About Me

Name:The Dutchmeister
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

A Message from Doug Giles to the Gloucester, MA Baby-Momma Posse

Saturday, June 28, 2008
 

Hey, teenage girl, if sixteen of your unwed BFFs want to get pregnant before they enter the 10th grade, then you might want to keep shopping for sisters because in the realm of bad ideas, that’s a boner (no pun intended). Yes, my love, you need to run away from these toxic chicas because someone has definitely peed in their gene pool.

I’m not making this stuff up, folks. We learned this week that seventeen teenagers in Gloucester, Massachusetts who incarnate the ditz Pink had in mind in her song “Stupid Girl” took the script from Juno and covenanted together to give it some legs and get knocked up in one accord.

Isn’t that cool?

No, you say?

Why, sure it’s cool!

How do I know it’s cool? Well, those girls are on TV. It’s gotten them massive media attention. They’re on the news, in our magazines, papers and all over our laptops. They are all the buzz. And that’s what life in America is all about now, namely doing whatever it takes (as in this case some of the barely teen girls getting preggers via a 24 year-old homeless guy) to have everyone’s attention riveted upon them. I think I speak for many Americans in saying thanks to these kids’ dads for not doing their job and blowing off their daughters by not giving them any quality time. Now we all have to deal with this crap.

Earth to the dense young teens who just got pregnant: I hope you like the accolades you’re momentarily enjoying because the wind is about to shift in an unfavorable direction. Yep, mommies, what’s about to happen is the buzz is going to wear thin and reality is fixin’ to show up wearing construction-grade steel toed waffle stompers and proceed to kick the snot out of you and yours—most likely for a long, long time. Indeed, this “funny, cute and little” decision you made to have a baby while still a baby has teeth to it that I don’t think you gave much thought to.

You see, little sweetie, life isn’t a movie. Unlike Juno your drama’s run time is not going to be one hour and thirty-six minutes. In addition, there will be no soundtrack or popcorn served with this brain fart . . . nor can you pause it or hit rewind.

Also darling, you cannot look to the ubiquitous Hollywood teenage tarts for encouragement because your predicament and their debacle are desperately different. What do I mean? Take Jamie Lynn Spears, for example. If you are hoping to suck inspiration from Spears by comparing your pregnant plight with hers, I’m afraid you are comparing, as the Brits would say, chalk with cheese. Sure both of you made stupid, stupid mistakes and are—by relation of your dense decisions—soul mates. However, economically speaking, she’s a multi-millionaire and you go to Gloucester High School. It’s a little different, girlfriend.

Here’s what’s about to happen to your world:

1. Text messaging is going to diminish greatly because it is really hard to see that little keypad when you’ve been up for four days because your baby is colicky.

2. Your child’s 16 year-old sperm donor will probably leave you in the dust when he gets the revelation that he’s really not ready to be a dad with all that responsibility, blah blah. You watch. He’ll get freaked out, break up with you and will start dating his slutty math teacher.

3. Get ready to say hello to welfare, and I hope you have developed a palate for government cheese, spam (as in the food, not junk email) and powdered milk.

4. Your parents, who thought they were finished with child rearing, probably aren’t thrilled with their interrupted dreams and the child who’ll probably get dropped in their lap.

5. It’s harder for teens with kids to find a single guy who wants to marry that type of pre-packaged burden.

6. Shedding the 60lbs you’re about to gain ain’t that easy. Sure Christina, Halle, Nicole, Salma and Rippa look great three weeks after giving birth, but what you failed to realize is that they have $1,500 an hour trainers, nutritionists, hair and makeup artists, and a fleet of nannies and spray tanners following them around 24/7. You, on the other hand, have jack.

This pregnancy pact has got to be the new non-violent watermark for adolescent asininity.

Why couldn’t these loopy lasses have done something positive like all of them adopting dogs from a shelter, or doing a group exorcism on Gary Busey, or taking on a project like Courtney Love and trying to straighten her twisted backside out?

Look, if being positive isn’t hip then why not just start chain smoking and wearing OzzFest T-shirts like girls used to do?

If you ladies really, really want to rebel, get noticed, shock people at their inner core and rivet people’s attentions then I’ve got an idea. Are you ready?

Revolt against the slutification of our culture, learn how to read, become a conservative, help the poor during spring break versus flashing your boobs, get saved and finally, go to the Young Americas’ Foundation conference this summer!

