Let them keep this up. They are not helping their case.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thomas Sowell - Is Democracy Viable?
Great article by the Great Dr Thomas Sowell...enjoy!
Those who see hope in the Middle East uprisings seem to assume that they will lead in the direction of freedom or democracy. There is already talk about the "liberation" of Egypt, even though the biggest change there has been that a one-man dictatorship has been replaced by a military dictatorship that has suspended the constitution.
Perhaps the military dictatorship will be temporary, as its leaders say, but we have heard that song before. What we have also heard, too many times before, is the assumption that getting rid of an undemocratic government means that it will be replaced by a freer and better government.
History says otherwise. After Russia's czars were replaced by the Communists, the government executed more people in a day than the czars had executed in half a century. It was much the same story in Cuba, when the Batista regime was replaced by Castro and in Iran when the Shah was replaced by the Ayatollahs.
It is not inevitable that bad regimes are replaced by worse regimes. But it has happened too often for us to blithely assume that overthrowing a dictator means a movement toward freedom and democracy.
The fact that Egyptians or others in the Middle East and elsewhere want freedom does not mean that they are ready for freedom. Everyone wants freedom for himself. Even the Nazis wanted to be free to be Nazis. They just didn't want anybody else to be free...read more
SHOCKER! - German Investigators Suspect Islamist Motives behind Attack
<SARCASM>
Wow this is hard to believe!
</SARCASM>
Wow this is hard to believe!
</SARCASM>
Following initial investigations, security authorities in Germany are investigating whether Wednesday's shooting at Frankfurt Airport was a targeted attack on the US Army. They are also exploring whether US soldiers in Germany are at risk of further attacks....Read More at Der Speigel
What is a “worker” and what is “working class?”
Formal definitions are easy enough to find such as:
A more honest definition of “worker” would be “anyone who pays union dues.” Note that I did not say union members. This is because many employees working in “union shops” are forced to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. In rhetorical terms “worker” and “working class” are anyone who fits the purpose of socialist leaning political activists.
The terms have been undefined and are functionally meaningless. There use is wholly political and designed to imply a class separation that does not exist. This is especially true in the case of the Wisconsin teachers, who are generally more educated, better paid, engage in little if any physical labor, and do not produce a tangible product. This is not to diminish the role of teachers in general, there are supremely important and are often underappreciated.
So what terms are more appropriate? I have five suggestions:
When we allow a words and phrases like worker and working class to because misused and morphed into political tools that have nothing to do with their definition then we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated.
Worker: member of working class: a member of the working class, especially a factory employee or manual laborer.These are somewhat precise, so how do these apply to teachers in Wisconsin? All are college educated, many with Master’s degrees, making above average wages? The simple answer is they don’t. By tradition etymology many of the so called workers in the United States are actually employees.
And
Working class is a term used in the social sciences and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs (as measured by skill, education and lower incomes), often extending to those in unemployment or otherwise possessing below-average incomes. Working classes are mainly found in industrialized economies and in urban areas of non-industrialized economies…working class is defined and used in many different ways. When used non-academically, it typically refers to a section of society dependent on physical labor, especially when compensated with an hourly wage. Its use in academic discourse is contentious, especially following the decline of manual labor in postindustrial societies. Some academics question the usefulness of the concept of a working class.
A more honest definition of “worker” would be “anyone who pays union dues.” Note that I did not say union members. This is because many employees working in “union shops” are forced to pay dues to unions to which they do not belong. In rhetorical terms “worker” and “working class” are anyone who fits the purpose of socialist leaning political activists.
The terms have been undefined and are functionally meaningless. There use is wholly political and designed to imply a class separation that does not exist. This is especially true in the case of the Wisconsin teachers, who are generally more educated, better paid, engage in little if any physical labor, and do not produce a tangible product. This is not to diminish the role of teachers in general, there are supremely important and are often underappreciated.
So what terms are more appropriate? I have five suggestions:
- Non-union employee: This is someone with a job who is not self employed and is not in a union, the more general term “employee” is also acceptable for this person
- Private sector union employee/member: This is someone with a private sector job who is in a union, e.g. a UAW member working for Caterpillar making tractors would
- Public sector union employee/member: This is someone with a public sector job who is in a union, e.g. our Wisconsin teachers
- Self employed: This is someone who owns the business or is an independent contractor, e.g. family doctor, independent website designer, car dealer
- Unemployed: Someone without a job
When we allow a words and phrases like worker and working class to because misused and morphed into political tools that have nothing to do with their definition then we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Democrats and Racial Politics: From Jim Crow to Barack Obama
Good article from Francis Rice over at Newsblaze
By Frances Rice
Democrats have a 150-year history of using race as a political weapon to keep blacks in virtual slavery and Republicans out of power.
The recent firestorm ignited by Senator Hillary Clinton's racially-tinged attempt to derail Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign shows the perils of Democrats using their race-based weapon against a black Democrat. In the black community, people are outraged about how Democrat demagogues, including Billionaire Bob Johnson of BET, are treating Obama as an "uppity Negro" who dares to defy their white Democratic Party masters.
Prior to the Clinton-Obama hullabaloo over Senator Clinton's disparaging remark about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Clinton campaign was being given a pass for using racial slurs against Senator Obama. When Democrats called Senator Obama a "Magic Negro," there was hardly a ripple of protest. Just as little concern is expressed when Democrats slander black Republicans, such as former Lt. Governor Michael Steele who Democrats depicted as a "Simple Sambo" and Dr. Condoleezza Rice who was portrayed as an ignorant "Mammy", reminiscent of the racial stereotypes used by Democrats during the days of "Jim Crow." Any Republican using such slanderous tactics against blacks would be castigated as a racist and destroyed politically.
If the controversy generated by Senator Clinton's remark that diminished the civil rights role of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. signals the beginning of an end to the type of racial divisiveness inflicted on our nation for over a century and a half by Democrats, then the angst created by Senator Clinton will be well worth it.
To fully appreciate the significance of this possible historical turning point, we must pause to examine briefly the Democratic Party's sordid racist history... Read More
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)