Crispus

Blog Consolidation

2004-12-19T18:48:00.000-06:00

It's getting too burdensome to have my personal blog here, and also post at Booker Rising - our daily news site targeting black moderates and black conservatives. So we're consolidating the two blogs, and material here is being moved over there. Go check out Booker Rising!

The Pink Elephant

2004-10-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

Sen. John Kerry's campaign discusses ad nauseum about skyrocketing health care costs. Of course, costs are high: Americans are fatter than ever! According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, obesity costs USA $75 billion a year. So obesity makes up a significant — and preventable — percentage of the health care expenditures.

Yet in its quest to force socialist health care upon us, Kerry-Edwards refuse to discuss how lifestyle choices (along with the high cost of malpractice insurance, and the American Medical Association’s collusion with state legislatures) jack up health care costs.

Baseballs’ Welfare Kings

2004-10-28T15:30:00.000-05:00

Casey Lartigue, another black blogger who leans libertarian, has a piece up about the debate over Washington, D.C. should build a baseball stadium. I agree with Casey that city subsidies of baseball teams involves public risk and private profit, and are therefore problematic. I say: Build your stadium and get off the mama’s milk of taxpayer dollars!

Fear of Black Man With a Gun?

2004-10-20T15:09:00.000-05:00

Cincinnati Black Blog asks this question, while responding to a local case involving Gary Smith (pictured). The Cincinnati Post reports that Smith shot four men in 2001, killing one in a case where he initially faced the death penalty. He was instead sentenced to 47 years, but then it was overturned a year or so later because he wasn't allowed an opportunity to be his own attorney, and the new case just ended in a mistrial.

Why did he shoot?: Smith was accused of shooting Jimmie Gordon to death and convicted of wounding three other men in a shooting rampage Smith started when he tried to get crack dealers away from his home. They responded by robbing him, killing his cat, urinating on his home and slicing his tires.

Like Cincinnati Black Blog, I have mixed opinion. For one, no one shot at Smith. Robbing, urinating, tire slicing, and yes even cat killing are no justification to murder and almost murder folks. However, did Smith believe his life was in danger? Probably. And the larger question: why were the crackheads messing with his property in the first place?! Had they not be up to no good, Smith wouldn't have shot them in the first place.

Had Smith been some white suburbanite - like the suburban Chicago man who wounded a robber who broke into his home twice, and charges were later dropped against the suburbanite for illegal gun possession - he wouldn't have almost faced Death Row or 47 years in prison. Just the amount of time that he's already served, as it would've been viewed as self-defense. And I've previously argued (as has The Mulatto Advocate and our sister site Booker Rising) that gun control laws are racist anyway, hampering common black folks' right to defend our bodies and our property.

IMF Policies Spread AIDS, Groups Charge

2004-09-29T16:32:00.000-05:00

The austerity policies imposed on developing countries by the International Monetary Fund undermine the global HIV/AIDS fight, says a new report by several prominent public-health and development groups. They charge the IMF conditions on its loans and debt relief makes it much harder for governments to finance the rapidly rising expenses of fighting the epidemic. I thought shared needles, infidelity and multiple sex partners without protection spread AIDS.

Pardon me, for I’m misinformed! This ridiculous report seeks to leech onto AIDS/HIV to promote its real goal: socialism.

Chirac: ‘Time for Global Tax’

2004-09-27T05:41:00.000-05:00

French President Jacques Chirac is the latest leader to call for a global tax on arm sales and financial transactions to help fight poverty. Both he and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva hope the proposal will cut global poverty in half by 2015. 110 countries have signed a document urging governments to consider the proposal.

Leave it up to a de facto socialist to back such a proposal. Why should countries pay for the results of other countries’ jacked-up fiscal policies? What’s the incentive for a country to learn from its mistakes and try a different path? And why arm sales? Why not, oh say, wines, cheese, cigarettes, and clothes? Ah, that would affect the French too much.

The way to reduce poverty is how Ireland, Portugal, China, India, Singapore, and other countries have done: reduce trade barriers, reduce regulations that inhibit business creation, reduce corruption, and reduce taxes.

How Regulation Fuels African Poverty

2004-09-20T14:52:00.000-05:00

A recent World Bank report, “Doing Business in 2005,” shows that poor countries impose three times the administrative costs and double the red tape as rich countries. The Economist illustrates:

Incorporating a business takes two days in Canada, but 153 in
Mozambique.…

In Haiti, for example, it takes 203 days to register a company, which
is 201 days longer than in Australia. In Sierra Leone it costs 1,268% of average
income, compared with nothing in Denmark. To register in Ethiopia, a would-be
entrepreneur must deposit the equivalent of 18 years’ average income in a bank
account, which is then frozen. In Lagos, Nigeria’s commercial capital, recording
a property sale involves 21 procedures and takes 274 days. Official fees amount
to 27% of the value of the transaction. In Norway the task takes less than a day
and costs only 2.5% of the price of the property.

Africa accounts for 2/3 of the world’s countries with the most onerous procedures, so no wonder that few companies wish to do business there. Says the Adam Smith Institute blog: “It is difficult to force people to be entrepreneurial, but they can be encouraged to be so if it is both easy and rewarding. The burdens and the fees should be lower, not higher, in the poorer countries because they need the growth more.”

Socialist procedures which undermine African entrepreneurship potential are a key barrier holding back the continent. Instead of the U.N. holding meaningless conferences, how about one focusing on reducing red tape and increasing growth so we can have some “African Lion” or “Caribbean Lion” countries?

Watching the Pigsty

2004-09-11T19:21:00.000-05:00

I love this graphic on Citizens Against Government Waste’s site! CAGW uses it for its pork advisory system to alert us about Capitol Hill’s spending atmosphere and pork projects. I guess the advisory is never low because Congress stays out of our wallets? Yeah, in my dreams.

2004-09-11T18:30:00.000-05:00

Three years ago, the "religion of peace" delivered this sermon. Let's not forget now or three years from now about the growing global dangers of Muslim jihadism to liberty.

Yeah, Where Is It?

2004-09-07T01:05:00.000-05:00

Last week on the “Hannity & Colmes” show, liberal Alan Colmes asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich why there was no commentary at the Republican National Convention about the Contract With America’s 10th anniversary. Especially since Gingrich was the Contract’s visionary? Gotta admit, that was a great question.

Back in 1994 (when I was a leftist), I hated the Contract With America. When I started my new job (at a national not-for-profit) in December, we regularly stated in the office that Newt was the Gingrich Who Stole Christmas. Having moved away from liberalism’s excesses and wondering why President Bush hasn‘t met a spending bill that he doesn't love, I now wish for the Contract's focus on government fiscal responsibility! Some months ago, I even drafted a “Republican Contract With Black America” to promote black economic empowerment

Not Quite

2004-09-06T06:55:00.000-05:00

Libertarian Jackass wonders: “Hey, I heard a clip of Bush saying, ‘We will be attacked again,’ in reference to the War on Terror. Once that attack comes, will it be safe to say: ‘The War on Terror has failed’? That'll be the (sad) day.”

So a few failures (even sizeable ones) means we’ve lost? Only perfection equals success? Of course, President Bush could do certain things to help decrease such attacks - racial profiling of Arab and Muslim males, batten down the borders, really jail folks at will, make sure the war is instead fought overseas. But these things are odious to most libertarians (and some are odious even to me). So make a choice - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

School Vouchers Are Socialism?

2004-09-05T21:06:00.000-05:00

Yes, argues Paul Blair. Using national health insurance as a parallel example, he argues that teachers’ unions would dominate private schools under a voucher system. “Education vouchers mean a shift from having most schools operate under socialism, to having all schools do so. This is not progress.” He is also concerned about religious freedom, arguing that people can then spend their money on supporting views they agree with and vouchers amount to state subsidies for religious education.

Ain’t convinced. What Blair fails to mention is that private and parochial schools have the option to take or not take voucher students, and students have the option to attend a public, private, or parochial school. What about the individual right of a parent to send his or her child to a school of his or her (not the government’s) choice?

Also, the First Amendment actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." It says nothing about state or local government. The 10th Amendment (federalism clause) says any power not specifically given to the feds flows to the states and to the people. We say: let the market decide. Looking at black support for school prayer (79%), the vast majority of black parents would send their child to parochial schools if given the choice. Not the godless government schools that undermine black culture, that Darrius and Shaniqua are now forced to attend.

If folks of any race don’t want to send their child to a parochial school, they can send them to a public or secular private school. That's what free exercise of religion looks like.

Badnarik: To Vote or Not Vote For?

2004-08-30T01:45:00.000-05:00

Through a Yahoo! usergroup, I received a 12-point “Reasons Why Not to Vote for Michael Badnarik” email from libertarian Eric Dondero. Some of the reasons why Dondero says libertarians should oppose the Libertarian Party presidential candidate (commentary edited down for space):

Michael Badnarik has NEVER held elective or appointed office. “Nominating Presidential candidates who have never held elective office for the Libertarian Party sends a strong signal to the American electorate that the LP is not at all serious about politics and is a fringe movement at best.”

He has made wacky statements to the media. “Badnarik speculated in the Economist Magazine that he doubted whether Al Qaeda was behind the September 11 attacks suggesting that it might even have been our own government.”

He has never served in the military. “September 11 proved that we need to elect Commander in Chiefs who have at least some sort of Military background.”

His views run to the extreme of the libertarian movement. “Badnarik is much closer to being an anarchist than a libertarian. He comes across as a militia type/tax protestor rather than one who is within the mainstream of libertarians.”

In 2000, I voted for Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party because I wasn’t satisfied with either Vice President Al Gore or George W. Bush. Browne also came closest to my own views. I won’t vote Libertarian again for the presidency, because the Libertarian position on the war on terrorism is problematic and naive to me. It would be great if the Libertarian Party got far more pragmatic about its political strategy.

A Libertarian Task, Indeed

2004-08-22T14:20:00.000-05:00

From the website of Michael Bowen, our fellow Conservative Brotherhood member: “Here is how Libertarians can earn my unending respect and admiration: work out the microeconomies and advocate for open pricing in every aspect of life. Where should they start? Health Care.”

