The following New Visions commentary is by Project 21 advisory board member B.B. Robinson, Ph.D.  Please see Dr. Robinson's article in full, followed by my line-by-line rebuttal.  Those who would like to send comments directly to Dr. Robinson can do so at Project21@nationalcenter.org.


Bill Cosby Lives in a Glass House and Shouldn't Throw Stones
 
By B.B. Robinson, Ph.D.
 
Throughout my life, I have always been an eager viewer of the television offerings of Bill Cosby.
 
As a child, I remember rising early on Saturday mornings to watch "Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids" cartoon.  As a young adult, I have fond memories of our Thursday evening family ritual of gathering around the television to watch the "The Cosby Show" and "A Different World."
 
It is unquestionable that Bill Cosby is a great comedian and a creative genius when it comes to developing television comedies.  Of late, he has become a social critic of what he considers a breakdown of black community values.
 
But Dr. Cosby and the rest of us might benefit from a little introspection before young black folk and their parents are lambasted for the abhorrent conditions in certain black neighborhoods.  Why introspection?  Because we must ask ourselves what role we may have played in generating the outcomes that we criticize.  
 
I fully comprehend the need for individual responsibility.  Despite great, inspirational examples of people lifting themselves up from the lowest levels by their own bootstraps, most people don't exhibit such strength and fortitude in reality.  "Nurture," therefore, plays a very powerful everyday role in shaping our behavior and our outcomes.
 
So, before criticizing our black youth, Dr. Cosby should ask himself, "Did I provide the perfect - or even a very good - nurturing environment for young black minds?" Black youth can see that Dr. Cosby pulled himself up.  That's very positive.  But, while this is inspirational, there are other aspects of his offerings that may cause some blacks to love themselves and each other a little less.
 
For example, the lovable appeal of Dr. Cosby's "Fat Albert" character made it permissible for black youth to become obese.  While I don't think he did it on purpose, I do believe Dr. Cosby's actions created a more acceptable environment for childhood obesity. In 2003, black kids between the ages of ten and 17 bested their white and Hispanic counterparts in obesity statistics.  While this has only become a national concern in recent years, it would be interesting to see if there were any spikes after the show's premiere in 1972.
 
Going further, how many black youth grew to love watching television too much because of Dr. Cosby? How many succumbed to the excessive consumption of television programming; that is, how many succumbed to television "addiction"?  Government administered time-use surveys and other sources reveal that black Americans watch more television than any other group in America.
 
Dr. Cosby has only had a few - albeit very successful and high-quality - shows amongst television's "vast wasteland."  He should consider whether or not his shows were already a "gateway drug" that fostered black addiction to the boob tube.  And, since a great many shows contain negative portrayals of black America, it begs the question as to how many people's addictions - mixed with this content - caused them to internalize this negative imagery to their own peril and the peril of the black community?
 
Where are the people demanding that televisions be turned off across black America - where are the efforts to break television addiction?
 
Could the very behavior Dr. Cosby rails against come from negative nurturing via television - an addiction that may have been in part due to his work?  Should Dr. Cosby ask misbehaving black youth where they learned their values, a likely answer might be television.
 
Citing individual responsibility, Dr. Cosby would likely respond that his programs are not responsible for individual's behavior.  But, numerous studies prove television has the power to shape behavior.  The greater the television addiction, the greater the probability that television will shape behavior.  If blacks were not addicted to television, or if television provided fewer adverse stereotypical images, then maybe Dr. Cosby would not have a reason to come down so hard on black youth.
 
Another view is that television is simply a waste of time.  The time black youth spend watching television would likely be better spent engaged in more productive ventures such as reading or studying, serving the community, and learning entrepreneurial and cultural skills.

We must remember that we have no perfect humans walking among us.  Before we criticize, we should ask, "What role did I play in creating the condition or situation that I choose to criticize?"
 
I live in a glass house.  Dr. Cosby lives in a glass house.  We all live in glass houses.  Let's take care in deciding when and how we throw stones.


