calling the majority ruling "troubling." Interestingly, it was because the city was afraid of being sued for racial discrimination that the test was used and then thrown out in the first place.

In addition, one little nugget of information that the CNN article does not mention is that one of the white firefighters, Frank Ricci, passed the test in spite of suffering from dyslexia. In fact, "when his department announced exams for promotions, he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material." That's right...one of the firefighters who passed such a "troubling" test and survived this "dubious practice" overcame dyslexia to do so and passed, placing sixth on the exam.

Obama was looking to nominate a Justice with empathy, who would be able to look at cases with compassion, which is supposedly a major contributing factor in his decision to nominate Sotomayor. But where was the compassion for a hard working firefighter who sacrificed his time and money to put forth maximum effort, who faced incredible odds battling dyslexia to pass a test that is 60% written, who made a Herculean effort to pass the test for the good of his family? Where was the compassion for that hard working American? Oh, wait...let me guess...wrong gender, wrong color.

Thankfully, the majority of the court saw fit to uphold justice.

In a related (not really) story: "Obama says Honduras coup was 'illegal' and Zelaya remains the president." Interesting that Obama can speak with specificity about Honduras and what is legal and right but can only dance around the issue of freedom when it's on the line in Iran.

[image from cnn.com]

Can You Dribble, Kick or Run?

A few months back, I blogged about the absurd amount of money that is paid to professional athletes while no one seems to care and yet a CEO of a company gets run out of town on a rail for making such a living. Forbes Magazine has released its list of top paid athletes. The top ten is:

1. Tiger Woods, $110 million
   
2. Kobe Bryant, $45 million
3. Michael Jordan, $45 million
4. Kimi Raikonnen, $45 million
5. David Beckham, $42 million
6. LeBron James, $40 million
7. Phil Mickelson, $40 million
8. Manny Pacquiao, $40 million
9. Valentino Rossi, $35 million
10. Dale Earnhardt, Jr., $34 million

The world's top earning females are is tennis star Maria Sharapova ($26 million), Serena Williams ($14 million) and Venus Williams ($13 million). In and of itself, this list probably doesn't really surprise anyone. One only need glance at ESPN.com occasionally to find out the contracts these athletes sign on a pretty regular basis (not to mention signing bonuses that I mentioned in the blog linked above).

The problem is that there is a decidedly anti-executive attitude in today's press and from politicians looking to score points with class warfare and keep support from unions. For example, according to the ALF-CIO, their list of the top ten highest paid CEO's is as follows:

1. Bruce Wasserstein, Lazard Ltd., $134 million
2. Lawrence J. Ellison, Oracle Corporation, $85 million
3. Mario J. Gabelli, GAMCO Investors, Inc., $71 million
4. Richard C. Adkerson, Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold, Inc., $68 million
5. Leslie Moonves, CBS Corporation, $68 million
6. Michael T. Fries, Liberty Global, Inc., $57 million
7. Raymond Barrette, White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. $57 million
8. Bob R. Simpson, XTO Energy, Inc., $57 million
9. Lloyd C. Blankfein, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., $54 million
10. Robert A. Iger, The Walt Disney Company, $51 million

(For the record, CEO's at pariahs Exxon [Rex W. Tillerson] and Walmart [H. Lee Scott] made $27 million and $30 million respectively. For the rest of the top 100 see here.)

I'm sure the salaries in Hollywood would make an equally effective comparison. Last I checked, companies like those listed on the AFL-CIO website either produce goods or offer services for people to use. Actors and athletes do neither of those things. On top of that, the NBA recently opened a line of credit to offer to some of its struggling franchises so they could pay support personnel...heaven forbid the athletes have to take a cut in pay or help out with the lowly support staff that actually make it possible for them to play their little game and get paid thousands of dollars for every minute their on the floor.

Put It In Yourself...

Ok, so the sexual references in these commercials are pretty obvious. While youtube comments on this series of commercials have been filled up with people arguing over the homosexual overtones in the commercials, I have a different beef. Imagine if the oven were talking in a sexy woman's voice...some sultry, breathy voice. People would be up in arms about how Quizno's is a sexist company and is promoting mysoginistic ideas and should be boycotted and every woman that works at one should quit. NOW would have the ACLU in tow leading the charge against Quizno's. Such is the world created by affirmative action and political correctness...a world where double standards are the norm for those outside the "majority."

Ok...one more...



I guess with only a fraction of their locations actually in Gulf Coast states (or Southern states in general), Joe's can afford to insult the area. Besides, since we on the Gulf Coast don't really have electricity (or indoor plumbing, for that matter) we probably won't even see these commercials anyway, right? There's a difference in being offensive and insulting...

Stick and Stone May Break My Bones...

A couple of weeks ago, I blogged about the various names used to identify the two major parties in U.S. politics. I've thought some more about some of the labels that have been thrown around a lot lately with little to no grounding whatsoever. I think the best way to view the differences between the various points of view is to look at life as a citizen being roughly parallel to a game or something one plays at. With that in mind, here are a few ways to think about some of the epithets (some more hostile than others) being applied today (for the record, I'm not explaining these various "isms" but merely using a common metaphor to try to compare them). They are each stated from the view of the government.

• Communism - You can only play the game(s) we tell you to play and we determine the rules of the game(s), said rules being subject to change at our discretion without prior notice. Said games are to be played in the interest of the state (government).
  

• Fascism - You can play any game(s) we specify you may play and we determine the rules of the game(s) and reserve the right to forbid you from playing various games at various times. Also, the rules of each game(s) is/are subject to change at our discretion without prior notice (although a perfunctory "ballot initiative" may be utilized to simulate citizen input). Said games are to be played in the interest of the state (government). (It should be important to note that fascism is not a "left/right" issue. Fascism can be either liberal or conservative.)

• Socialism - You may play any game(s) you like but we determine the rules of the game(s) and reserve the right to forbid you from playing various games at various times. Also, the rules of each game(s) is/are subject to change at our discretion without prior notice (although a perfunctory "ballot initiative" may be utilized to simulate citizen input). Rules will be enforced on a case by case basis, the standards of enforcement varying based on the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or any other arbitrary standard we may include in the future. Said games are to be played in the interest of the "underprivileged" in conjunction with national interests, however the benefits of said games must go to the state (government), specifically the politicians in charge of running said state.

• Capitalism -You may play any game(s) you like. The rules are determined by general consensus of those playing the same game. Said rules must be made public so that others may decide whether or not they wish to play as well. Participants are expected to be self-disciplined and self-policing. Appeals regarding the breaking of the rules may be handled internally by those playing the game but if no satisfactory agreement is obtained, the participants may appeal to us (the government's judicial system) for a final ruling. As far as possible, such rules as we determine will deal with the making of rules for the game(s) and not with the actual rules of said game(s). Said games are to be played in the interest of the self-aware, yet not self-absorbed, individual.
  

• Anarchism - You may play any game(s) you like and may make up your own rules to each game(s). If your rules give you an advantage over others playing by different rules, that is not a matter for the state. We are in no position to enforce rules so making rules is superfluous. Said games are to be played in the interest of the self-centered, self-absorbed individual.

There are obviously many variations of these different points of view but in light of the current political climate, especially as we teeter on the edge of having one ideology in power in the federal government, it would be helpful if we all brushed up on exactly what some of the terms that are being thrown around willy-nilly actually mean.