SEPARATE BUT UNEQUAL
SEPARATE BUT UNEQUAL

BUT, THEY CARE

I am watching Mo’nique,  accepting her Best Supporting Actress award at this year’s Academy Awards, thanking Hattie McDaniel and others who made sacrifices that paved the way for other African-American actors in show business.

Hattie McDaniel was the (surprise) winner for best supporting actress in the 1939 Classic, Gone With the Wind. Over the years the progressive Hollywood crowd (who reeeeeeally care, you know) long have held up Ms. McDaniel’s nomination and victory as examples of how progressives in Hollywood have been in the fore in equal treatment of African-Americans.

Not so fast, I-feel-your-pain types.

In 1940, the Awards’ ceremony was held in a nightclub (the Copocabana, I think). Many in the industry disapproved of her nomination on racial bases, and her studio insisted that she read from a speech prepared by a studio writer, which she refused to do. Ms. McDaniel was seated  in the rear - next to the kitchen door. 

In the 30’s the lowest attendance night of the week at the  movies was Tuesday night. Why? Because Amos ‘n Andy was on the radio. That comedy series about  the interactions between three black guys (portrayed by 3 white actors) was, in 1951,  carried over to television, where Amos ‘n Andy was television‘s number one hit. The lead character  George ‘Kingfish’ Stevens, played by black actorTim Moore (63), a successful Vaudeville comedian, as a guy who always had a scheme to get rich and who usually conspired to get his friend Andy Brown, involved.

Then along came the (white) liberals complaining that the portrayal of the lead, ‘Kingfish’  was demeaning to African-Americans. The NAACP dutifully followed suit, and Amos ‘n Andy was pulled from the air. The Honeymooners, about a white man who always had a scheme to get rich and who usually conspired to get his friend Ed Norton, involved, became the number one hit. Another victory for the progressives.

What’s wrong with this picture? With the exception of its lead character (not unlike Al Bundy, Archie Bunker, Ralph Cramden, Tim Allen) Amos ‘n Andy’s characters were all employed, spoke well, and were all portrayed by black actors. When it left the air, it was years before a black actor (Bill Cosby) was given a lead in a TV series (I Spy), and even longer before a black actor (Redd Foxx) was given a comedy show of his own.

Tim Moore never worked again and died in 1958.

Mo’nique probably doesn’t have any idea what those before her really had to put up with.

Nor Hallie Barry, who proclaimed her Academy Award as a huge victory for African-American women. (I wonder what her white mother who single-handidly raised her thought of THAT sentiment).
As Solomon looks out over this overgrown, under kept field, he had a bit of a word from the Lord, “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want, like an armed warrior.” Because the lazy man chose to rest rather than getting out there and pulling weeds, cutting down thorns, and rebuilding his wall, he was going to become poor. He was going to go hungry. 

Or as the Apostle Paul clearly puts it in: 2 Thessalonians 3:10b, “Anyone who does not work, does not eat.”




http://kgbuckeye.wordpress.com/tag/if-you-dont-work-you-dont-eat/
EDUCATION

One of the saddest pictures I have seen lately is the African-American mother sitting at a public meeting on education, with her 8 year-old son (spiffy in his white dress shirt and red tie), having just been told that funding for charter schools has been cut by the Obama Administration - and her kid was out of luck.

She was crying while being interviewed. She knew that her son's chance of succeseding in life, now consigned to the wiles of inner-city education bureaucracy, had just  taken a decided turn for the worst.

How should she feel? How would you or I feel as a parent faced with the same daunting circumstances?

When Candidate Obama was on the hustings, he promised a "quality and complete education for EVERY school child." President Obama, however, has taken the opposite tack. 

The ink wasn't yet dry on President Obama's inauguration, when he announced that the D.C. Public schools (who spend $15,000 per student annually) (click hereno longer would pay for educating inner-city students in private schools. Couple that with the sad mom above, and you might ask Mr. Obama "WHAT GIVES?"