The Dutchmeister's Rebuttal

Admittedly, when I first read the title of B.B. Robinson's article, I just knew that it would another case of someone blasting Bill Cosby along the lines of "Well, you criticize black illegitimacy, Cosby, but you may have fathered a child out of wedlock, too..."  Fortunately, Dr. Robinson didn't beat that dead horse.  Instead, he criticizes Cosby based upon what he sees as black youth's television "addiction," implying that, throughout his illustrious career, America's Favorite Granddad may have had a hand in causing young black children to watch too much TV instead of using that time more constructively.

In my effort to respectfully disagree with Dr. Robinson, let's take his premise line by line.

"For example, the lovable appeal of Dr. Cosby's "Fat Albert" character made it permissible for black youth to become obese.  While I don't think he did it on purpose, I do believe Dr. Cosby's actions created a more acceptable environment for childhood obesity. In 2003, black kids between the ages of ten and 17 bested their white and Hispanic counterparts in obesity statistics.  While this has only become a national concern in recent years, it would be interesting to see if there were any spikes after the show's premiere in 1972."

Surely, does anyone who grew up watching the lovable portly black kid with the signature line ("Hey, Hey, Hey!") actually believe that "Fat Albert" contributed in any way, shape or form to black childhood obesity?  It's OK to theorize and hypothesize about such things, but that's pushing it.  Watching "Fat Albert" myself as a kid (and loving it), I never got the impression that the title character made it "cool" to be overweight.  If anything, I came away not only having learned something new about life, love, family, and the importance of getting an education (Would Cosby have it any other way?), but I just loved Fat Albert and his friends for who they were, warts, foibles and all.  If there was any subliminal message regarding obesity, I failed to get it.

"Going further, how many black youth grew to love watching television too much because of Dr. Cosby? How many succumbed to the excessive consumption of television programming; that is, how many succumbed to television "addiction"?  Government administered time-use surveys and other sources reveal that black Americans watch more television than any other group in America.
 
Dr. Cosby has only had a few - albeit very successful and high-quality - shows amongst television's "vast wasteland."  He should consider whether or not his shows were already a "gateway drug" that fostered black addiction to the boob tube.  And, since a great many shows contain negative portrayals of black America, it begs the question as to how many people's addictions - mixed with this content - caused them to internalize this negative imagery to their own peril and the peril of the black community?
 
Where are the people demanding that televisions be turned off across black America - where are the efforts to break television addiction?"

This is where PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY comes in.  No matter what's on the boob tube, if responsible parents don't want their children watching too much TV, , then responsible parents (notice the adjective before the noun and that the noun is plural, not singular) would simply turn the TV off and have their kids hit the books or do some other equally constructive activity.  End of story.

Furthermore, as many TV shows have over the years negatively portrayed black America, Cosby's 1980's sitcom hit "The Cosby Show" was one of the very few shows (probably the only show during that era) that portrayed the African-American family is an exceedingly positive light.  Think about: An upper middle-class black family where the father was a successful obstetrician, the mother was a successful attorney, and facing the challenges that all parents face on a daily basis, they both did an exceptional job raising, rearing, and inculcating the right moral values into their five children. 

For those with a heavy political and financial stake in perpetuating black victimhood, nihilism and paranoia, "The Cosby Show" probably drove the poverty hustlers nuts; hence, the occasional complaints that it offered an "unrealistic" portrayal of the black American family. (To them, "Good Times" was a more "authentic" window into black family life.)  However, for the rest of black (and white) America, the show was a breath of fresh air in a "vast wasteland" that has only gotten vaster and more polluted over the years.

"Citing individual responsibility, Dr. Cosby would likely respond that his programs are not responsible for individual's behavior.  But, numerous studies prove television has the power to shape behavior.  The greater the television addiction, the greater the probability that television will shape behavior."  

Again, it goes back to responsible parenting.  This has been Cosby's main gripe with low-income blacks ever since he began speaking out in May 2004; namely, the abysmal lack of parental responsibility.  "Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people... are not parenting.  They're buying their kids $500 sneakers - and for what? - but won't spend $200 for Hooked on Phonics..."  "I'm talking about those people who want to get bent out of shape when they see their sons in orange [prison] jumpsuits.  Where were you when he was two? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18?  And how come you didn't know he was carrying a pistol?  And where is the father?"  "Your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day.  It's cursing and calling each other n**** going up and down the street... They think they're cool... They can't read or write, and they're going nowhere."