He notes that - unlike health care for dogs and cats - it’s difficult to find out online how much it costs to fix a broken leg. This is because of powerful major party interests, both Republican and Democratic. “If Ralph Nader wasn't such a pompous ass, he'd focus the media on this issue. If Libertarians weren't such impractical dweebs, they'd quit showing off their ideological purity and get down to this business.”

As a small-l libertarian — as opposed to a Libertarian Party member - I agree. I’ve never understood why Libertarians value ideological purity over actually increasing libertarianism’s viability in society.

As I’ve argued here before, it’s not coincidental that the two areas of the U.S. economy that outpace inflation are those with the most government intervention: health care and education. The American Medical Association stops colluding with state legislatures to limit the number of licensed doctors - which jacks up health care costs, and keeps the number of doctors artificially much lower than it should be given our country’s population. It should reform requiring similar training regardless of actual specialty. And USA must privatize its health care system even more, which would improve efficiency and enable consumers to shop around for health care deals.

Moving to Create a Truly Free State

2004-08-22T14:10:00.000-05:00

Thousands of libertarians - mostly former D.C. residents - are moving to New Hampshire with the dream of starting a new movement, known as the Free State Project, that will become a national force. Why that state? Because it’s known for its maverick politics.

Says Philip Boncer, 41, a biomedical engineer from San Diego: "You have choices, but they're all bad for you. Democrats are increasing regulations and the strain on business, and Republicans are increasing moral laws."

Organizers say their primary goals are to limit government, reduce taxes and increase personal liberties. If the plan works, they say, other states will have to follow or lose residents and their tax dollars. Two members are already New Hampshire state representatives.

Sounds interesting, but I ain’t moving to New Hampshire: too cold, little culture, and few black folks. Best wishes to the group though.

Taxpayers Foot Bill for Political Partying

2004-08-12T07:00:00.000-05:00

and Radley Balko says it's not right. And he's right! U.S. taxpayers give $15 million apiece to Democrats and Republicans for their conventions. Taxpayers in host cities and host states pay even more. This doesn't include the $50 million that each party gets for convention security in a post-9/11 world.

"After four years of spending taxpayer dollars at rates unseen in U.S. history, after failing to carry out the single most important responsibility of government — to protect American citizens from those who want to harm us — America's two major political organizations now get to throw themselves grand galas, where party leaders bloviate on national television about the earnest, hard-working taxpayer, then party in corporate suites where they nosh on the likes of 'maple bourbon glazed turkey and roasted duck, and Forest Glen chardonnay.' And you and I pay for it."

Radko doesn't buy the major parties' claim that we're paying for the "privilege of democracy," since the primary election system — also paid for by taxpayers — basically selects nominees months earlier.

Yet Democrats claim to be for the "common people" and Republicans feign concern about our tax burdens - while both put the squeeze on us taxpayers. Not long ago I ranted about how this misuse of tax dollars was neither a constitutional duty or responsibility of the federal government. Ending this party freebie would force the donkeys and elephants to create conventions that actually appeal to Americans, and not bore us to death.

Hmmm...

2004-08-06T12:36:00.000-05:00

I saw this image on the website of Baldilocks, my Conservative Brotherhood mate. This graphic is so true. I've discussed how my family had to flee Mississippi in 1923 because the Ku Klux Klan assaulted a family member, said "niggers be out of town by sundown tomorrow," and burned down our small family farm (my great-grandparents were apparently "too uppity"). Physical assault and violated private property rights (and local government wouldn't enforce the law). This scenario might have played out very differently had my great-grandparents been allowed to own guns like whites could do.

Even today, Booker Rising notes: "What's ironic is that gun ownership is the lowest in black neighborhoods, where crime disproportionately takes place. So law-abiding black masses are defenseless while a tiny thug minority (who will always acquire guns) rips and roars in many communities. Meanwhile, liberal elites expect us to wait for the police (i.e., government) to arrive to help us. Tyrone and Imani, do the police arrive in three minutes flat in your neighborhood?"

Open the Presidential Debates, End the Party Convention Freebie

2004-08-02T16:58:00.000-05:00

Look at this recent poll, by Rasmussen Reports. 68% of American adults believe that Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee, should be invited to participate in the presidential debates. 20% say he shouldn't be invited, and 12% aren't sure.

The Libertarian Party has been on all 50 state ballots for the past three presidential elections, and is on target to do so this year. If you get on the ballot in all 50 states - no small feat - then you should be in the debates. Of course, the Republicans and Democrats will never go for it so they can protect their political oligarchy. I'm not sure if I'll vote Libertarian again for president this year -- I'm staunchly opposed to Badnarik's anti-war stance on Iraq and too many Libertarian party members are in denial about the rising Islamist threat we face -- but I'd at least like to hear how Badnarik stacks up with Bush and Kerry.

The poll also shows that 62% of Americans agree with the Libertarian Party that tax dollars shouldn't be spent to support the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. I heard that the Democratic National Convention cost $95 million. I don't know how much of it is taxpayers' dollars, but insane nonetheless. Where in the U.S. Constitution is this a duty or responsibility of the federal government? Other than Kerry's speech (watched by a total of about 22 million, network and cable TV combined), hardly anyone watched the DNC. Most of it is a snoozer, and the taxpayer dollars help fuel it.

If these conventions had to pay their own way, they would (1) probably move from four days down to two; and (2) be far more interesting to watch because less money could be sent on script / image consultants and the parties would be forced to limit themselves to just their most captivating speakers. No more of those dreary nobody-who-think-they're-somebody politicians, with awful speaking skills. Far fewer of those "regular people" speakers plucked from battleground states to appeal to battleground voters' issues. The conventions would get more to the point and give us info.

The survey also finds that 10% of Americans identify themselves as libertarian (small-l, which is how I define myself), rather than liberal or conservative. This would be significantly higher if the Libertarian Party could access a larger audience and not regularly face a Catch-22 situation.

Debunking Black Socialism

2004-07-26T12:20:00.000-05:00

Good piece over at Cobb, a blog done by a black Republican and my fellow Conservative Brotherhood member. It's in response to a representative of the Black Telephone Workers for Justice, who argues that Bill Cosby's controversial comments and his supporters - who he calls "the arrogant black bourgeoisie" - are off base and that only socialism can save black youth.

It's crap to read that racism and capitalism go hand in hand, when many of the world's most racist societies are socialist. The Arab world's silence on genocide in Sudan comes to mind. Nor are the Eurosocialist countries - with their tight immigration controls - nearly as racially diverse as America (which rankles them even more - we "inferior" mutt Americans outdo their "superior" stock on economics and power). Let's not forget that Nazism, genocidal racism, was the German National Socialist Party.

Or how, in America, Jim Crow was a statist structure designed to undercut black enterprise and those of whites who wanted to treat their black and white customers equally. It was only after the South shed its segregationist socialist ways that it stopped badly trailing the North in economic development, became prosperous, and now leads America in job and demographic growth.

It's also laughable that Ron Slim Washington argues that we should "uphold the leading role of the working class" - bemoaning that black youth aren't more rebellious against the capitalist system - when a plural majority (44%) of black Americans are now middle class! 5% are rich, only 27% are working class, and 24% of us are poor. Dude, you're about three decades behind the times! On most social and economic indicators - which Booker Rising touts on a regular basis - we're doing better than ever! By next year - for the first time ever - a majority of a black population on the planet will be majority middle-class and own our homes. This should be shouted from rooftops so loudly that even people in Uganda can hear it, but instead we've got people like Washington bemoaning that it's undermining working-classhood. They refuse to see the progress forest for the trees, because it severely undermines their argument.

And that's by U.S. standards. By world's standards, it's out of the ballpark. We even have two black billionaires, with almost 10 people - including Bill Cosby - on their way. Show me another country on the planet where blacks can toe up with our stats. And no, even Canadian blacks' stats aren't on par. Black America's GDP ($645.9 billion, with 38 million folks) is almost as large as all of Canada (with 30 million folks).

Sure, we have remaining challenges - some, big ones - but they pale in comparison with any socialist country with a sizeable number of black folks. Unlike, say, Liberia, black Americans already have capital. Our 21st challenge is to effectively channel it back into our communities.

Also, Washington fails to examine why a few of our stats have backslid, even though black communities (and America) are more socialist than in 1965? And how about how socialist societies exploit black (and other people) - by taxing them to the rafters and undermining creativity and innovation so people can get ahead in life? As others have often said, socialism instead wants everyone to share the misery.

Condi's Black Ops: Mission Accomplished

2004-07-22T12:20:00.000-05:00

Two months ago, I wrote about "Condi's Secret Agenda." The Senate confirmed her girl Jendayi Frazer as the new U.S. ambassador to South Africa (the previous one resigned last year). Ms. Frazer was previously the national security adviser on Africa and is a former Harvard professor.

Jendayi is talking my language too, saying that helping South Africa's free trade is priority #1 for her. "The critical pillars and tools to build the business relationship are to advance talks and finalize the U.S.-SACU [South African Customs Union] Free Trade Agreement in the next six months, and to continue to support AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act]." She will also work to help its civil society and regional security issues.

Constance Newman was confirmed as assistant secretary of state for Africa, recently meeting with Liberian officials about the trade sanctions still imposed for its previous regime's brutality. She previously worked for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Africa program and is a former board member of the International Republican Institute.

Condi is sneaking in more high-powered, well-qualified black folks for foreign service positions. President Bush is nominating them to the U.S. Senate, which the civil rights industry overlooks. Good to see our international relations team getting more diverse.

Haiti: Ain't Learned a Thang

2004-07-21T13:10:00.000-05:00

The global community has pledged $1 billion to help the country promote democracy and economic recovery. Donors and Haitian officials alike have vowed to learn from past mistakes. Donors blame past failures on themselves, while Haitian officials attribute it mostly to poor government under ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Two things jump out at me. Didn't Haiti already have a democracy before USA, France, and Canada got into the mix this year? Hardly a fantastic one (those 2000 parliamentary elections were suspect), but Haitians should've decided Jean-Bertrand Aristide's future, via elections.