90% of African-Americans vote Democratic; 95% voted for Mr. Obama. So why throw them under the bus? Here's my take: 

1. Democrats take the black vote for granted - they know that all they have to do at election time is drop the "R" Bomb at election time vis Republicans and the folks fall in line. But the Teachers Union is another matter entirely. AFT and N.E.A. own the Democrat.

2. Mr. Obama has nothing in common with Black people. He was raised in an upper-middle class white famity, attended upper-class prep schools, graduated from an Ivy League School. While he may sit rarely (by his own admission) in the pews in a black church, he has lived in upscale white neighborhoods. His basketball buddies are white; his friends are white.

Ergo, when it comes to brass tacks, African-Americans get pushed under the bus.
1956  Elections - Non-white voters - voted for

Democrat       69%

Republican     31%

This page was last updated: December 13, 2014
BRAINS IN THE BELFRY
(A Cautionary Tale)

In the revolutionary  1960's, our institutions of higher learning were just beginning to purge themselves of faculty whose experiences and upbringing leaned heavily upon their sense of patriotism, their moral and religious commitment, devotion to family, and an adherence to providing an education that was committed to improving the general good. 

Following the mantra of public education teachers of the 50's that students were complacent and needed "to become involved," college administrators, seeking a kind of 'moral relativism' inspired by the writings of such as Bertrand Russell, Buckminster Fuller, and Walter Duranty, replaced retiring faculty with new generation of professors, raised with the notion that the universe revolved around them and that military service and manual labor were to be avoided at any cost.

God, your parents, military service, individual responsibility - were all concepts to be examined and questioned by the students of the 60's and 70's. Morality wasn't extant, it was as each individual perceived it was and how each thought it should be applied to society. If, for example, the individual and/or his like-minded associates thought, say, a college administration erred in allowing military recruiters on campus, then by golly, it was ok to seige campus buildings, and shut the whole place down. After all; mom and dad thought these tantrums appropriate.

Right or wrong didn't matter. If their actions were justified in their own minds, who cares what others think - deal with it, mannnnn. And the bearded young professor with his priviliged upbringing in Ann Arbor, Boston, or Berkeley, and his corduroy coat with elbow patches (I still have mine), was right there with them at the sit in. Power to the people, Myaannnnn (weekdays). These new phD's, fresh from 8 years of dodging the draft, were with you - man.

No longer was there a night and day - rather gray areas. No absolutes, just moral relativism. And these enduring traits went forth from the University ingrained in its students' minds. Of course a lot of this baloney was disgorged through the interaction with the real world of employers who had a different philosophy and the responsibilities of providing for a family. But the philosophy was there upon which all of the educated elites could draw should the need arise - like at social or political gatherings. 

Or in public education. These newly-educated people, many who wanted to make things better, went into teaching. The poorly compensated dedicated spinster teacher was replaced by an educator that was, by golly, going to look out for number one (like the rest of us). They formed unions and became activists in the political movements - most especially in political parties that championed collective  thinking, and of course, labor unions. Ummm, like, a, ya know, Liberals. Like . . . awesome . . . Democrats.

CHANGE

American values slowly, almost inperceptively, became obsolete. Especially in public education. The 3 R's(of which, ironically, only one begins with an 'R')  rote memorization of math tables, the teaching of American History, and a host of established educational methods and curriculum that made America the best-educated and most successful country in the History of the World, were no longer the focus of public education teachers. 

American exceptionalism; the uniqueness of The United States Constitution; Standard English; not to even mention God (and don't you dare) were old-fashioned concepts. We needed a new way to educate our kids.

ENTER CHARLES SILBERMAN
("Crisis in the Classroom")


Perforce, by the 1980's new math was dropped, open classrooms were closed back up (except in Key Largo where my kids went to school, where apparently they didn't get the memo), and English Grammar was re-revised, but the damage had been done. The teaching of History plunged right on, however - ignoring and failing to explain the enormous importance of the contribution of the Founding Fathers in making this country what it is today. Equal time for minorities and political correctness were more important. Parents were eliminated in the decision-making processes and in Court decisions ruled the day. Public Education became Public Indoctrination . . . umm . . . um . . . um.