Truer words are rarely spoken.

"The time black youth spend watching television would likely be better spent engaged in more productive ventures such as reading or studying, serving the community, and learning entrepreneurial and cultural skills.

We must remember that we have no perfect humans walking among us.  Before we criticize, we should ask, 'What role did I play in creating the condition or situation that I choose to criticize?'"

I'll say it again.  No, say it with me, folks.  One, two, three: PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!!

People can say what they will (and they have) about Bill Cosby.  But if you really want to judge a man, judge him by his children.  Bill and Camille Cosby, in their 40-plus year marriage, successfully raised five children, all of whom became college graduates (some earning Master's degrees) and successful, well-adjusted members of society.  Their late son, Ennis, overcame dyslexia as a child, and at the time of his senselessly tragic murder in 1996, was pursuing a doctoral degree at Morehouse College. 

Take that, Cosby-haters!

If anything, Bill Cosby had dedicated his career to not only uplifting black America, but also portraying blacks, especially the younger generation, in the most positive light possible.  While Dr. Robinson is correct that black youth by and large watch way too much television, to implicitly blame Bill Cosby for that, as well as black childhood obesity, is not only farfetched and just plain silly, but it doesn't lay the primary blame where it should be: with the parents. 

All together now: PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!

Below is a pic of yours truly and UNC-Wilmington Criminology Professor and Townhall.com columnist Mike Adams with our lovely wifes.  We all hooked up for dinner in early-June of this year when they were in Arlington, VA attending a conference. 

And who says handsome conservative men can't snag the pretty girls?

Famed black filmmaker Spike Lee has filmed a documentary for HBO about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath entitled "When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts."  Being quite familiar with Mr. Lee's politics, I can't imagine that the film is a valentine to the Bush administration.  As Star Parker discusses in her new article, Lee does anything but gives "props" to President Bush.

What conclusion can one draw from watching Lee's film?  The conclusion that he had already reached before setting foot in the Big Easy, say Ms. Parker: "[That] poor blacks suffered and died as result of the indifference of a detached and racist Bush administration in general and President Bush in particular."

Ms. Parker continues:

Since Lee already knew the truth, he didn't have much need to examine material such as "A Failure of Initiative," Congress' investigation into Katrina, which shows failure and breakdown at all levels of government _ local, state and federal. It also was of little interest to Lee that primary responsibility for disaster preparation and management is at the level of local and state government, not federal.

But New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin comes off in the production as just one cool dude. He shows up at regular intervals over the four-hour production, talking New Orleans jive and being one straightforward sincere guy who was trying to do his job.

No mention is made of the hurricane simulations and emergency evacuation plans that he totally ignored. No reference is made to the famous picture of the parking lot filled with flooded school buses that Nagin chose not to use to evacuate residents in poor areas.

Central to the Katrina story is the failure of the levees...  

But who is responsible for ignoring the warnings over the years that the levees protecting New Orleans were inadequate? Bush? Of course not.

It was Louisiana's congressional delegation that was responsible to ensure that their constituents' interests were being represented and that funds were being appropriated to fix sub-standard levees.

Speaking of irresponsible congressional representatives:

William Jefferson, New Orleans' congressman for the last 16 years, has been under FBI investigation over the last year under bribery charges. However, Jefferson is a Democrat and a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. To shine a light on his possible, and likely, neglect of representing his constituents' interests would have distracted from the single message that Bush was the evil genius behind this tragedy.

Of course, no mention is made of Jefferson's trip home, when he commandeered a National Guard truck in the middle of rescue efforts to take him to his house to retrieve personal property.

As much as I have enjoyed Spike Lee's films, I have never liked his far-left, America-hating political worldview.  I am particularly repulsed by his utter contempt for prominent black conservatives like U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  In fact, Lee takes a cheap shot at Dr. Rice in the documentary, as Ms. Parker points out:

Given what Lee leaves out, it's particularly cheap and sick that he felt it relevant to include footage of Condoleezza Rice supposedly shopping for designer shoes at the time the disaster was sweeping New Orleans. As we know, Condi is our secretary of state, who has no responsibility for any of these matters.