People will freak. Teachers will trip out. Parents will be stunned and will wonder what has happened to you. Yes, if you want to go against the flow, rebel chick, be a conservative, a Christian and refuse to be part of the teenage wasteland.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Success Fuels Affirmative Action's Foes

 

Barack Obama's political success might claim an unintended victim: affirmative action, a much-debated policy that he supports.

Already weakened by several court rulings and state referendums, affirmative action now confronts a challenge to its very reason for existing. If Americans make a black person the leading contender for president, as nationwide polls suggest, how can racial prejudice be so prevalent and potent that it justifies special efforts to place minorities in coveted jobs and schools?

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Liberals Lie About What They Believe

by John Hawkins
Friday, June 27, 2008
 

Once you've watched liberals long enough to understand how they think -- scratch that, how they feel -- they become extraordinarily predictable.

To begin with, the liberal agenda is, in many respects, the same as it was in the thirties. Whether you call it communism, fascism, socialism, liberalism, or progressivism, the only real difference is how much they believe they can get away with, the way they sell it to people, and the latest trendy name for what they believe.

So, once the liberals pick a policy from their stale program to push, the next step is to get it implemented. This is where liberals have problems because whether a policy makes sense, is practical, or actually improves people's lives is of secondary importance to them. What is important to liberals is whether supporting or opposing that policy makes them feel good about themselves.

This is why liberals continue to support dysfunctional policies that have been failing miserably for decades and why they often oppose common sense programs that have been proven to work time and time again -- because it isn't about whether it works or not, it's about how it makes them feel.

In other words, a liberal will almost always prefer a policy that's extremely expensive, is difficult to implement, helps almost no one, but seems "nice" -- to a policy that is cheap, simple to implement, extremely effective, and seems "mean."

However, since most Americans make decisions about policies based on whether or not they believe the policy makes people's lives better or worse, liberals have had to become habitually dishonest about what they believe and want to do to get their ideas put into action.

This is a point worth stressing because many people who aren't familiar with politics believe that conservatives and liberals are simply flip sides of the same coin and therefore, approach issues the same way. However, conservatives genuinely believe that this is a center-right country. That's why conservatives have no qualms about being publicly labeled as conservatives and it's part of the reason why we're much more honest than the Left -- because we believe that a majority of the American people generally agree with us and share our values.

So, those of us on the Right spend our time trying to explain to the American people what we really want to do, while the Left spends its time trying to hide what it really wants to do from the American people.

Because of this, when liberals don't feel that the political winds are blowing in their direction, not only will they generally avoid discussing the things they believe, they will typically deny that they believe them at all.

Additionally, liberals go to bizarre lengths to tilt the political playing field in their favor. They move into the mainstream media so that they can tip what are supposed to be "objective" news stories in their favor. They get into positions of power in our educational system so that they can teach kids liberal propaganda before they're old enough to know better. They uniformly support judges who care nothing about the Constitution as long as it moves liberal ideological goals forward. Even the Left's support of illegal immigration is rooted in the desire to bring in millions of poor people from socialist countries who are more likely to vote Democratic. If they can't convince the American voters they're right, then they'll just bring in some new voters.

More disturbing is the Left's ever-increasing reliance on what are commonly thought of as fascist tactics. Liberals at college campuses attempt to disrupt conservative speeches and the Democrats want to try to drive conservative talk radio hosts off the air with the Fairness Doctrine. Conservatives like Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, and Ann Coulter have been targeted criminally for political reasons and there's even talk of trying to jail members of the Bush Administration over policy differences after they're out of office. Ideological soulmates of modern liberals -- like Stalin, Lenin, and Mao -- would certainly approve of those tactics.

Still, even though this is a center-right country, we do have political cycles and there are times when those cycles favor the Left. When that happens and the Lefties start to get a bit more confident, usually a few liberals at the edges will start talking about what they want to do. At that early point, most other liberals will still vehemently deny their ideological goals to the public out of fear that it will prevent them from getting into power.

However, when the Left gains enough strength to be capable of getting one of the policies they favor implemented, all the liberals who previously denied that they supported it will unapologetically shift on a dime and vote for it en masse -- while they rely on their ideological allies in the media and the fact that many Americans are ill informed about politics to cover their tracks.

So, if you want to know what liberals want to do, their words mean absolutely nothing because lying about their agenda has become as natural to them as chasing a cat is to a dog.