Two, the real blame goes to several areas: no free-market reforms, virtually no civil society, and rampant corruption. Haiti is a basket case. Its troubles precede Aristide by about 200 years. Rule of law is minimal, incentives to innovate virtually nil. This $1 billion will be totally wasted or siphoned off into somebody's Swiss bank account.

Had donors really learned from the past, they would forgo government foreign aid. Instead, they would be pushing for lower trade barriers - both in Haiti and in their countries so there is a more equitable relationship. No more giver and givee, which reinforces dependency. Focus on Haiti's competitive advantages - which are agriculture, tourism potential, and cheap unskilled labor - and go from there. Haiti's workers get more work, Western consumers get lower prices. Win-win. This is how China and India have rip-roaring economic and income growth.

I do agree with one quote in the article, "The time has come for this one-way contribution to stop," says Leonce Thelusma, former minister of economy of Haiti now living in Florida."The time has come for Haiti to offer advantages to the diaspora." Yes, instead of waiting for USA's Congressional Black Caucus to lead the way to bail it out of its mess.

The Case Against Debt Relief

2004-07-16T14:06:00.000-05:00

Two days ago, I got an email from Africa Action asking people to contact the U.S. Treasury. Why? To call on the Bush administration to support 100% multilateral debt cancellation for poor nations. They claim that "this year alone, 3 million people in Africa will die due to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Yet countries on the African continent will send an estimated $15 billion in debt service to the IMF, World Bank, and wealthy creditor nations this year."

What part of "loan" do people not understand? It seems like the more debt relief there is, the further the country gets into the red. Why should horrible economic management be rewarded? Why should U.S. taxpayers cover other people's bad debts? I'd also argue that it's not the debt that is harming regular folks, but kleptocratic Marxist dictators and their cronies. Let's talk about the massive millions (occasionally, even billions) that flow into Swiss bank accounts. Or used to pay off the military to keep kleptocratic elites in power.

What rich countries can and should do is lower their remaining trade barriers on agricultural goods. African farmers would thus have a fair shot at world markets, and there would be lower prices for Western consumers. Instead of subsidizing inefficient industries, Western countries can plug their money into what they do best and where they have a fair competitive advantage.

Increasing Intra-Africa Trade

2004-07-16T13:34:00.000-05:00

The BBC's website has an article about how trade among African nations is too low. Such trade accounts for only 10% of their total exports and imports. The Economic Commission for Africa, which did the study, blames poor transport links among African countries. Thus, colonial-era patterns remain, with most trade still to and from former colonial powers.

Poor transport links are certainly a huge problem. When it costs only $1,500 to ship a car from Japan to the Ivory Coast, but $5,000 to do it from Ethiopia then that's highly problematic. However, I primarily blame other sources: high tariffs, kleptocratic governments, and political instability. Regional markets can't work when one fears that the ruler will change next week. Or when trade barriers are so high that there's no incentive to trade with one's neighbor. Or one's hard-earned dollars goes into some dictator's Swiss bank account or Paris shopping spree for his wife. As resource-rich as it is, we shouldn't read that Africa is the only world region that's no better off than 25 years ago. Shameful.

However, I'm optimistic. God is saving the best for last! This is a huge market for the future, since Africa's cell phone market is growing rapidly. Now, if Africa can kick those Marxist rulers to the curb and get some free-marketeers in the mix. However, this is work that only Africans, not black Americans or anyone else, must do.

Outsourcing Comes to Africa

2004-07-11T09:44:00.000-05:00

Great piece in the Canadian press about how outsourcing is bringing jobs to West Africa.

Affiliated Computer Services of Texas has become one of Ghana's largest private employers. Almost 2,000 employees process U.S. health insurance claims around the clock. Senegal's political stability, low wages, infrastructure, and stock of young and educated employees is drawing French companies (which currently only outsource 2% of their work) to the country. At call centers, people have French pseudonyms and fake Parisian accents when speaking with French customers.

While still a small trend, it is a growing and good one. African college graduates have access to jobs that pay $200-$500 per week, in countries where most people don't make this money in a year. It expands the consumer markets in these countries, which can help countries like USA. Companies get qualified workers for lower costs, which will increase jobs for Africa. Countries like USA can then focus our energies on sectors where we have a competitive advantage - which is innovation. Of course, French unions are getting nervous - which is why France's economy will continue to stagnate while others grow, because it doesn't focus on what the French do best at the lowest cost.

There could be political implications for West Africa. A growing middle class increasingly demands accountability from leaders, which helps democracy and civil society. They are likelier to fight against incursions on their freedom. I hope this trend spreads to other parts of Africa.

Cosby's Libertarian Side

2004-07-07T11:09:00.000-05:00

Bill Cosby's second round of criticisms about the attitudes and behaviors of some young blacks - six weeks after he upset the apple cart at the NAACP dinner commemorating the 50th anniversary of the landmark 'Brown v. Board of Education' decision - continues to generate controversy. However, many people have his back. There are people of various races and ideologies now clamoring for the liberal Cosby (who has a doctorate in education) to expand his comments to talk about individual and parental responsibility in America, across race and class. Booker Rising reports that his comments are now part of an education debate about 'Caribonics' in Britain.

Because he supports medium (perhaps high) government intervention in society, Cosby isn't a libertarian. However, he does have libertarian elements. One, he discusses personal responsibility. Libertarians believe the individual is the smallest unit of society, and should reap the repercussions - good or bad - of their life choices. Dr. Cosby does downplay the good stats showing reduction in teen pregnancy and crime and overplays poverty (76% of blacks aren't poor and the vast vast majority are law-abiding citizens), but his overall point remains that some folks can do even better. Cosby believes that there are certain things that government can't or shouldn't do for people, but we must do for ourselves.

Two, he focuses on how young blacks must prepare for globalization. No longer are Americans competing against each other, but now the world. Hence, Dr. Cosby is putting his doctorate to use in talking about language skills and educational achievement as a critical tool to further black advancement. Libertarians valorize the free market in generating prosperity, and that people with better skills are better able to capitalize on free markets. The world is wide open, and there are opportunities for blacks to build upon our strengths like never before.

Most importantly, Cosby puts his money where his mouth is. Not other people's money, but his own. Nor is he sitting on the sidelines talking theory, but doing nothing. Cosby has donated more than $20 million in scholarships for promising but low-income black students to attend college. He regularly forgoes his usual $150,000+-per-speech fee to raise funds so low-income high schools can acquire better equipment and teachers. He has a TV show in Philly targeting youth. This links very well with libertarians' promotion of private charity as the most effective means for social change in America, as it increases responsibility of both the giver and givee and wastes less money on bureaucracy.

What is great is that strange bedfellows are occurring. Not only are the usual black conservatives praising Dr. Cosby, but many black liberals are coming to his defense. Libertarians of all races should praise Dr. Cosby.

Muslim Free-Market Institute?

2004-07-07T11:00:00.000-05:00

Check out this website. Founded in 1993, Minaret of Freedom Institute's goal is to show that Islam, rule of law, and free markets aren't incompatible. The U.S.-based group targets both U.S. Muslims and especially those in the Middle East. Given that a 30% of U.S. Muslims are black - although only 2% of all black Americans are Muslim - this could have some implications in black communities. Then again, the Nation of Islam has a racialist ideology but Louis Farrakan is also about black capitalism.

(Muslim website courtesy of Dissecting Leftism)

Dr. No is Talkin' Crazy

2004-07-05T04:37:00.000-05:00

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a libertarian Republican, was the only dissenter. Rep. Paul argues that the CRA didn't improve race relations or enhance individual freedom, but instead dictated "forced integration." This is where I part ways with most white libertarians. Reading this piece reminded me of comments by Michael Bowen, a black Republican, hoping that "black libertarians could neutralize some of [Libertarians'] post-modernist yuppie crap in the process." This is one of those times.

Rep. Paul acts as if there was no conflict before CRA. Did the "racial strife" & "racial balkanization" (Rep. Paul's words) caused by denial of freedom under Jim Crow mean nothing? If I met Rep. Paul, I would ask: what about blacks' individual freedom? Those of whites who wanted to associate with blacks? Here we have Jim Crow's massive human rights violations -- the state as evil oppressor, tyranny running rampant in the South -- and yet libertarian capitulation and appeasement. Why?

I would ask Rep. Paul why black taxpayers should've paid for public facilities or government activities which we couldn't access. Why blatant violation of voting rights - taxation without representation - was OK, under "states' rights." Or why it was OK for states to outlaw boycotts and civil rights groups like the NAACP, thus violating freedom of peaceful assembly. Or outlawing blacks' freedom to launch a privately-funded bus boycott, when Montgomery tried to ban cab drivers who wanted to lower their fares for the boycotters. Or passing measures to prevent insurance companies from underwriting an alternative transport system.

Jim Crow violated the 1st Amendment (freedom of association, freedom of speech), 14th Amendment (equal protection) and 15th Amendment (voting rights). Jim Crow also empowered states to interfere with the rights of Southern whites who wanted to open their businesses, etc. to blacks, as they saw fit (many tried to do so and met state and private repercussions). Isn't this initiation of force by the state, abuse of power? The Civil Rights Act, through the pre-existing interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution, enforced laws already on the books.

Rep. Paul's statement rings quite hollow to those of us whose relatives actually experienced Jim Crow. For example, my family fled Mississippi in 1923 because the Ku Klux Klan assaulted a family member, said "niggers be out of town by sundown tomorrow," and burned down our small family farm (my great-grandparents were apparently "too uppity"). Physical assault and violated private property rights (and local government wouldn't enforce the law), and yet what does Rep. Paul have to say here but "too bad." Or did "states' rights" override my family's individual freedom and private property rights because of our race and because federal government didn't do it?