Birth control, sex education, government-mandated food programs (my kid gained 15 lbs before we caught on); equal funding for girls sports (with which I totally agree), busing. Where we had 8% teen pregnancy in the 50's we have 28%; SAT scores have dropped precipitously; the drop-out rate of 14% has risen to as high as 60% in some school districts; and schools AND cities are far more segregated than before. 

Charles Silberman was the darling of the left.

CHARLES SILBERMAN, REDUX
("Crime in America")

So, whatever happened to Mr. Silberman? Actually, after :Crisis" and more than ten years of research, Sir Chuck tackled another issue in American life - CRIME. Yessir: The public and the education establishment could adopt Mr. Silberman's criticisms and solutions to the problems of American Education, we can't wait to hear what he has to say about crime. Probably Racism? Loss of self-esteem? Ronald Reagan?BRING IT.

So, to much fanfare, Charles Silberman published his first important book in over ten years: "Crime In America." Violent crime in America, said he, was largely attributable to young black men between the ages of 15 - 35. While blacks (the PC noun of the day) comprised just over 10% of the population, they committed about 50% of the violent crimes (rape, armed robbery, assaults, and murder); and he backed his research with irrefutable facts and statistics.

While his book was generally given good reviews, and heartily endorsed by such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Liberals hated it. Not to be concerned with identifying, let alone solving a problem, Political Correctness was (and still is) the order of the day. Problems in the Black Community (the PC adjective and nouns of the day), were caused by white people - Blacks committed crimes because they were poor. They were poor because of RACISM. 

RACISM

There we have it. Black people are poor because of White Racism. It's Whitey that causes 70% illegitimacy rate; 40% school drop out rate; high crime rate; dependancy on Government jobs and Government handouts. Now that we've figured it all out, even I can see the solution for the African-American community. Keep electing Liberals who keep making promises to you they never intended to keep. Watch as those liberal politicians enact laws that send your jobs overseas; keep your kids from having a good education; and enslave you with dependency on government programs.

But ask yourselves - with liberals in charge of our government for 70 of the last 75 years, why aren't things getting better? 

Why indeed?

Update: 2010: We regret to announce that Charles Silberman has passed away in Iowa.


THIS CLIP SHOWS THAT AMERICANS HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR

But the "Vietnam Tom" Slick incident in Oakland, and the disgraceful B.S. given before the NAACP by Congresswoman Maxine Waters says something serious about the condition of race relations in this country.


JOHN W. SAWYER III
(Deleted)
knowitall6@lycos.com
Sawyer2012.com


July 26, 2010

Ombudsman
New York Times
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY, 10018

Re: The Last Straw.

Dear Sir:

Notwithstanding my obsession with knowing everything, hence my (2) subscriptions to the Times, Brian Stelter’s article, “When Race Is the Issue, Misleading Coverage Sets Off an Uproar” sets a new standard for biased journalism. 

Discussing the heavily-edited video clip of Shirley Sherrod’s (self admitted) bias against a white farmer, as portrayed in a column by Andrew Breitbart, Mr. Stelter alleges “The Sherrod episode is hardly the first charge of reverse racism that has been raised by conservatives media figures . . .” Why is it racism when white people discriminate, but “reverse-racism” when perpetrated by people of color? Isn’t racism, racism?

Next the article quotes Jane Hall who claims that what Ms. Sherrod endured was “classic propaganda,” a terminology that implies an indeterminate smearing of Ms Sherrod’s character to obtain a result. The Breitbart report came out on Tuesday. Ms Sherrod was forced to resign at the behest of the Whitehouse (according to the lengthy CNN Sherrod interview - not disputed by the Whitehouse, ever). Wednesday morning. The gravamen of the Whitehouse’s argument for rushing to judgment was a possible negative reflection of the Sherrod comments on the first African-American President on the evening Glenn Beck Show. 

Ms. Sherrod, with the insistence of a paranoid White House, summarily was fired without a hearing. Media coverage AFTER that has nothing to do with that firing. Regardless of Ms. Hall’s eloquent point,  propaganda, by definition,  had nothing to do with her firing.