Instead, what you have to do is watch what other liberals have done when they have come into power. Look at Canada, where conservatives are being put on trial for hate crimes because they've dared to criticize Muslims. Look at European countries, where they have socialistic economies, sky high tax rates, rigid speech codes, and overweening nannystates. You can even look at liberal enclaves in the United States like Berkeley and San Francisco, where members of the military are treated like pariahs and they boo the national anthem.

If you believe the liberals in Berkeley, France, Canada or for that matter in the bowels of the Daily Kos or Huffington Post, are significantly different than, say Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, you are kidding yourself. The only differences are in what they think they can get away with and how honest they are willing to be about their agenda.



Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Tags: Liberals  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Bravo to the High Court!  Now, violent crime, which tends to increase every year, in our nation's capital, will finally start to come down.  Why? Because law-abiding DC residents, who have been terrorized by killers and other (illegally) gun-toting criminals in their midst for far too long, will finally - FINALLY!!! - be able to legally arm and protect themselves.
 
 
 
Project 21 Press Release:
 
For Release: June 26, 2008
Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org
 
 
Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the ban on most gun ownership in the nation's capital in the first major Second Amendment case in almost 70 years is being hailed by black activists of the Project 21 leadership network.
 
Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli says the decision supporting an individual right to use firearms is a loud and clear declaration that the government cannot pick and choose what constitutional protections are honored and enforced.
 
"This is a great day for law-abiding citizens of the nation's capital who have unjustly been denied their full right to protect themselves and families for over 30 years," said Borelli.  "The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right of citizens to arm themselves for self-defense and not become easy prey.  Perhaps the government should find a better way to keep illegal guns away from criminals and not law-abiding citizens."
 
The case of District of Columbia v. Heller is an appeal of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia.  In Parker v. District of Columbia, the DC Circuit ruled the District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which bars handgun ownership by most D.C. residents, is unconstitutional.  
 
The specific question being answered in District of Columbia v. Heller today was, as phrased by the Court: "Whether... provisions [in the District of Columbia code] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."
 
The District of Columbia, defending the constitutionality of the firearm ban before the Court in oral arguments March 18, argued the Second Amendment's right to "bear arms" refers not to an individual right to use firearms, but rather to a "right to participate in the common defense" and a restriction of "the authority of the federal government to interfere with the arming" of state militias.  The District of Columbia argued to the Court that "the Second Amendment... is expressly about the security of the State; it's about well-regulated militias, not unregulated individual license."
 
Opponents of the ban, however, said the Founders considered self-defense a right and one they intended the Second Amendment to protect, telling the Court "the framers knew exactly how to condition a right on militia service... and they didn't do it with respect to the Second Amendment."
 
"There are countless instances in which individuals are on their own when it comes to protecting themselves and their property.  A majority of the Justices recognized this and upheld the Second Amendment's specific protection of an individual right to self-defense. Now that D.C.'s citizens have had this constitutional right restored, criminals will have good reason to think twice before trying to plunder another's property," added Project 21's Borelli.
 
In 2007, in a newspaper column published in Philadelphia, Chicago, Pittsburgh and elsewhere, Borelli addressed some of the public policy aspects of the case:
 
Besides violating the Second Amendment, D.C.'s gun ban is a violation of the fundamental rationale of law.  In The Law, noted political theorist Frederic Bastiat wrote: 'It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work.  All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.'  D.C. promotes the opposite, effectively protecting the plunderer and punishing the property owner.
 
Borelli also pointed out:
 
Research shows that law-abiding citizens using firearms for protection can save lives and deter crimes.  In 'Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control,' co-authors Gary Kleck and Don Kates note that 'as many as 2.5 million victims use guns to defend against crime each year' and 'handguns are actually used by victims to repel crime far more often than they are by criminals in committing crimes - as much as three times more.'
 
Borelli believes that in addition to it being unconstitutional, it is immoral to deny law-abiding citizens the right to legally possess a firearm, especially within crime-infested neighborhoods.
 
Borelli's column is available at www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVBorelliGuns90507.html.
 
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992.  For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Visions Commentary from Project 21

Jesse Jackson Outrage Strategy: No Dough, No Go?
 
 
by David Almasi and Justin Danhof
 
 
A New Visions Commentary paper published June 2008 by The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capitol Court NE #200, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/543-4110, Fax 202/543-5975, E-Mail Project21@nationalcenter.org, Web http://www.project21.org. Reprints permitted provided source is credited.
 
 
 
Remember when Jesse Jackson challenged XM Satellite Radio for its racist advertising? Probably not, since it never happened.  Why he didn't is the question.
 