Rep. Paul is also disingenuous when he tries to attach affirmative action to the Civil Rights Act. I oppose affirmative action. However, it began under a Republican administration (Richard Nixon), which he willfully overlooks. He also overlooks that the Act paved the way for Southern prosperity, since the region shed its statist ways and has since led USA in job and demographic growth. Given Gallup Poll and General Social Survey opinion polls illustrating declining racial conflict over the decades, I'm curious at how Rep. Paul concludes that racial conflict has increased.

Lack of a moral dimension for liberty is a libertarian Achilles heel and many wind up becoming apologists for imperiling the very freedom that they promote.

Happy Independence Day, America!

2004-07-04T11:49:00.000-05:00

228 years! Booker Rising has put up a great photo essay from 1770-now on why black Americans should celebrate Independence Day, to counteract the negativists and whiners who claim that we shouldn't do so.

Of course, I'd fail miserably if I didn't highlight the inspiration behind this website! Crispus Attucks was a slave born circa 1723 in Framingham, Massachusetts. At age 27, he ran away to Boston and became a seaman. On March 5, 1770, Attucks heard that a boy had been beaten by a British soldier with his gun. Attucks gathered 100 angry colonists and defied a group of British soldiers. He and later four other colonists were killed in the Boston Massacre. Attucks was the first death in the American Revolution, which later led to U.S. independence. Inspired by Booker Rising, I'm doing my own photo essay:

"The first to defy, the first to die" - John Boyle O'Reilly, about Crispus Attucks

Henry Pelham's 1770 portrait of Crispus Attucks in the Boston Massacre

Trial papers for the colonists' deaths. All eight British soldiers were defended by John Adams, who later became USA's second president. The U.S. patriots used the trial to demonstrate that law rather than mob rule had been maintained in Boston, and that even the "redcoats" could receive a fair trial.

U.S. flag

>
Crispus Attucks' grave

Crispus Attucks monument in Boston

Innovation and Profit: What Education Needs Most

2004-07-03T10:07:00.000-05:00

Heartland Institute has an enlightening interview with industrialist David Brennan, a key promoter of charter schools. Brennan argues that statist structures like the public school system have a "total inability" to effect innovation, which can only come with market forces that provide choice:

"Profit-making enterprises are recognized as the essence of our economy in every segment of our society. An education enterprise should be run like a business. The structure that supports the classroom--but not the classroom itself--should be run like a business. That means making sure expenses do not exceed revenues. The reality is that every not-for-profit activity has to be run like a business unless it has an unlimited source of contributions.

Businesses don't have that luxury. To sustain themselves, they have to operate with less expenses than revenues. If a particular enterprise can't do that, it has to shut down. No government agency has to meet, no regulation has to be approved, no law has to be passed, and no court has to rule for that to occur. It just shuts down. That efficiency is an incredibly inexpensive way to eliminate poor performers. But it's harsh. Market forces are terribly unforgiving.

Profits are misunderstood by those who object to them. Profits are nothing more than a return on investment capital. If you invest money, you should get a return on your investment. It's profit when you get interest on a savings account. A profit from a successful business is simply a reward for having put up money for it, and that would be the case with education businesses, too.

Tax dollars should follow a child to the schools of their parents' choice, not the school itself. Like Brennan says, school choice would drive reform in public education through competition. And we'd see more innovative programs in black communities -- programs tailored to our specific communities' needs -- instead of the government one-size-fits-all schools. The good news is that many blacks are challenging liberal elitists, who block black progress and desires at every turn on this issue.

Differential Learning?!

2004-07-03T10:00:00.000-05:00

I was talking with a friend of mine, whose 7-year-old daughter is in a program for gifted children. However, it's not called a gifted program but a "differential learning" program. Apparently this is the new term, for we wouldn't want to highlight intelligent or very motivated students from everyone else. Liberalism run amok again...

Africa: Toward Self-Inflicted Prosperity

2004-06-30T10:53:00.000-05:00

My favorite economist, Walter Williams, has a great article about how African socialism brings despair. He shoots down myths about why some nations are rich while others are not.

"Did you learn that the United States is rich because we have bountiful natural resources? That has to be nonsense. Africa and South America are probably the richest continents in natural resources but are home to the world's most miserably poor people. On the other hand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and England are poor in natural resources, but their people are among the world's richest.

Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people."

As Williams shows, there is a correlation between free markets, higher wealth and human rights protections. He goes on to state that measures that lower trade barriers to U.S. markets - such as the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, which Congress recently expanded - is the best way that the West can help Africa. This is true, as free trade sets up a much more equitable relationship than foreign government aid's donor and recipient setup. AGOA imports rose to $14 billion last year, a 55% increase over 2002.

My criticism of Williams's article is that it doesn't compare African nations who are on the road toward prosperity vs. ones who are not, which would be an even more illustrative comparison. For example, he could've compared Zimbabwe (which he mentions) with its neighbor Botswana. Botswana is a member of the Common Customs Area, which lowers trade barriers among southern African countries; Zimbabwe is not. Botswana's far more open economy, pluralistic political system, low individual and corporate taxation, and stability have helped it become among the world's fastest growing economies. Instead of money flowing directly into their leaders' pockets (as in Zimbabwe), 90% of Botswana schoolkids get primary education and it is a pioneer on AIDS/HIV health care.

In 1970, Botswana's per capita GDP was US$590, less than the sub-Saharan average of US$609. After three decades of relatively high economic freedom, Botswana's per capita GDP is now $9,500 while in Zimbabwe it is $2,400. A 2003 Fraser Institute (Canada) report ranks Botswana 26th on economic freedom, tied with eight other nations including Japan and Norway. A World Economic Forum report ranks Botswana as Africa's most competitive economy, which is why it's attracted $7 billion in private investment to further employ people. Botswana also has a fairly free press; well-managed diamond mining, livestock, and tourism industries; and is one of Africa's leaders on human rights. People are fleeing Marxist Zimbabwe en masse, they are not from free-market Botswana.

What would help African countries like Botswana even more is for the U.S. to eliminate or at least significantly reduce its agricultural trade barriers. In addition, corporate welfare which aids agribusiness, hurts market competition and efficiency, and artificially inflates product costs. Such a strategy enables African farmers to competitively sell their goods, and would lower food costs for U.S. consumers. Black Americans should lead the way to push more for such measures with Congress and the White House for our ancestral continent, so economic and political freedom can reign.

Wasteful: Marriage Promotion Funds for Welfare

2004-06-29T02:39:00.000-05:00

The marriage promotion debate linked with welfare reform continues, with the Bush administration seeking $300 million per year for the endeavor.

Marriage clearly has benefits for children, especially black children. Research widely touts the particular importance of fathers to children's life chances. However, the best way to encourage marriage is to eliminate social welfare or, more realistically for now, tighten the restrictions. When people are forced to experience the full repercussions of their actions, they're far likelier to be cautious with their actions. Why should Person A, who lives a moral life, pay for the piss-poor choices of Person B? There's a reason why marriage rates were far higher before the "Great Society" programs in the 1960s. Social welfare isn't an enumerated duty of the federal government, per our U.S. Constitution anyway. Welfare and marriage promotion are areas best left up to the private sector, where non-profit groups do a much better job because they are freer to experiment with innovative strategies and they're closer to the people.

Weep for John Kerry's "Poor"

2004-06-24T14:06:00.000-05:00

Here's a Timbro survey by Swedish economists, comparing the European Union to USA. Our far more libertarian economics in action:

"In 1999 a quarter of US households were poor (with less than $25,000 pa). By this standard 40 percent of Swedish households would be considered poor. Of course, some prefer to measure poverty relatively. In this context of US poor households, 45.9 percent own their own home, 72.8 percent have a car, and 77 percent have air conditioning. Their average living space is 1,200 sq ft per household. The European average including both rich and poor is 1,000 sq ft"

If the European Union were a U.S. state it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Britain, and Germany have a lower GDP per capita than 46 of our states. This puts the (socialist) Europeans at a prosperity level on par with Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia. Only miniscule Luxembourg has a higher per capita GDP than the typical U.S. state. And this study was done before the 10 Eastern European countries joined the EU last month, which would drag its stats even more.

(Courtesy Dissecting Leftism)

Putting the Private Sector to Work in Iraq

2004-06-24T14:00:00.000-05:00

Great article by Jack Kemp about the need for the private sector to put capital to work in Iraq, especially since a secure Middle East is in our interests. I like Jack's work because he combines free-market ideology with moral passion for aiding disadvantaged people. His work illustrates how private-sector efforts can help Iraqis help themselves, even in uncertain times.

Cynthia, Free Markets Would Make Health Care Less Expensive

2004-06-21T12:44:00.000-05:00

Cynthia Tucker, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's editorial page editor, recently wrote an article claiming that free markets make health care expensive. She states:

In a country where capitalism is the state religion, it's hard to get people to admit that the profit motive doesn't improve every enterprise. Americans seem to think there is no problem that cannot be solved by some resourceful entrepreneur. But we're experiencing a crisis of faith in at least one area -- health care. The soaring cost of hospitals and medicines suggests that capitalism is sometimes at odds with the common good."

This is why liberals don't excel in economics. She supports universal health care, but ignores the huge crunches that systems in Canada and France are currently facing (never mind less access to the latest health advances like in USA). With USA's high obesity rate, we can expect even worse. Tucker ignores that when government got even more involved in health care in the 1980s (giving us HMOs), supposedly to reduce costs, instead the costs shot up. She willfully ignores some facts: One, the American Medical Association works with state legislatures to limit doctors' licenses. Fewer doctors means higher doctor salaries, which means higher prices for us. Two, malpractice insurance has gotten way out of control and tort reform is needed here. Three, doctors receive almost the same training whether they want to fix broken bones or do neurosurgery, which jacks up prices for all specialties. Four, insurance companies are forbidden by law from charging fat people more money, even though they are mainly responsible for USA's health problems. This is a penalty on people who take care of our bodies, while overweight people don't pay the full costs of their choices.

A free market would induce more folks to be more preventative about their health choices or face higher premiums. Until government gets out of health care, consumers can't use their dollars to shop around for the best deals and that hurts us all.