Ms. Parker sums it up nicely:

Perhaps most sad is that in four hours Lee has nothing positive to say about America and Americans. No mention is made of the $700 million from private citizens and churches that were committed in the first few days of the tragedy. No mention is made of the thousands of homes across the nation that welcomed evacuees. No mention is made of the tens of thousands who have successfully rebuilt their lives.

Spike Lee clearly has little affection for the country that gives him free expression and has made him wealthy. He has produced a self-indulgent, deceitful and exploitive film about a tragedy. His message will give poor blacks more reasons to feel powerless, to feel lost, to feel that others bear responsibility for their lives, to hate, and to stay poor.

I think I'll pass on checking out this newest Spike Lee joint.

According to an article in today's Washington Times, the disgraceful re-elected (if you can believe it) New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin has been complaining that of the nearly $500 million the state of Louisiana has received in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assistance for Hurrican Katrina clean-up efforts, less than $225 million has gotten around to fund New Orleans' cleanup and rebuilding efforts.

"The misperception out there is New Orleans is wallowing in dough, and we have money coming out of our ears," Mr. Nagin told the Associated Press on Monday.

Gov. Kathleen B. Blanco - Remember her?  The one whom President Bush had to personally call on the phone and beg her to declare a state of emergency in light of Katrina's imminent arrival last year - shot back with an eight-page letter to Nagin which suggested that the holdup of FEMA money was the city's fault because it didn't propertly request the money.

"One of the key challenges we face together is increasing the number of project worksheets submitted by the City of New Orleans and its political subdivisions for permanent repairs and reconstruction to be funded under FEMA's public-assistance program," Mrs. Blanco said.  "It is important to note that obligated funds are payable only based on approved contracts and invoices for repair and reconstruction work that is under way and documented," Mrs. Blanco said.

In other words, Yack! Yack! Yack! Yack!  Bicker! Bicker! Bicker!

Instead of rehashing an old arguement that I've been making for the past year - namely, that when it came to getting their folks out of harm's way before Katrina hit,  Nagin and Blanco blew it! - I'll just copy two articles by two respected black conservatives that will say it better than I ever could.

A Tale of Two Cities
by Horace Cooper
September 30, 2005

The differences between what happened in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Rita are night and day. But if one were to accept the mainstream media’s take any differences were solely or primarily the result of lessons that government at all levels learned from the disastrous failures of Hurricane Katrina.

Notwithstanding the obvious observation that 3 weeks is far too little time for government – local, state and federal – to overcome the systemic failings that we observed with Hurricane Katrina, there are significant differences that can’t simply be explained by the sequencing of the hurricanes.

While it’s true that the two hurricanes hit at different intensity levels, the important differences can best be described as a tale of two cities – New Orleans and Houston.

No two neighboring towns better embody the differences between the two main political philosophies competing in the U.S. today – Houston, Texas which is the embodiment of the Lone Star State’s can do spirit of limited government and self-reliance versus New Orleans, Louisiana, aptly nicknamed the “Big Easy” and perhaps the embodiment of welfare state dependence in the South.

It’s not just that Texas is run by Republicans and that Louisiana is run by Democrats. While that’s true, Texas’ even before its recent GOP domination was essentially a conservative state across the board. On the other hand, Louisiana has experienced a cultural and political divide over the last 25 years to the point where New Orleans alone is the powerbase for leftward politics.

And these political and cultural differences showed up starkly in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Consider: in Texas local and state officials coordinated their efforts taking responsibility for protecting citizens and property. Harris County government executive Robert Eckels and Governor Rick Perry worked hand in glove to ensure the efficient and safe evacuation of the 5th largest city in America. Meanwhile Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin bickered during the onset of Hurricane Katrina exacerbating an already disastrous situation. Tragically they continue bickering even now. Yet media reports imply that if the two Hurricanes had been reversed, the story would be different.

Houston (a town five times larger than New Orleans) was able to evacuate nearly 100% of its citizen – credit regular drills and planning by County Executive Eckels and government officials in Houston and a much more mobile and independent population for this result. Unfortunately, such planning couldn’t take place in New Orleans. Earlier this year, a Louisiana a federal grand jury returned two separate indictments charging three members of the emergency relief agency responsible for New Orleans with misuse of federal disaster funds, and then there was the unfortunate political breakdown which prevented the buses from being deployed to assist the immobile New Orleans population. But the conventional view is that things worked out well in Texas only because of lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina.