In 2006 and 2007, XM ran television commercials that were blatantly racist, at least under a definition set by Jackson five years earlier.  In the commercials, cartoon characters' musical tastes were personified by the radio waves featured in the XM logo.  For example, they formed a Beethoven-like mane for a classical music aficionado and the long, bushy moustache of a country-western fan. At the end, as the music of rapper Snoop Dogg plays, a character smiles to show an XM logo as a gold tooth.
 
Back in 2001, Toyota ran a postcard campaign in which a smiling black face featured a gold tooth with the silhouette of a Toyota RAV 4 SUV.  Jackson then accused Toyota and the Saatchi & Saatchi ad agency of racial insensitivity, saying, "[t]he only thing missing is the watermelon."
 
Toyota, fearing a threatened boycott, agreed to implement a $7.8 billion diversity program. The company "pledged to make $700 million in contracts and business opportunities available to minority firms each year for a period of ten years."
 
One would expect Jackson might now want to use the proposed merger of XM and Sirius Satellite Radio - imminently awaiting approval from the FCC - to exact justice for those hurt by the XM's apparent insensitivity.
 
But over 20 months have passed since XM's gold tooth commercial first aired.  Looking at the Jackson record, one might suspect the lack of motivation is because of money - or, to be more precise, a lack of it.
 
It's not that XM's radio waves aren't on Jackson's radar.  Jackson opposes the XM-Sirius merger.  He claims "[the merger] will eliminate diversity of content and meaningful opportunities for minority partnership in media ownership.  This cannot happen."
 
Jackson met with FCC chairman Kevin Martin in January of 2008 to demand that the merged broadcasters lease at least 20 percent of its channels to minority-owned companies. A Jackson-affiliated investment company that was represented at the meeting, Georgetown Partners, has also filed papers with the FCC opposing the merger.
 
This is just part of a long history of Jackson intervention in the broadcasting industry.  In 1997, Jackson opposed the sale of ten Viacom-owned radio stations.  After Viacom created a $2 million dollar minority ownership of broadcasting fund, however, Jackson blessed the sale.  The fund, run by Jackson's friend Warner Session, subsequently funneled $680,000 to Jackson's Citizen Education Fund (CEF).
 
Also in the late 1990s, Jackson opposed the merger of SBC and Ameritech, citing concerns for low-income consumers.  Jackson later changed his mind and supported the merger after his friends at Georgetown Partners - who had no prior telecom experience - became partners in the sale of part of Ameritech's wireless business to GTE.  After GTE and Bell Atlantic merged shortly thereafter, Jackson's CEF benefited from approximately $1 million in donations from the two companies.
 
What's the difference this time?  One thing is undoubtedly money.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the growth of the satellite radio industry is below expectations and the current state of the economy is expected to slow it further.  New car sales, where radios come factory-installed, are slumping and in-store radio sales are down 35 percent against predictions.
 
At last year's annual meeting, Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin told investors he was "real unhappy" with his company's falling stock value, but assured them "we suck less" in comparison to XM.  Motley Fool's Philip Durrell cited XM as his pick for "worst stock" for both 2007 and 2008.
 
It's a far cry from 2001, when Jackson helped officiate a meeting in which distributing the bounty of Toyota's "21st Century Diversity Strategy" was discussed.
 
As the XM-Sirius merger enters its critical final stages, the silence from Jesse Jackson about the questionable XM commercials is deafening.  Then again, it's not wholly unexpected.  It all seems to be a matter of dollars and cents to him.
 
 
#  #  #
 
 
David Almasi and Justin Danhof are the staff director and research associate, respectively, of the Project 21 black leadership network.  Comments may be sent to DAlmasi@nationalcenter.org.  A footnoted version of this commentary can be found at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVAlmasiDanhofMerger608.html.
 
 
Note: New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mixed Feelings on Father's Day

Mixed Feelings on Father's Day
by Dutch Martin
 
As the product of a single-parent home, I have always had mixed feelings when Father's Day comes around every June.  How could I comment on the importance of fathers if my own formative years were shaped by my own father’s absence? Although much has been written about the negative effects of fatherlessness on black children I would like to share my feelings on how important fathers are and how misguided welfare policies have undermined the black family—including my own.
 
Historically, black families were intact and strong. Even during an era when racism was worse, blacks still worked hard, kept their families together and sought to educate themselves and their children. In other words, we not only survived in the face of the obstacles in our way, we excelled.