Socialism Kills, Free Markets Feed

2004-06-21T07:07:00.000-05:00

This photo over at Where Hip Hop and Libertarianism Meet caught my eye. I immediately thought of Zimbabwe, particularly since dictator Robert Mugabe is now backtracking on nationalizing all farmland. Sort of.

Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of Africa, is now a basket case. It now suffers acute shortages of food, hard currency, and gasoline. The U.N. predicts the country will produce only half its food needs this year, and inflation is over 600%. Mugabe argues redistribution is needed to redress British colonialism, when much of the best farmland was "settled" by whites. Booker Rising, cognizant that white colonialists stole the land in the first place, states:

"Our formula: take the stolen land's value, how long the white families had it, and how much they've plugged into the economy. If they owe, they pay up. If the government owes them, compensate them."

Can't argue there. However, much of the appropriated farmland has gone to Mugabe's cronies or remains vacant. Blacks and whites who can run the farms (most of whom are probably supporters of Mugabe's opposition) are fleeing the country in droves. Mugabe is deploying his food policy to monitor people's vote in the upcoming "election." So food production dramatically falls while poorer Zimbabweans, who lack the flee option, continue to suffer for Mugabe's Marxist revolution.

School Choice: Moral Issue?

2004-06-18T11:16:00.000-05:00

Blacks and Hispanics in Camden, New Jersey are fed up with their public schools. Yesterday religious and city leaders rallied on the steps of City Hall in support of school vouchers, saying it's the best option for their kids' future. The Black Ministers' Council of New Jersey head calls public schools a "fraud." The head of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders calls school choice a "moral issue" where blacks and Hispnics must unite.

School choice advocates say tax dollars should follow a child to the schools of their choice, not the school itself. They say school choice would drive reform in public education through competition. The Black Ministers' Council says what stands in their way are the Democrats, who have strong ties to teachers' unions. Advocates are right on all three counts.

Never mind a recent Newsweek poll which shows 66% of blacks and 67% of Hispanics support school vouchers. Booker Rising, a black moderate-conservative website, cites a statistic that 79% of blacks support school prayer. I don't believe in forced prayer, but I do believe in parents' right to have this educational option for their children. I'm not Muslim, but I have no problem with Mr. and Mrs. Mohammed using a voucher to send lil' Khalilah to a school that included Arabic language study and 5-times-a-day prayer. If there's not enough demand in one's hometown for a particular option, then move. While a Muslim school would have very low demand in Tupelo, Miss., it would be very popular in Detroit, Mich. Any schools that didn't meet standards wouldn't be in business for long. More innovative programs would emerge.

If left to parental choices, one would be hard-pressed to find a secular school in black communities. Schools would be tailored to our communities' needs and desires - black social gospel ethic, prayer, high discipline, a curriculum that included our achievements, high emphasis on how to take standardized tests - and not that of government. If the Congressional Black Caucus, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and teachers can send their own children to the schools of their choice, why deny Shaniqua Jackson the same right for her kid?

It is immoral for liberals to block these initiatives, as they recently did in D.C.'s pilot program (where there were twice as many applicants as slots). Yet it falls under liberals' general elitist rule: the masses are asses. Only we can decide what's best for you peons, not you.

Why Government Shouldn't Fund Stem-Cell Research

2004-06-18T10:12:00.000-05:00

President Ronald Reagan's death from Alzheimer's disease has renewed calls for President George W. Bush to stop blocking stem-cell research. Dubya opposes it because day-old embryos get destroyed after stem cells are extracted, and it's akin to abortion to him. Nancy Reagan supports the research, as do the vast majority of Americans. Booker Rising cites a statistic that 44% of blacks agree with Dubya (even though blacks disproportionately acquire Alzheimer's in old age), who is not changing his stance.

I support stem-cell research, but not government-funded research. This is even though scientific exploration is a federal constitutional power under Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution ("to promote the progress of science and useful arts" clause). I don't buy the anti-abortion argument, as I believe the state shouldn't be involved there either. My question: if stem-cell research is the next big thing, then why isn't private industry all over it? The research and development dollars they plugged in would be more than made up by profits from medicinal cures. Could it be that it's too iffy an enterprise and they want a government guarantee?

Official Clinton Portraits to be Unveiled

2004-06-14T04:58:00.000-05:00

Today at the White House. A black painter did the portraits, the first black to be commissioned for a presidential portrait. I assume Bubba is black in his portrait, being America's first black president and all.

Liberal Insanity About the Reagan Era (and Dubya)

2004-06-07T08:55:00.000-05:00

On Saturday I had a very heated debate with a close friend and her husband. My friend claimed that the 1980s were "the worst decade for black folks ever!" She then went into a tirade about Reagan and linked it to the current Bush, saying they were the worst presidents ever for black folks.

Of course, I brought sanity into the conversation. I asked if that included our 30 decades under slavery, the 1870s when we were sold out in the Hayes-Tilden Compromise which ended Reconstruction, or the 8 decades suffered under Jim Crow. Surely significant black progress since Jim Crow's end -- including the '80s -- where most blacks today aren't enslaved, poor, or denied education trumps these horrible decades? Surely the presidents of these horrible decades were far worse for black folks? I then rattled off stats comparing various decades. She said no! "Because they didn't have as much power as Reagan and Bush, and they weren't nearly as hypocritical. We haven't made much progress and those fuckers owe us. Yet they cut social programs."

I brought up Thomas Jefferson's "I hate slavery but I still own and rape my slaves" stance as a key example of hypocrisy which trumps modern presidents. I brought up how liberal social programs have harmed black communities, and that we must return to our old-school personal responsibility ethic. My friend then proceeded to shout me down (can liberals ever have a civil discussion, I asked her?), called me "classist" and then abruptly ended the conversation saying that we should never discuss politics again. It got so heated that she pulled rank when I calmly disputed her points, saying "This is my house and I won't tolerate such crazy comments in it (she did apologize yesterday).

I put stuff in context and surely being free and middle-class (which is most black Americans) beats being enslaved and poor. I thought conservatives were over the top when they said that liberal thought is totalitarian when it comes to other viewpoints, but more and more I'm seeing it. Mind you, I have mixed opinions about Ronald Reagan (which I'll outline later) but liberals just can't allow common sense to overcome their hatred.

"Soul Plane" Grounded?

2004-06-07T08:45:00.000-05:00

Actor Joseph C. Phillips has a critique of Soul Plane, an urban comedy film filled with black stereotypes. You may remember him as Denise's husband on "The Cosby Show," plus he was on "General Hospital." The conservative Republican basically outlines a libertarian response to a panel discussion where he was a participant:

"And as was the case in similar discussions 20 years ago participants were adamant that Black audiences wouldn't become so outraged over stereotypes in films like Soul Plane if we also had films in the manner of House of Sand and Fog or Sleepless in Seattle to balance them.

Markets, however, do not work like that. Balance cannot be forced into the market place. Demand must be built and the balance we would all enjoy will follow. For 20 years black audiences have demanded the same thing.

In 1997 Warner Brothers spent 31 million dollars on John Singleton's Rosewood. Rosewood is the dramatization of the true story of a black town in Florida that in 1923 was burned to the ground by a white mob bent on avenging the rape of a white woman. This is the sort of film I think Saturday's audience would agree is the kind of substantive film we would like to see more of. Rosewood opened to a paltry 3.1 million dollars and only grossed 13 million dollars by years end. The following week Columbia Pictures opened the modestly budgeted Booty Call. Booty Call made 8 million dollars that weekend and grossed 20 million for the year. The following month New Line cinema released the low budget romance (a film I enjoyed) Love Jones. Love Jones opened with 3.9 million dollars and only grossed 12 million for the year.

Eves Bayou (another film I enjoyed) opened in November of '97 with Rosewood type numbers while Players Club, like Booty Call before it, opened with more than 8 million dollars and a gross of more than 23 million for the year. Black folks - not white folks -- stood in line waiting to see Booty Call and Players Club -- just as they will stand in line Friday to see Soul Plane -- while avoiding Rosewood, Eves Bayou, Beloved and a long list of other more substantive fare like the plague.

Hollywood is not sinister! Hollywood is giving black folks what they want. My experience in Hollywood is that these folks do not like to leave money on the table. The marketing of Soul Plane along with the fact that every stereotypical image in Soul Plane is voraciously eaten up by the hip-hop culture and every rap artist currently making a video is proof of the high demand for this type of shucking and jiving. I have a sick feeling the box office results following the memorial day weekend will sadly reveal that we will be seeing much more of it."

He's right. If black folks want Hollywood to stop pumping out these "keepin' it real" flicks, then we must stop supporting such flicks. Luckily, it looks like black folks are grounding Soul Plane. It cost over $18 million to make, but has only grossed $8.3 million in its first two weeks despite a ton of publicity. Assuming its week-to-week revenues continue to drop by half, it won't make a profit.

Social Security to Ownership Security

2004-06-05T12:03:00.000-05:00

Jack Kemp recently wrote a column arguing that Social Security privatization will fix America's retirement system, and democratize capitalism. Unlike Social Security, people could control their own future.

He wants to move from the Great Society of entitlements to an Ownership Society, an investor nation where every worker is an owner. About 50% of Americans are already in the investor class, and I support efforts to get the other 50% on board. However, why is Kemp only going for 50% privatization? Social Security should be completely privatized.

Liberals argue against Social Security privatization because "people won't know how to invest." Typical "the masses are asses" ideology. Why not teach people how to invest? If it can be done in Chile, where such accounts are popular, it can be done in USA. Even idiots can plug their money in a bond account and outperform Social Security's stingy return.

In addition, why should Person A be penalized for making good choices because Person B doesn't make them? Relatively low retirement investment in America occurs because of few ramifications to not saving up for one's future, due to Social Security. Remove nannyism, and incentives for people to plan long-term shoot up. Or perhaps liberals oppose it because private investment accountholders tend to be more conservative voters (e.g., 21% of blacks with such accounts vote Republican, versus 9% of blacks in general)?