Next slide please: “Ms. Sherrod said she had been told by an unnamed Agriculture Department official that she had to resign immediately because ‘you are going to be on Glenn Beck tonight’.” That’s not what Ms. Sherrod said, and the Times knows it. “They harassed me as I was driving, said she. I received three calls stating that the White House asked me to resign.” CNN Reporter: “So, the administration pressured you out?” “Yes.”

When Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, later took the responsibility, with White House assent, for firing Ms. Sherrod, shouldn’t someone in the media (that’s you, in case you have forgotten) have asked him if he was calling Ms. Sherrod a liar? Or perhaps the Times might have asked Carol Cook, the official who called and demanded the resignation on behalf of the White House.

Ah, but the White House fears that Glenn Beck would jump on the racial incident, that was messy, wasn’t it? So, I tuned in, which I rarely do, to Glenn Beck. He defended Ms. Sherrod, and strongly opined that the firing was a rush to judgment and firmly asserted that Ms. Sherrod should be reinstated forthwith. Apparently you missed that.

Now that the straw man has been established, this followed: “The incident has also (sic) renewed accusations of racism directed at Fox News.” Ahh. “Some people say,” “sources tell us,” and other weasel words. More later.

Vous continuee: “ In the past month Fox doggedly pursued an accusation of voter intimidation by a fringe hate group called the New Black Panthers . . . “ and “Last fall, Fox’s news programs gave heavy play to heavily edited tapes that appeared to show counselors at the liberal community organizing group Acorn giving advice . . About evading taxes and setting up a brothel.” Shame on Fox; taken out of context, I suppose. I can’t wait until the complete tapes are released  showing that the Panthers were a ‘fringe’ group of McCain supporters, and  those folks at Acorn warning that they were calling the police.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh piled on by asserting that other media “doing their best to cover it up by ignoring it;” an absurd assertion given the Times’ extensive coverage of the ACORN tapes, the Panthers intimidation, the acquittal of Congressman Murtha’s favorite military baby killers; etc.

Then there was yesterday’s news programs, wherein Howard Dean “accused Fox of pushing a theme of black racism . . . . Continuing  to cater to this theme of minority racism and stressing comments like this - some of which were taken out of context . . . “

Sunday moderator, Chris Wallace, admonishing (some peoples) penchant for not letting the facts interfere with their version of the truth asked Mr. Dean if he was aware that Fox News had not reported even ONE single story on the Sherrod affair until AFTER she had been fired, thus making it implausible to place the blame of Ms. Sherrod’s firing on Fox News. An obviously surprised and flustered Howard Dean tried to blame Fox anyway with this great line (paraphrased): it’s Fox’s fault because the Obama administration was so concerned about possible adverse coverage by Glenn Beck that they ordered Ms. Sherrod’s resignation, without hearing the truth, to pre-empt adverse publicity.

To which one wag on the panel later in the show commented: If Obama can’t stand up to Glenn beck, how does he expect to stand up to Ahmadinejad?

None of which, of course, was mentioned in Mr. Stelter’s hit piece.

I’m probably one of the few conservatives who subscribes to the Times simply because I appreciate the unique diversity and the depth of your coverage (grammar’s a different matter) compared with the lack of both in all other print media. Your ‘sports section’ sucks, though - I digress. 

Recent articles on Job Fairs in China; the demise of barcars on commuter trains, your insightful book reviews (so badly misinterpreted by Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and other hack writers), and today’s article on Pakistani Intelligence (allegedly) helping Afghanistan insurgents, can’t be found anywhere else. But, while I generally ignore your vacuous Op-Ed articles, such as Bob Herbert’s predictable “Thrown to the Wolves” column last Saturday (The Shirley Sherrod story tells us so much about ourselves - OURselves, Bob? I’ll hold my breath), should I fact check everything I read from now on in the Times? After all, you expected Andrew Breitbart to fact check that video before he wrote his column.

I insist on fair and honest reporting from the Times, and you, sir, should expect no less. Don’t let the facts get in the way of the truth, indeed ! !

Cordially,



John W. Sawyer III
SAWYER2012.com


Politics Blogs
Politics