What happened?

LBJ’s 1964 “War on Poverty” program happened.  Economic and social progress in the black community was utterly ruined with the expansion of the welfare state.  A bureaucracy was formed that basically subsidized irresponsibility and social dysfunction, paying unmarried black women to have children out-of-wedlock while giving weak-willed black men an excuse to be lazy, irresponsible losers siring as many illegitimate kids with as many women as they pleased. (Any why not?  The government would take care of their progeny.)  Having had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, the black family began a rapid moral disintegration under a program that went from an emergency rescue to a way of life.   No wonder so many blacks just sat on their hands and did nothing after the civil rights movement.  

For three generations—until welfare reform was adopted in 1996—young black girls were raised and culturally conditioned to be "baby mamas" instead of loving and nurturing wives and mothers, and prefer “baby daddies” over responsible, loving and supportive husbands and fathers.  In the black community, the mere idea of marriage as a sacred institution for the proper rearing of children soon became a joke.

Many black men saw no reason whatsoever to be committed husbands and fathers. And why should they? Welfare rendered their role in the family unnecessary.  In her book The Burden of Bad Ideas Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald recounts how when she asked a woman receiving welfare benefits what she would do without them, the woman replied, “I'd get me a husband.”
 
I grew up on welfare, the youngest of six children with an absentee father.  My family life was dysfunctional to say the least, and not having my father in my life left a void in my soul that at times has been emotionally crippling.  Who would teach me how to drive a car, tie a necktie, balance a checkbook, and relate well to the opposite sex?  Most importantly, who would teach me how to be a man? I don’t care what modern feminists say, a woman cannot instill in a male child the tools he needs to be a man.  I had to learn many of life’s lessons of manhood the hard way—pretty much on my own.
 
Remembering the spiritual and moral decay that living in a fatherless home on welfare festered in my family and all the families in our neighborhood makes me both angry and sad.  What makes me angrier is that today’s black “leaders” don’t have the guts to admit that the welfare state—which for many of them was their political meal ticket—failed black America horribly.  Thomas Sowell, in an August 17, 2004 article entitled “A Painful Anniversary,” puts it this way:
The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society—and of government programs as the solutions to social problems.  The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.
Don’t let anyone kid you, folks.  Fatherlessness hurts like hell!  You never get over it; you just deal with it.  I’ve been dealing with it for 34 years.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Thoughts for Father's Day

by Juan Williams
June 14, 2008
 

Walter Dean Myers, a best-selling author of books for teenagers, sometimes visits juvenile detention centers in his home state of New Jersey to hold writing workshops and listen for stories about the lives of young Americans.

One day, in a juvenile facility near his home in Jersey City, a 15-year-old black boy pulled him aside for a whispered question: Why did he write in "Somewhere in the Darkness" about a boy not meeting his father because the father was in jail? Mr. Myers, a 70-year-old black man, did not answer. He waited. And sure enough, the boy, eyes down, mumbled that he had yet to meet his own father, who was in jail.

As we celebrate Father's Day tomorrow, we should reflect upon a sad fact: It is now common to meet young people in our big city schools, foster-care homes and juvenile centers who do not know their dads. Most of those children have come face-to-face with their father at some point; but most have little regular contact with the man, or have any faith that he loves or cares about them.

When fatherless young people are encouraged to write about their lives, they tell heartbreaking stories about feeling like "throwaway people." In the privacy of the written page, their hard, emotional shells crack open to reveal the uncertainty that comes from not knowing if their father has any interest in them. The stories are like letters to unknown dads – some filled with imaginary scenes about what it might be like to have a dad who comes home and puts his arm around you or plays with you.

They feel like they've been thrown away, Mr. Myers says, because "they don't have a father to push them, discipline them, and they give up trying to succeed . . . they don't see themselves as wanted." A regular theme of their stories is that they feel safer in a foster care home or juvenile detention center than on the outside, because they have no father to hold together the family. There is no one at home.

The extent of the problem is clear. The nation's out-of-wedlock birth rate is 38%. Among white children, 28% are now born to a single mother; among Hispanic children it is 50% and reaches a chilling, disorienting peak of 71% for black children. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, nearly a quarter of America's white children (22%) do not have any male in their homes; nearly a third (31%) of Hispanic children and over half of black children (56%) are fatherless.

This represents a dramatic shift in American life. In the early 1960s, only 2.3% of white children and 24% of black children were born to a single mom. Having a dad, in short, is now a privilege, a ticket to middle-class status on par with getting into a good college.