Kemp gets cool points for noting that Social Security's return on investment "can't deliver-averaging less than 1 ½ percent and [is] actually negative for many African-American males whose life expectancy is 8 ½ years less than white males." It also undercuts efforts to increase black wealth, where the deceased can transfer savings to their heirs to buy a home, attend college, or start a business. Luckily for us, even people like BET founder Bob Johnson and Rep. Harold Ford are pushing for privatization in black communities.

Should America Bring Back the Draft?

2004-05-31T08:48:00.000-05:00

Today is Memorial Day, which reminded me of all the recent talk about bringing back the military draft. Of course, liberals want to bring it back not for America's defense needs but to undermine it. Ironically, their current stance -- racial minorities and the poor disproportionately get affected -- was their stance to overturn the draft back in the 1970s. Never mind that today, the average enlistee is from a household family background of $30,000-$35,000 a year -- working class, not poor. Or that many people gain upward mobility in skills and education due to military service. Or that highly motivated troops create the most professional force, as seen by Americans who choose to service vs. forced service in many other countries. The draft merely introduces slackers into the mix, and who has time to babysit them on the battlefield?

Walter Williams recently did a great article, "The Economics of the Military Draft." He calls the military draft "government confiscation of labor services." He points out that if compensation was $100,000 a year, there wouldn't be a soldier shortage. Hence, a military draft basically acknowledges insufficient wages to get people to choose service.

Williams doesn't explore this issue, but freedom is another component to this issue. The state has no right to confiscate what is dearest to us -- our lives. Where in the U.S. Constitution does the government have the duty, power, or responsibility to issue a draft? If the White House or the Pentagon is unable to articulate why it needs our labor in the War Against Terrorism or any other endeavor, then it has failed miserably and we as Americans will have failed miserably. Yet when we're truly threatened, history shows no shortage of Americans willing to fight in its defense.

"A slightly higher-though not much higher-rung of hell should be reserved for those 'liberals' who claim that man has the 'right' to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life." --AYN RAND

A Rainbow of Independent Thought, Perhaps?

2004-05-22T01:13:00.000-05:00

Check out this ditty from AlterNet:

[Chicago's Reverend Gregory] Daniels has earned a place in history. Not because he's done anything important, but because he's brought us a quote no historian of this year's gay marriage standoff will be able to resist citing. During a Boston press conference, staged by the rightwing Family Research Council on the eve of Massachusetts' constitutional convention, the black minister pledged, "If the KKK was opposing same-sex marriage, Reverend Daniels would ride with them."

Daniels' hyperbole was appalling, but hardly unexpected. The religious right's battle plan has long centered on mobilizing black conservatives in the culture wars. The debate over same-sex marriage is not nearly the first act in the homophobic minstrel show that black conservatives like Daniels are performing. But it has arguably been the most influential – and widespread. From Boston to Atlanta, black ministers are standing in for the white right as the public face of "traditional values." And in the Bronx, Latino clergy are joining in, forming a rainbow coalition of bigotry.

Most observers have focused on how straight African Americans are responding to the rightwing's blackface performance. But perhaps more significant for gay America is the reaction of black and Latino gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people. German and Thomas may represent an extreme example, but the incongruity between their life and that of the couples who have taken center stage in the marriage debate is not uncommon in black and Latino neighborhoods.

The government shouldn't even have a say over what consenting adults do, so gay marriage is OK with me. I'd even support polygamy on the same grounds. And why is a black guy saying he'll ride with the KKK to oppose gay marriage? Can't get with ol' boy there.

However, I'm amused at a blatant assumption made in this excerpt. Why is vast black opposition to gay marriage (2/3 oppose it) considered not a reflection of genuine opposition, rooted in a religious faith? Of course, socially conservative blacks like Daniels (who are politically liberal, by the way) can't derive their views independently but must be puppets of white folks. Never mind that most black folks share Daniels' view (the KKK thing aside), so he reflects widespread community sentiment. Of course, no commentary whatsoever about the minstrel show that white gays are perpetrating by hijacking black history to promote their agenda -- inflaming black folks even further. That's more offensive to me than the misguided rants of a Windy City black minister, not to mention strategically unwise. Given the religion statistics over at Booker Rising, black Protestants appear to share most of white Christian conservatives' views on most social issues. So do many Latino Catholics. So it's hardly illogical for these groups to form alliances when their interests intersect. But of course, only liberals think.

A Prime Example

2004-05-21T04:18:00.000-05:00

A couple of days ago, I saw another prime example of the "a vote for Bush [or Republicans] is a vote against your people." Check out how Cobb had a major hater for his "Keep It Right" piece, which discusses joint promo among black non-liberal bloggers. Bernard writes:

The other regards a curiously out-of-date notion that although 'we' often must work twice as hard for half the rewards, we ought to be 'happy nigras singing in the fields,' taking pride in devotion to ole Massa's crumb droppings. How pathetic and sad that you've given up all notions of genuine equality (at leats [sic] in terms of rewards for work) and have genuflected to the ravings of the D'nesh D'souza's, Ann Coulters, and Rush Limbaughs of the world who thought your blackified negrosity has been and is being treated too well as it is. You [sic] messege [sic] is 'Be happy with the little you are often cheated out of while others take advantage of all the opportuntities [sic] afforded them." That's not victimology; it's cold hard fact. Your cowardly position is simply a sad commentary on the state of the so-called Black right.

Boy did Bernard miss the boat! He's so blinded by his rage at black non-liberals that he ignores the fact that Cobb didn't argue this point at all. Of course, in black liberals' minds no black person can disagree with them and be conservative out of, oh say, their own independent thought.

If black liberals were truly concerned about equality, they'd place a lot more emphasis on black kids buckling down with their schoolwork, lowering the illegitimacy rate which is dragging down our stats big time, encouraging black folks to spend less and save money to start small businesses and take back our communities, rooting thugs out, and speaking out against entertainers who pimp black culture with images which negatively affect our kids. They'd be more concerned about the growing gap within Black America, as they are with whites. As Larry Elder once put it: "ask folks whether the presence of white racism or the absence of black fathers is more damaging to black communities." In 1964, it was definitely the former. Unfortunately today, it's the latter.

The black Left is so obsessed with whiteness that they can't ever be obsessed with blackness: how do we fare compared to white folks (white folks as the norm, not just examine black folks in our own right), what white folks did yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Black folks as inferior, needing handouts to improve our lives because we have no power or control. We must follow some self-appointed leader -- since elitism is ingrained in liberalism -- and shuffle our feet to another white massa (the Democratic Party) instead of the masses being our own leaders.

And of course, the only time something is important is when white folks do it. We see this mess when they promote "racism in education" over black excellence. Their approach to crime -- why doesn't lowering our crime rate and attention on the many black crime victims deserve at least as much outrage as ex-cons? Their focus on Haiti (since USA & France were behind Aristide's exit) and Iraq vs. Sudan (2 million black Christians butchered since 1983 by Arabized Muslims). Let's chase white folks all about their communities instead of building up our own. Like the NAACP and Rev. Al Sharpton worrying far more about black images on TV instead of encouraging black parents to have their kids watch much less TV and hit the books...because of course we must worry about what white folks think of our image. Black liberals are unwittingly the biggest promoters of the myth of white superiority in our communities.

"Voting for Bush is Voting Against Your People"

2004-05-17T02:34:00.000-05:00

This is what the husband of one of my best friends told me yesterday, and my friend concurred. The husband also said, "Any black who votes for Bush should be strung up and shot" (I kid you not). Ouch!

This comment was in response to this Washington Times article that I was reading to them. They're hotly opposed to the war in Iraq, and absolutely hate Bush. In fact, awhile back my friend's husband said that he hoped the economy doesn't improve just so it would help Bush lose.

Mind you, I haven't even made up my mind about my vote -- other than it's highly unlikely that Sen. John Kerry will get it. However, I'm vacillating between voting Libertarian or for Bush. I've got several big beefs with Dubya: even though President Clinton was also asleep at the wheel, 9/11 did happen under Bush's watch; the federal deficit where he lowered taxes (good) but jacked up spending (bad) that he's now made Clinton look like a fiscal conservative; illegal immigration (one issue where I depart from traditional libertarian thought); I supported the war but the post-war planning in Iraq sucks, and a few other issues.

However, I do find it troubling that folks want the economy to go sour over presidential politics (and I told my friend's husband so). I also acknowledge some good stuff about Bush (school voucher supporter, he snagged Saddam, he takes the long view re: the War Against Terrorism, he lowered taxes) and believe he is sincerely trying to go after black votes this time. He also has a platform to work from here in getting a piece of that vote, if he actually got the word out through a Republican messenger who black folks actually like (you reading, Colin Powell? How about an ad?). I also resent folks telling me that my political choices can make me a "race traitor" and can't be based on genuine philosophical differences (and I told them so, and brought up some evangelical relatives of mine who plan to vote for Bush mainly due to abortion, gay marriage, and he's taking it to Muslims). I love my friends, but we just don't see eye to eye here.

The Fall of the Black Messiah, The Rise of Personal Leadership

2004-05-17T02:09:00.000-05:00

On Saturday the New York Times had an article about black leadership. More specifically, the Old Guard is concerned that no dominant black leader is emerging. Perhaps if the Old Guard didn't stingily control its power, then more obvious choices would emerge. Let's not forget that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was only 25 years old when he led the Montgomery bus boycott back in 1955. Today's Young Turks, like Rep. Harold Ford, get reviled because of their more moderate ways.

The article also asks whether today's generation even needs a leader, one man (and it's always a man) who shepherds us like flock. Like the people over at Booker Rising, I must also respond no. Sure, there will always be people who lead various groups. However, black Americans now come from a variety of backgrounds. In fact, not enough attention is paid to the diversity within black American communities. Contrary to popular assumptions, we are not a monolith. Just last week, a friend of mine had to check a white Australian-born-and-raised teenager who expressed amazement about my views. "She's the first black person who I've met with such conservative (read: libertarianism vs. his socialism) views," he told my friend. My girl had to remind him that yes, we black people do come in different packages.