Can lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina explain why Harris County Executive Bob Eckels and Houston Mayor Bill White stayed behind to oversee the largest population evacuation in modern history, while New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin relocated to the new home he and his family bought in Dallas?

Were the looters running throughout New Orleans the only reason why Houston police officers risked life and limb to stay on duty in order to protect the property of homeowners who had evacuated to safety. And if Hurricane Katrina had come second would there be any accusations of New Orleans officers participating in the looting or would 200 officers still have abandoned their duty stations during the storm? The answers are pretty obvious, yet the received wisdom is that all would be different if only the timing were changed.

Even now as the onset of rescue and reconstruction occur in Texas, her citizens eschew the victim mentality. Texans have been working together to bring back electricity and habitability to their state as quickly as possible, while Louisianans with few exceptions are seen making demands for government compensation bordering on outrageous.

Is there any surprise that while Texas (and Houston in particular) has experienced a significant economic boom over the last 20 years, Louisiana has seen much of the opposite? In fact, just in the last 10 years the state’s economic downturn was so comprehensive, Louisiana experienced significant “outmigration” (bureaucratese for people moved away).

 There is much irony in all of this. You see, for much of its early history Louisiana was a trading and financial mecca. The fertility of its land made it one of the richest regions in America in the 19th century and many Louisiana landowners were among the wealthiest men in America. At that time it was Houston that was the backwater. Now the tide has shifted and it’s Houston that is the economic powerhouse. But if we’re to believe the media reports, the only lessons to be learned are about how government can better respond to natural disasters. But the larger lessons are there for all to see, and it is a tale of two cities.

Moral Poverty Cost Blacks in New Orleans
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson
September 21, 2005

Say a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions:

1. What would you do?

2. What would you do if you were black?

Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer.

To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like.

For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, then you'll probably wait for the government to save you.

This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in.

No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results.

Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America, "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up.

Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform – legally and practically – fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin – the black Democrat who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city."

One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now – the photo showing 200 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin?

Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining New Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out.

About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder.

President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves.

All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty – not their material poverty – that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated – they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so.

A friend of mine sent this priceless piece of political "words of wisdom" e-mail to me.  I thought I would share it with you good people.  Enjoy!


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a liberal Democrat, and was very much in favor of the distribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes for the rich and the addition of more government welfare programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no 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 she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How's your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey's barely getting by, college for her is a blast. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, she's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you'll both have 3.0 GPAs and certainly t hat would be a fair and equal distribution of GPAs." The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

As an avid fan of FNC's The O'Reilly Factor, I never miss listening to Bill O'Reilly's opening Talking Points Memo.  In analyzing the newsworthy events of the day, O'Reilly never fails to cut through the "spin" (hence the nickname "The No-Spin Zone") and get to the meat and potatoes of the matter every time.  His most recent Talking Points Memo marking the 10th anniversary of welfare reform was no different.  In fact, it was so on the mark, I will quote it in its entirety.  (Click here to go to the site itself.)

Moving America Off Welfare...
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

Ten years ago, President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act, which infuriated committed liberals. Los Angeles Times said portions of the bills were shameful and would hurt children. The New York Times editorialized the bill was atrocious.

Well, they were wrong, by insisting that Americans train themselves to work and actively look for a job, the amount of families on the dole has dropped by 57 percent, and about 1.6 million kids have been lifted out of poverty because their parents were forced to work. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, black children have benefited the most. The poverty rate for female-headed families has fallen 15 percent.

As you may know, 70 percent of African American babies are born out of wedlock. So by all rational standards, welfare reform has been a stunning success. But we hear little about that from politicians who voted against reform -- people like Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, Boxer, Dodd, Leahy and Murray.

Likewise, Congresswoman Pelosi and other liberal House members have not celebrated the bill's success. "Talking Points" does not believe liberal bashing is good for America, but also understands politicians who lock themselves into a specific ideology and reject common sense are not looking for you.