The odds increase for a child's success with the psychological and financial stability rooted in having two parents. Having two parents means there is a greater likelihood that someone will read to a child as a preschooler, support him through school, and prevent him from dropping out, as well as teaching him how to compete, win and lose and get up to try again, in academics, athletics and the arts. Maybe most important of all is that having a dad at home is almost a certain ticket out of poverty; because about 40% of single-mother families are in poverty.

"If you are concerned about reducing child poverty then you have to focus on missing fathers," says Roland Warren, president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, based in Gaithersburg, Md. This organization works to encourage more men to be involved fathers.

The odds are higher that a child without a dad will have more contact with the drug culture, the police and jail. Even in kindergarten, children living with single parents are more likely to trail children with two parents when it comes to health, cognitive skills and their emotional maturity. They are in the back of the bus before the bus – their life – even gets going.

A study of black families 10 years ago, when the out-of-wedlock birthrate was not as high as today, found that single moms reported only 20% of the "baby's daddy" spent time with the child or took a "lot" of interest in the baby. That is quite a contrast to the married black mothers who told researchers that 88% of married black men, or men living with the mother, regularly spent time with the child and took responsibility for the child's well-being.

In his fictional books, Walter Dean Myers has found that the key to reaching young readers is to connect with their "internal life of insecurities and doubts." These doubts and insecurities involve answers to painful questions such as, "do you feel loved, do you ever feel lonely?" These are feelings that are hard to share with a teacher, a coach or even a friend.

More so today than in the past, reaching the heart of insecurity among young people means writing about the hurt of life without a dad. It also means writing about being young and black or brown in the midst of the flood of negative images in rap videos without a positive male role model. These young people see so many others just like them standing on street corners, unconnected to family life and failing at school and work and threatening violence – and in so many cases just like them, without an adult male to guide them.

When these children see Barack Obama, Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice, they tell Walter Dean Myers that those black people must be "special; they are not like me, they don't have the background that I have."

In his own life, Mr. Myers often looked down on the man in his house: his stepfather, who worked as a janitor and was illiterate. He felt this man had little to teach him.

Then his own son complained one day that he, Myers, "sounded just like granddad" when he told the boy to pick up after himself, to work harder and show respect to people.

"I didn't know it at the time," says Mr. Myers of his stepfather, "but just having him around meant I was picking up his discipline, his pride, his work ethic. . ." He adds: "Until I heard it from my son I never understood it."

Mr. Williams is a political analyst for National Public Radio and Fox News.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Journalist Tim Russert of the "Meet the Press" Dies at Age 58

He was one of the few MSM jourlalists (if not the only prominent one) who actually made an effort to be fair and impartial to conservatives.  He will be sorely missed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tags: Tim Russert  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Someone FINALLY Said it!

A friend of mine sent me this and dared me to forward it.  I told him that I would do him one better - and put it on my blog!
 
 

Subject: SOMEONE FINALLY SAID IT...

Proud To Be White.
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
 
There are African Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans,
Arab Americans,
Native Americans, etc.
...And then there are just -
Americans.

You pass me on the street
and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Cr@cker,' 'H*nkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,' ...And that's OK.
 
But when I call you N*gger,
K*ke, Towel head,
Sand-n*gger, Camel Jockey,
Be@ner, Gook, or Chink,
...You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot
of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most
dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Hispanic History Month.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Asian History Month.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Kawanza.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
 
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television)
...We'd be racists.

If we had a “White Pride Day”
...You would call us racists.

If we had White History Month
...We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives,
...We'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly-proclaimed Black-only Colleges in the US , yet if there were 'White-only Colleges' ...THAT would be a racist college.

In the Million-Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
...You would call us racists.
 
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and red, and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride
...You call us racists!

You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and
posing a threat to ALL of society
...You call him a racist.
 
I am proud.
...But, you call me a racist.
 
Why is it that only whites can be racists?
There is nothing improper about this e-mail.
Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on...

Tags: whites   racism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Today's Featured Columnist: Jerry Bowyer

By Jerry Bowyer

Sunday, June 8, 2008
 

It wasn’t Bush, it wasn’t greedy corporations, or free trade, or history’s most over-predicted recession. It was not the oil companies, income inequality, or the excesses of cowboy capitalism. None of these things caused the unemployment rate to jump a half a percentage point in one month.