I believe that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was dropped from the heavens to help lead black folks to the Promised Land. Somebody had to give black people hope, remind people that they had the power to change their lives and deploy a very effective strategy to challenge America to live up to its ideals. King was the right man for the right time! However, different times call for different tactics. We should debunk the very notion of leadership. This is nothing new: both Carter G. Woodson (founder of what's now Black History Month) and Ella Baker both proposed building the leadership of the masses. The elitist days of the "Talented Twentieth" are numbered and it's high time to train folks to be leaders in their own communities, to take charge of their lives. The civil rights generation wanted a seat at the table, the post-civil-rights generation wants to own and command the table.

Air America Radio on Life Support

2004-05-14T11:35:00.000-05:00

I thought Err America -- uh, Air America -- would at least last through December, but it may be buried by summer's end. The liberal radio network has lost its L.A. and Chicago outlets, two of America's largest markets. Its chairman, vice chairman, programming director, and sales director have all left. It has bounced millions of dollars worth of checks.

As Ann Coulter says, when folks have a choice they prefer conservatives. Looking at talk radio and cable news, Coulter is right. National Public Radio, white liberals' best friend, is partially subsidized by federal and local governments so it's shielded from true market competition like Air America. Liberals were so gung-ho to topple President Bush and take on conservative radio that they forgot to ask: do folks want this product? No surprise as libs regularly flunk Economics 101.

Air America cannibalized some of NPR's listener base. The only liberal talk radio that does well is on "urban radio" (i.e., black radio), with its tie-in to black music and cultural elements. Black folks weren't digging Air America's white-bread liberalism, token Chuck D. be damned. Latinos were missing in action. Given that racial minorities comprise over 1/3 of the Democratic Party's total ballots -- Dem operatives were behind this project -- how did white liberals figure they were gonna be successful? In both L.A. (47% Latino) and Chicago (40% black), black and Spanish-speaking stations are among the Top 2 most-listened stations in the city.

I listened to Air America a few times. I listen to both conservative and liberal radio, but Air America was irritating. Caterwauling posing as commentary, sophomoric pranks, bad technicals, etc. It's not surprising that now Air America is adding stations in places like Portland, Maine because they just can't compete with the much more exciting (and commercially viable) urban stations in the big cities.

Chicago Tribune reports that staffers were never enrolled in a health insurance plan, though Air America promised coverage and deducted health insurance premiums from their paychecks. Yes, all while Air America was promoting socialist health care. Tsk tsk, the personal ain't political. I did a Google search and there's a conspicuous mutedness from the liberal media, even though in March they unveiled Air America like it was the Second Coming...

Axing the National Endowment for the Arts

2004-05-14T03:56:00.000-05:00

Jason Wright's piece, "David vs. Goliath: We Must Slay the NEA," is on point. After having decreased its budget by half during the Gingrich Revolution in the mid-1990s, government is again misusing tax dollars for activities best left up to the marketplace. This year, the NEA will get $121 million in taxpayer dollars. Next year, it's $139 million.

I love the arts as much as the next person, but this is an improper role for the U.S. government. These funds often go toward art that offends a ton of folks. It is also heavily biased toward the coasts, while "flyover country" gets little back to its artists while forking over much. I say, let the market handle the issue. If your art is all that and a bag of chips, then people will purchase your art. If they don't, then clearly there's no or very little market for your art. The arts were doing just fine in the 19th century, without these funds. Nowadays there are more government funds for the arts, but many arts suck more now than ever.

NEA funds should be returned back to the people where they belong and we decide which arts (if any) we'll support, and how we'll support them.

Muslim Terrorists = Ku Klux Klan?

2004-05-14T03:19:00.000-05:00

Booker Rising news site contains an interesting Associated Press article. Yesterday Dr. Condoleezza Rice told a Vanderbilt University audience that Muslim terrorists are similar to the KKK, as both are driven by similar hatred. Everyone knows that Condi is a native of Birmingham, Alabama (aka 'Bombingham' in the 1960s) and lost a childhood friend to the infamous 1963 church bombing. Rice felt the blast a few blocks away at her own church (and other family friends had their homes firebombed) so she speaks from personal experience.

"Those terrorists failed because of the poverty of their visions — a vision of hate, inequality.... And they failed because of the courage and sacrifice of all who suffered and struggled for civil rights."

The more I think about it, the more on point Condi is here. The beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg by Al Qaedaesque jihadists were not just because they were American, but their Jewish background. Muslims have been waging a war against blacks in Africa for awhile now. In what even the United Nations calls the world's worst humanitarian crisis, Sudan's Muslims are slaughtering black Christians and animists by the hundreds of thousands each year in their "Arabization and Islamization" campaign. Both Muslim terrorists and the Klan have racial superiority at their root. E.g., the Arabic word for "black" and "slave" -- abed -- are synonymous, in Arabs' psychological superiority (and let's not even get into the Ugandan children that Osama bin Laden bought into slavery during his Sudanese stint in the mid-1990s), the Klan's history against blacks and Jews is well known.

U.S. Abuse of Blacks An Appetizer for Abu Ghraib?

2004-05-13T17:35:00.000-05:00

Liberals are at it again. Check out this Boston Globe piece claiming that Abu Ghraib is merely "a natural extension of the humiliation that has gone on for two decades in this country," toward black folks. The writer also calls the photos the global equivalent of the Rodney King tape, and also links it to blacks in prison due to drug laws. The writer says "abuse [toward black men] is the American pasttime," yet ignores black involvement in said societal abuse (through unfortunate disproportionate involvement in crime) as it would undercut his analysis.

Tavis Smiley's show on National Public Radio also went down this road yesterday. While I believe that racism (Arabs as 'other') may be part of the Abu Ghraib mess, this is an insufficient explanation. What's missing from the analysis is the possibility that the liberal media itself shares any blame. Where's the usual liberal excuses about environment, upbringing, blah blah blah that influences how perpetrators behave? Television shows regularly cast Arabs in negative roles, when they're on TV. We've got Kill Bill I and II, Natural Born Killers, and other assorted ultra-violent movies in the mix. Videos glorify humiliation and mistreatment. Yet no commentary on how liberals have poisoned societal values, which could've been a contributing factor to Abu Ghraib treatment...

Savagery in Iraq

2004-05-11T15:47:00.000-05:00

Actually I should say more savagery, given that Fallujah char-drag-and-hang mess awhile back.

I'll say it again: the humiliation photos of U.S. soldiers with Iraqi prisoners are awful. They should be tried to the fullest extent of the law, because (1) it was foul; and (2) they compromised our mission. Yet let's have some context here. A U.S. soldier reported the abuse, a U.S. TV network broke the story, Americans of various political persuasions are outraged, investigations are happening, and trials are coming up. Do we see this at all in the Muslim world? No.

I just don't see moral equivalency between naked humiliation, women ordering Iraqis around, and fear of dogs as equivalent to charred bodies being dragged through the streets and then hanged from a bridge and a beheading. Let's not forget the Italian hostage who was brutally murdered. One is sadistic humiliation, the others are genuine torture. News reports say they shouted "Allahu Akbar!" (God is great) & then held Nick Berg's head out before the camera. Also notice that his Al Qaedaesque beheaders are too chicken to even show their faces in the video. Mind you, Berg wasn't a soldier but an independent contractor in Iraq to help rebuild communication antennas. He was also singled out because, like Daniel Pearl in 2002, he was Jewish.

Call or email CBS News and let your voice be heard regarding the beheading video, and its primary accomplice role in Nick Berg's death! 212/975-3691 CBS News feedback on its Internet site

For FCC reasons and to respect Berg's family, CBS and other TV networks obviously can't show the beheading video. However, demand that the networks regularly show this atrocity, at least right up to the knife to Berg's throat. America must see who and what we are up against in combatting terrorism and the clash of civilizations.

We'll see if liberals express even 20% as much outrage about this genuine torture -- especially against a civilian -- as they did the Iraqi prisoner photos. Same goes for the Euroweasels and the Middle East. Will apologies be demanded and given, investigations within the Muslim world to track down these guys? Given that I just spoke to one of my best friends (a liberal) about it, I doubt it. My friend is far more upset about U.S. presence in Iraq and the Iraqi prisoner photos, and downplayed the seriousness of tortures that our folks have faced. Or even what the Iraqi people faced under Saddam Hussein's regime. She even shouted me down when I calmly challenged her on stuff (she's my girl, but why must liberals shout their dissent?). My friend then abruptly ended the conversation, saying "I can't take it anymore."

Economic Growth in U.S. Outpaces Socialist Europe

2004-05-11T15:38:00.000-05:00

Newsmax.com highlights that an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report shows the performance gap between the U.S. and the 12-nation euro zone has widened. U.S. growth was seen at 4.7%, up from the 4.2% earlier forecast. The Paris-based OECD cut its euro-area growth prediction from 1.8 percent to 1.6%.

No surprise here: Lower tax rates. A much smaller nanny state that coddles sloth. A free enterprise system that awards not punishes initiative, where industry competitiveness is allowed to breathe. Old Europe should've figured it out by now, but it takes awhile for Leftists to learn.

'Brown's' Benefits: Black Educational Achievement

2004-05-10T18:58:00.000-05:00

With the 50th anniversary next week, everybody and their mama is writing about the landmark "Brown vs. Board of Education" case and the aftermath. What's in this brief article about "Brown's" benefits:

- Just 15 percent of black Americans 25 and older were high school graduates in 1952, the year the high court took the Brown case. The graduation rate stood at 79 percent by 2002, the latest year for which figures are available.

- Sixty-nine percent of black children 5 and 6 years old were enrolled in school in 1954. By 2002, 96 percent of black children ages 5 and 6 were enrolled in school.

- Twenty-four percent of young black adults 18 and 19 years old were enrolled in school in 1954. Their enrollment rate rose to 58 percent in 2002.

These are good stats, so of course we won't hear black "leaders" or intellectuals hype it up, and then further build upon our strengths to increase the good news. They yawn at good stats, and dwell endlessly on bad ones. But fact remains, W.E.B.'s "Talented Tenth" has now become the Talented Twentieth. Yet much work remains, especially given some of "Brown's" negative effects.