The far left continues to believe that a huge federal government should mandate, quote, "economic justice," that is, the feds and the states should give people money to elevate their standard of living. But that is a false promise.

The traditional road to success, hard work and honesty is the true key to a fulfilling life. The feds owe us protection from our enemies, a fair system of justice and security from chaos caused by situations beyond our personal control. That's it. Welfare reform has improved the lives of millions of Americans. Liberal thinkers were on the wrong side of this issue, as they are on the wrong side of illegal immigration and the terror war today.

Don't expect any far-left introspection on the welfare situation. It will not be forthcoming.

And that's "The Memo."

And that's right on the money!

Bill Cosby is a man who cares.  Why else would he choose the occasion as keynote speaker for the NAACP's 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision two years ago to give the black America a verbal butt-whipping for allowing it inner-city communities to go so far astray?   Why else would he refuse to back down despite heavy criticism from black (and white) liberal writers and commentators for "airing blacks' dirty laundry" and "blaming the victim?"  Why else would he not only defy his critics by pointing out their own hypocrisy ("Your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day... they're cursing and calling each other n****,... they can't read or write, and they're going nowhere..."), but also criss-cross the country at his own expense to speak at inner-city schools and community centers in an effort to hammer home his tough-love message of personal and parental responsibility? 

Because he cares.

Recently, Dr. Cosby spoke at three inner-city elementary schools in Baltimore, MD, exhorting black children to embrace education and black adults and parents to be better parents.

As reported in the Washington Times:

• "These people," he told parents, referring to their children, "are not on this earth for us to fool with, to bring up in a manner that they're not thinking properly, that the word 'life' has no love in it."
• [In criticizing black mothers for having children "for the wrong reasons"], "A woman says, 'I want something that loves me.' Stop her. Duct-tape her to the closet," he said, drawing laughter with this line at all three schools. "Give her a dog."
• [Responding to the complaint that the government is building too many prisons], "Let them build them," he said. "That doesn't mean you have to go there."

A product of humble beginnings born at a time when blacks were far worse off, Bill Cosby embraced education to lift himself out of poverty, ultimately earning a doctorate in education (not an "Honorary" doctorate, a real one) from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  With his speaky-clean stand-up comedy repetoire, he became one of the most respected, celebrated and financially successful entertainers of all time.  In addition, Cosby has donated millions of dollars of his own money to black colleges and universities.  He has put hard-scrabble black kids who are not his own through college and graduate school on his own dime.  This man has put his money where his mouth is many times over, and has thus earned the right to speak about against things run amok in the black community.

Cosby isn't afraid to challenge black folks to take a good look at themselves and stop worrying about what the (white) neighbors think.  He has no qualms about exhorting blacks, 40 years into the post-civil rights era, to stop being frozen in the "whole" of victimhood and blaming "whitey" for everything that ails them, no matter how "analgesically" good it feels.  He could care less how many whites are within earshot as he challenges blacks to get their collective house in order.  It doesn't matter to him how much he may be despised for telling blacks to be better, more responsible parents to their children.

If I had my way, Bill Cosby would be head of the NAACP.  Unlike the current leadership of the oldest and largest (and, nowadays, most irrelevant) civil rights organization in the country, his man has shown that he actually cares about the black community, especially its most vulnerable segment - the younger generation.  He has a message that it would behoove black America to heed.  Those who choose to disregard that message (or try to shoot the messenger) will do so at their own peril.

Journalist Juan Williams is in a foul mood these days, and for good reason.  He's promoting his new book, whose title pretty much says it all:  Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It.  Among the many problems he lashes out against in his new, one issue really seems to stick in his craw; namely, the utter failure of the modern-day civil rights establishment to address the pressing needs of black America's most vulnerable.

Last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Williams took Rev. Al Sharpton, Tawan Brawley's favorite civil rights "leader" in the whole wide world, to task for, among other things, getting paid large sums of money to "stage" protests. In article in yesterday's Washington Post, he decries this culture of failure which, he feels (rightly) "taints black America."