Ask yourself a few questions: Why did unemployment surge at a time when unemployment compensation claims are historically low? More to the point, how could unemployment spike this much without a coinciding spike in corporate lay-offs?

The answer to all of these questions is same: because very few people lost jobs last month. This huge jump in the size of the unemployed comes from new entrants to the economy – hundreds of thousands of them. In short, well over 600,000 people who were not job seekers in April became job seekers in May. And who starts looking for work at the end of Spring? That’s right – students. Hundreds of thousands of students are looking for work right now, and they’re not finding it.

Congress is to blame. Last year Congressional Democrats (along with some Stockholm-Syndromed Republicans) passed the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which started a phased hike of the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25. Free market economists warned them that this would increase unemployment – that rapid increases in unemployment compensation hit teens and minorities the hardest. But the class-warriors are running the people’s house now, and they would hear none of that, so they took to the floor, let loose the dogs of demagoguery, and saddled America’s pizza parlors, municipal swimming pools, house painting businesses and lawn mowing services with a huge cost increase.

Now, we see the perfectly logical outcome of wage controls – rising unemployment among the most economically vulnerable. The chart above tells the story: Friday’s unemployment spike occurred overwhelmingly among teenagers, and secondarily among African Americans. Just like we said it would. A kid who is at entry level of job skills may be a good deal at 5 bucks an hour, but not at 7. Our anointed leaders gets to glory in their generosity (with other people’s money) and just so long as very few people in the media know that a demand curve slopes downward (a good bet, there), no one calls them on it.

This summer the left will make political lemonade out of a tough student job market. Heck, it may provide a small army of angry unemployed youth to man the campaign, hungry for hope and (loose) change, never once realizing that they’re working to entrench the leftie war on business which left them jobless this summer in the first place.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Study: Men Prefer Being Solo Over A Bad Marriage

From Yahoo.com (6/2/08):
 

Bachelor Carl Weisman got fed up of being classified as a playboy, a loser or a commitment-phobe so he set out to find out exactly why he and a growing number of eligible men were steering clear of marriage.

Weisman, 49, conducted a survey of 1,533 heterosexual men to research a book aiming to give women an insight into why some smart, successful men opted to stay single -- and help lifelong bachelors understand why they are still the solo man at parties.

He concluded that most men were not afraid of marriage -- but they were afraid of a bad marriage.

"Men are 10 times more scared of marrying the wrong person than of never getting married at all," Weisman told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"This is the first generation of people who have grown up with bad divorces. People assume there is something wrong if you don't marry but these are men who have made a different choice and not given in to social pressures."

The release of his book "So Why Have You Never Been Married? - Ten Insights into Why He Hasn't Wed," comes amid a growing trend for more people to stay single, with less social or religious pressures on men -- and women -- to tie the knot.

Weisman said U.S. figures showed that in 1980 about 6 percent of men aged in their early 40s had never married but this number had now risen to 17 percent.

AFRAID TO MAKE MISTAKES

Weisman said his online survey found there are three groups of bachelors -- about 8 percent who never want to marry, 62 percent want to marry but of which half won't settle for anything less than perfection, and about 30 percent who are on the fence.

Four out of 10 bachelors did not want children compared to three out of 10 wanting to be a father. The rest were undecided.

But while 72 percent of respondents said they were not afraid of marriage, about half of them said the situation that scared them most was marrying the wrong person.

"It's so important to these men to get it right. My best advice to single women after bachelors is to be patient. If you're in a hurry to get married you'll be frustrated," he said.

Weisman also found that financial issues, both positive and negative, played a large part in men's fear of commitment.

"Those with little money said they would have nothing to offer a partner, with some suffering self-esteem issues and withdrawing from the dating pool," said Weisman, an engineer-turned-author with two books now published.

"While those who are financially sound were terrified what a bad divorce could do to them."

Weisman said his research blew away any idea that single men were unhappy.

"A compelling issue was how many of them had found contentment in a never-married life," he said. "They had created lives full of careers, friends and ambitions. It was not like they walk around all day worried about not being married."

For him, researching the book made him also look at himself -- and he ended up living with a girlfriend for the first time.

"Now we're looking at getting married. As I researched the book I found I was looking at men 10 years older than me and it was like looking into the future. If I didn't change, nothing would," he said.
 
This is what columnist Glenn Sacks has to say:
 
In my co-authored column Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led to a Men's Marriage Strike? (Philadelphia Inquirer, (7/5/02) six years ago I postulated that men were on a "Marriage Strike" because of the way they get manhandled in divorce. [This new study] supports that view...
 