In discussing Dr. Cosby's efforts at getting black America to wake up and smell the Kool Aid, Williams admonishes the comedian's critics for not picking up and running with Cosby's very important message:

Cosby asked the chilling question: "What good is Brown " and all the victories of the civil rights era if nobody wants them? A generation after those major civil rights victories, black America is experiencing alarming dropout rates, shocking numbers of children born to single mothers and a frightening acceptance of criminal behavior that has too many black people filling up the jails. Where is the focus on taking advantage of new opportunities to advance and to close the racial gap in educational and economic achievement?

Incredibly, Cosby's critics don't see the desperate need to pull a generational fire alarm to warn people about a culture of failure that is sabotaging any chance for black people in poverty to move up and help their children reach the security of economic and educational achievement. Not one mainstream civil rights group picked up on his call for marches and protests against bad parenting, drug dealers, hate-filled rap music and failing schools.

Where is the civil rights groundswell on behalf of stronger marriages that will allow more children to grow up in two-parent families and have a better chance of staying out of poverty? Where are the marches demanding good schools for those children -- and the strong cultural reinforcement for high academic achievement (instead of the charge that minority students who get good grades are "acting white")? Where are the exhortations for children to reject the self-defeating stereotypes that reduce black people to violent, oversexed "gangstas," minstrel show comedians and mindless athletes?

In order to face this century's class battles, young minds need the self-confidence that comes from examples of inspiring historical personalities, such as a black woman born into slavery who made herself a national leader, Sojourner Truth, or a black man living under rank segregation, A. Philip Randolph, who defied corporate power to break segregation in organized labor. Frederick Douglass had to teach himself how to read before standing up to defeat slavery.

These examples should empower young people to believe in themselves and to organize across racial lines and build institutions with a solid footing in the nation's political and economic power. This is real black culture, and it is based on strong families creating determined, self-reliant young people.

It goes without saying that I agree wholeheartedly with Juan Williams and Bill Cosby, and applaud both men for speaking out.  Unlike most prominent black liberals, Williams gives Cosby his due, showing that what many people take as black conservatism is just plain common sense.

However, as with my recent blog about Al Sharpton, I must ask the same question:  Why is it that whenever a prominent black liberal speaks out about things that black conservatives have been saying for years, it makes headlines? 

Although Juan Williams is no far-left bomb-thrower à la Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Julian Bond, his left-of-center political bias on most issues is no secret, either.  As with Sharpton, surely Mr. Williams must have known about the social and familial pathology he bemoans in his new book for some time.  Why speak out now? 

I posed this question to a conservative friend of mine, and he offered this insight:

When [Thomas] Sowell, [Shelby] Steele, [and other black conservatives] speak out, they're too easily dismissed by the MSM simply because they are conservatives and we all know the horrible names they've been called.  

But I think Williams is getting a lot of attention now specifically because he is a known liberal.  Some people are shocked and confused that he would write and say these things.  But conversely, because he is a liberal, they have to at least hear him out and not dismiss him flippantly the way they dismiss conservatives.  

 

Or do they?

 

What will be very, very interesting is following the MSM and liberal reaction to Williams.  In other words, has he -- because of his impeccable liberal credentials -- now opened the door to an honest, sincere, and civil discourse on these issues, or will the MSM and liberals now turn on him and cast him out?  

 

Which way it goes will say a lot about people.

 

I'm also hoping that a liberal who would have never even considered reading a book by Sowell etc. will purchase Williams book and then be more open to examining conservative writings.  That would be a good thing. 

Williams cites Cosby's May 2004 Brown v. Board 50th Anniversary speech extensively in his article and new book, so it's safe to assume that the comedian must have lit a fire in Williams' heart to finally speak out.  If that's the case, then more power to him.  (Better late than never, I suppose.)  May other prominent blacks be inspired to do the same.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union gained another victory against the Bush administration's efforts to keep the American people safe from terrorists.  Yesterday, a U.S. District Judge and Carter-appointee Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that President Bush's domest terrorist surveillance program is unconstitutional, agreeing with a challenge from the ACLU.

According to Judge Taylor:   "The irreparable injury necessary to warrant injunctive relief is clear, as the First and Fourth Amendment rights of plaintiffs are violated" by the surveillance program, and that "The irreparable injury conversely sustained by defendants under this injunction may be rectified by compliance with our Constitution.   "The public interest is clear in this matter...  It is the upholding of our Constitution."  Judge Taylor granted a permanent injuction to halt the program, but is delayed implementing it to give the U.S. Justice Department time to appeal.