I'm of the general opinion that marriage and fatherhood is a good thing for men, and that unfortunately it has been poisoned to some degree by our anti-male family law system. Perhaps more of these bachelors are happy being single, as this research suggests.

One thing that disappointed me about the study's findings is this--men apparently worried about losing their money in divorces but not losing their kids. This means either one of two things, neither of them good:

1) The men weren't that concerned over losing their kids.

2) The men didn't realize how common it is for fathers to lose their kids.

What say y'all, my readers?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Ex-Church Taking Money from the Same Government Its Former Pastor Bashes

Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church were slopping at the same Federal gov't trough that he condemned repeatedly in his "God Damn America!" sermons.  The same government that he accused of infecting black communities with drugs and AIDS, and who he feels, got what it deserved on 9/11, is the same government this crackpot preacher vis-a-vis his church had his hand out accepting Federal funds from.
 
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
 
How do you spell 'HYPOCRISY!!!???"
 
 
 
 

Across America seven days a week, parents drop their kids at day care centers, which are supported by funding from the federal government.

But what makes one facility noteworthy in inner city Chicago is that it’s run by Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s the same church whose former head pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, drew widespread scrutiny after he cursed the U.S. government for its treatment of African-Americans.

FOX News has learned that over the last 15 years, Trinity has received at least $15 million in grants from the federal government — in other words, taxpayer money.

Records show this money supported a variety of outreach: everything from low income housing to nutritional programs for needy kids to money for HIV/AIDS education. Wright blames the government for intentionally infecting the African-American community with that deadly virus.

DePaul University journalism professor Laura Washington, who specializes in race and politics, said Wright is a hypocrite for taking money from the government.

“On the one hand, he says, ‘God damn America’ and he says America is responsible for all the ills in the black community. On the other hand, he’s taking money from the same community he’s crucifying,” Washington said.

But another scholar who specializes in religion and politics says Wright never swore off government funding like ultra-nationalist Black Muslims have.

Andrew Walsh, associate director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., said Wright’s practices fall in line with his preaching.

“Wright believes things like the government-funded programs are a necessary compensation for the legacy of white racism, part of what’s necessary to heal the wounds inflicted over four centuries on blacks. His niche is even more specialized– he does this sort of work in the context of white denominational mainline Protestantism, which, on the whole has welcomed both him and his message.”

So, how did Trinity, given Wright’s controversial criticism of the government, get millions of dollars in handouts from Washington over the years?

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bob Dole Calls Scott McClellan a "Miserable Creature"

RIGHT ON, BOB!!!
 
Friday, May 30, 2008
 

Bob Dole says Bob Dole is mad at Scott McClellan.

The former Senate majority leader and 1996 Republican presidential candidate sent a nasty e-mail to McClellan calling him a "miserable creature" for his latest book blasting the Bush administration, FOX News has learned.

In the e-mail, Dole basically describes the former White House press secretary as a traitor looking to cash in on the "liberal" media's distaste for President Bush.

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," the five-term Kansas senator wrote to McClellan. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

He continues: "When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years."

White House officials have sharply decried McClellan's book — "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception," which criticizes the administration's handling of the Iraq war.

Following reports that McClellan received a $75,000 advance for the book, one senior White House official referenced the Biblical story of Judas selling out Jesus, telling FOX News: "Ironically, in today's dollars that amount is worth exactly 30 pieces of silver."

Press Secretary Dana Perino said the loaded charge in the book is that Bush and his senior advisers intentionally misled the public into the Iraq war, and knew more than they were telling the public.

"We have said over and over that the intelligence was wrong. And we have worked very hard, at President Bush's direction, to change the way the intelligence community works together, but what hurts us is the suggestion that we purposefully sent men and women into war without acknowledging the consequences," she said.

Several Democrats in Congress are looking at the book and considering calling for hearings.

Dole wrote that if McClellan had misgivings about the president's foreign policy, he should have spoken up long ago "like a man," or quit his job.

"That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?"

This is the original Dole e-mail:

Scott,

There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues. No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique.

In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you. No doubt you will "clean up" as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, "Biting The Hand That Fed Me." Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years.

I have no intention of reading your "exposé" because if all these awful things were happening, and perhaps some may have been, you should have spoken up publicly like a man, or quit your cushy, high profile job. That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively. You're a hot ticket now but don't you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?

BOB DOLE

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | Comments