The ACLU's Executive Director Anthony Romero told reporters that the opinion "was another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."  He's got my vote for Honorary Member of Al Qaeda.

Forget the fact that the wiretapping program is, per the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), well within President Bush's constitutional right and duty as Commander-In-Chief to utilize in an effort to protect the American people from another terrorist attack.  Forget the fact that under the Bush administration's aggressive anti-terror efforts, we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11.  Forget the fact that, according to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the program has been reviewed by NSA and Justice Department lawyers and found to be legal.  Forget the fact that the wiretapping program is narrowly tailored to focus solely on communications with Al Qaeda. 

According to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow:

[The wiretapping program is] firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties...  Last week, America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people.  United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives.  The program is carefully administered, and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist.  The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That's what the American people expect from their government, and it is the president's most solemn duty to ensure their protection.

Forget all of that.  A Carter-appointed judge, agreeing with the ACLU, says that the program exacts "irreparable injury," and is, thus, unconstitutional.   Then, by God, I guess that settles it.

Chalk another one up for the ACLU.  Bin Laden and his crew must be loving this.

New Law Coming from Congress - Americans with No Abilities Ac t

The following is an excerpt from a BOND press release:

LOS ANGELES- After the landslide defeat (59 percent to 41 percent) of Rep. Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic primary in Georgia’s 4^th District this week, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a longtime critic of McKinney, released the following statement regarding McKinney’s behavior and comments during her concession speech:

“Cynthia McKinney’s actions and that of her supporters speak for themselves. McKinney is an out-of-control, cop hating, anti-Semitic, racist black female. After losing her Congressional seat, McKinney suggested the election was stolen, sang along to an Anti-President Bush song, and praised Leftist leaders in Cuba and Venezuela.

“Some in McKinney’s entourage—which included New Black Panther party members—scuffled with reporters, calling them ‘crackers’; and blamed McKinney’s loss on Israel, telling one reporter to ‘put on your yarmulke and celebrate.’ Where’s the condemnation of McKinney from the media and liberals such as we heard recently after Mel Gibson’s anti-Jewish remarks?

“Cynthia McKinney is an embarrassment to the people of Georgia and that’s why she lost her Congressional seat. Congratulations to the people in the 4^th District for booting McKinney out of office. ‘I say good riddance to bad rubbish.’ It’s time we hold angry black liberal female public officials to the same standard we’re willing to impose on white conservative male private citizens.”

Amen, Reverend!  Amen!

In reading the newspaper or some other medium about a particular subject, I've always come across the phrase "studies prove..." this or that. I never really gave it much thought; usually, I just took it at face value - until now.

Thomas Sowell has penned a very insightful three-article series on the subject of what "studies prove." In Part I of the series, he writes how studies often "prove" whatever the agency or department funding the study wants them to prove.

Whenever I hear the phrase "studies prove" this or that, it makes me think back to the beginning of my career as an economist at the Labor Department in Washington.

Secretary of Labor Arthur Goldberg was scheduled to appear before Congress to argue in favor of some policy that the Labor Department wanted enacted into law. Down at the bottom of the chain of command, I was given four sets of census data that had not yet been published and was told to analyze these data for a report to go to the Secretary of Labor.

Two of these sets of data seemed to support the Labor Department's position but the other two went counter to it. When I wrote up a paper explaining why this was so and concluded that the statistics overall were inconclusive, there was much dismay among those in the hierarchy between me and the Secretary.

They were also puzzled as to why anyone would write up such a paper, knowing what the Department's position was on the issues. They took my paper, edited and rewrote it before passing it up the chain of command.

Secretary Goldberg then made his usual confident presentation of the rewritten study to Congress, probably unaware of the contradictory data that had been left out.

It was a valuable experience so early in my career to learn that what "studies prove" is often whatever those who did the studies wanted to prove. Labor Department studies "prove" whatever serves the interest of the Labor Department, just as Agriculture Department studies "prove" whatever serves the Department of Agriculture's interests.