How well and what black children are learning are now the key issues, not access. The most irksome thing that I see in too many black children is the equation of academic achievement with whiteness. This is not part of our history! In slavery, folks would risk a beating or even death to learn to read and then teach others. Booker T. Washington, Mary McLeod Bethune, Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, etc. We have a rich educational history. As John McWhorter writes in his bestseller, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America, this ridiculous viewpoint rose up around 1966. It sure isn't reflected in my grandparents' generation, and they shake their heads about it. I believe that the changes in the 1960s came "so quickly" (in terms of legislation, one after another) that our parents' generation didn't map out what it would look like to live free and be competitive. Thus at a time where we had -- and have -- the most power over our lives, we ceded control to government programs. It's had a deleterious effect ever since, and "leaders" aren't talking about the widening gap within Black America.

Education is the #2 most important item on black folks' plate, after decreasing illegitimacy which is the key root cause of most of our negative stats. We must stamp out this "education is white" nonsense! If ex-slaves didn't believe it, why do folks today? Black kids watch too much TV, and must study more. More black parents must put the foot down regarding their kids' study habits, as parental involvement is the #1 determinant of how well a child does in school. School vouchers would inject competition into the educational system, enable parents to choose schools that reflect their values and educational wishes for their children, and reduce the number of kids trapped in crappy schools where bad-ass apples disrupt everybody else's learning. Teachers' salaries should be based on merit, not seniority. This dream can become reality if we work to make it happen!

Louis Farrakhan May Hold Another 'Million Man March'

2004-05-10T18:05:00.000-05:00

Yes, folks. Another "Million Man March" in 2005, to celebrate the 10th anniversary. The first march drew about 800,000, according to independent estimates. Min. Louis Farrakhan says:

“I’m not so much interested in a march. I’m not too much interested in gathering a million or two million men in one place – unless it is to direct those men to do that which will liberate our people...There is no reason for Morris Brown [a financially troubled black college in Atlanta] to close. There is no reason that we don’t have hospitals and clinics across this nation to service our needs. It’s the misuse of our dollars. So, I don’t see any reason to call 2 million men again, unless we’re calling them for serious work.”

I agree with the overall agenda of black economic self-help. It's high time that we move from civil rights to enterprise! Our 40 years in the wilderness, our transition, is up and the new generation is getting restless with so-called leaders who aren't addressing core issues facing us today. However, Farrakhan is the wrong messenger: his victimology streak, his erroneous statements about Jews, his support of Muslim despots, and more. While I'd support an all-male march in other areas if the messenger was different, this one seems short-sighted because black women also are critical to black economic empowerment.

Beyond his polarizing views, a 2003 Black America's Political Action Committee poll shows that Farrakhan only has 44% favorability (6% unfavorability, the rest don't know) among blacks. It would be nice if black non-liberals had taken up this mantle before Farrakhan had gotten to it, but we can take it up through other vehicles.

How Libertarian?

2004-05-08T19:14:00.000-05:00

Cobb's comments regarding black libertarians caused me to do some reflection. He says, "BTW, it's good to see and hear black libertarians. While I think most American Libertarians might as well be French for the amount of practical influence they have on Congressional Legislation it's always nice to hear them speak up, as they often have notable things to say on matters of economics and (of course) Liberty. And there's a good chance that black Libertarians could neutralize some of their post-modernist yuppie crap in the process..."

On the "World's Smallest Political Quiz," I scored in the Libertarian arena: 70% on the personal self-government scale and 70% on the economic self-government scale. I came across a Libertarian Purity Test, which is much more specific than the WSPQ, and took it. I scored a 42 out of 160 points. 31-50 points: Your libertarian credentials are obvious. Doubtlessly you will become more extreme as time goes on. According to this quiz, I'm beyond soft-core libertarian but not quite medium-core libertarian. I would define my views as about 65% libertarian: I'm for free trade and low taxation, believe government should stay out of consenting folks' bedrooms, oppose the military draft, and oppose government foreign aid.

I depart from most libertarians in 2 areas: anti-discrimination laws and foreign policy. I oppose affirmative action, but oppose abolishing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. The federal government has done some good, to shield minorities from government tyranny. This is where Cobb's "black Libertarians could neutralize some of their post-modernist yuppie crap" statement about many libertarians applies.

While my isolationist streak tugs at me on a regular basis, I question whether it is relevant in a post-9/11 world. Coercion (a big no-no for most libertarians) is already involved in safeguarding freedom. As in the recent past, the future lies in expanding political ideologies and power on the global scale. Somebody's ideology will win out. I'd rather it be free market democracy than socialist democracy. Or much worse, Islamic totalitarianism where I'm forced to convert, be silent, and clad head to toe in a burqa. We have entered an era of clash of civilizations, where others are taking a long view of history while too many libertarians are not. However, I only support military interventions when it's (1) in our vital national interest, such as Afghanistan and Iraq; and (2) to prevent genocide, a la Rwanda in 1994. Mission creep adventures in places like Bosnia and Haiti or defending folks who have resources to defend themselves like Germany and South Korea, I'm with libertarians.

The Middle East: Democracy or Liberalization?

2004-05-08T09:32:00.000-05:00

I supported the war in Iraq, despite some reservations. I saw Iraq as a threat to our national security re: weapons of mass destruction (and I'm still not convinced that they didn't exist...check out this way underreported story re: an aborted chemical weapons attack on Jordan and yet no media investigation to see if it can be traced back to Iraq). I ain't sad one bit to see Saddam Hussein gone. I don't understand why so many liberals haven't cheered his exit from the world stage, if solely due to his rampant human rights violations. Then again, it would put liberals on the same side as "big bad" America so instead they yawn.

However, I take issue with the Bush Administration's often shoddy post-war planning. One of President Bush's 2000 campaign promises was to get us out of the nation-building business, yet we're in it even more! Now he will soon roll out a Greater Middle East Initiative. He even implicitly calls all nation-building critics "racist." Some folks like George Will and National Review's John Derbyshire have responded to this critique.

Even though I want Bush to succeed, I'm very skeptical about this democracy enterprise. Democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. Coerced liberty ain't liberty! We can't want democracy in the Middle East more than Arabs or Muslims themselves. They must want democracy and liberty so much that they will put their bodies on the line for it, take initiative to make it happen. Looking at our history (American Revolution, civil rights movement, etc.) reflects this fact. Histories of other folks of various races, from Eastern Europe to South Africa, amplifies this fact. Nation-building takes away initiative, self-sufficiency, and the responsibility of societies to fix themselves.

Too often, the "neo-conservative" camp in Bush's administration also make democracy synonymous with liberalization. I mean liberalization in the classical sense: rule of law with independent courts, human rights, developing the civil society with press and dissent freedoms, etc. To sustain democracy, you must first have some institutions and cultural beliefs as a foundation. You'd think these democratic realists (the neo-cons' guiding foreign policy philosophy, as outlined by journalist Charles Krauthammer) would realize that it's often in the U.S.' interest not to promote democracy. As horrid as the Saudi royal family is, democracy in Saudi Arabia would much likelier usher in someone who makes Osama bin Ladin look like Abraham Lincoln rather than the Saudi Martin Luther King. Be careful for what you wish!

I'm on Bush's side when he takes issue with folks who believe that Arabs and Muslims have a "genetic" predisposition against democracy. It drums up Bell Curve imagery for me, so my nosehairs rise. However, there are cultural barriers here which Bush refuses to publicly acknowledge. Until there is an Islamic Reformation and Middle East Arabs (particularly Arab Muslims) come to terms with modernity, democracy as we know it just ain't gonna transform the region. It is culture, not politics, that will fuel this change. This is not racism (even though some nation-building critics operate from racist impulses), but true realism.

It will also take time, as it did in the U.S., Western Europe, and other parts of the world. One of our key goals in the Middle East should be to privately fund any homegrown efforts toward liberalization that allies with our values, and to press Arab "allies" like the Saudi government to liberalize their societies. I oppose the $40 million in government funds that the National Endowment for Democracy receives, even though I support its overall purpose. Return this money back to the American people where it belongs instead of it being a slush fund for foreign policy elites, and we citizens will fund who we wish to fund (as long as it's not groups who wish to harm our national security).

Condi's Secret Agenda

2004-05-07T04:18:00.000-05:00

As a big fan, I gotta expose you sistah. You ain't foolin' me. Behind those steely eyes is a plan. After all, you are the quintessential Betty BAP (Black American Princess). We BAPs thrive on 5-year plans of conquering the world. At least I'm exposing you for a good reason.

How many times have we heard liberal blacks (and even whites) call Dr. Condoleezza Rice a "race traitor" or "skeeza," that she doesn't give a whit about black folks? Au contraire. Take a look at this article that I discovered on a South African site.

Now nobody -- not even the black media -- in America has covered these two appointments before the U.S. Senate, but South Africa is watching pretty closely. Jendayi Frazer, a protege of Condi's, has been nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to South Africa (the previous ambassador resigned last year). Frazer is a former student of Dr. Rice's at Stanford University and is currently the national security adviser on Africa. She is a former assistant public policy professor at Harvard University. Constance Newman, who currently works for the U.S. Agency for International Development's Africa program, has been nominated for assistant secretary of state for Africa (the current person's term is almost up). Newman is a good friend of Rice's, and served on the National Council of Negro Women's board. Their terms may be short, unless President Bush is re-elected.

Condi is clearly tryin' to hook her sistahs (ahem, fellow BAPs) up, to diversify the international relations arena with new voices and faces. The "Talented Twentieth" (we've now outgrown the college-educated "Talented Tenth" in W.E.B. DuBois' era) aims to dig its heels further into new territory in this increasingly globalized world. It's good that more black folks are involved in foreign relations...and it shouldn't only be for Africa issues either. Why not study other parts of the world, and get involved there too if that is one's interest? That doesn't make a person less "black" for doing so. Ridiculous. If other folks can be experts about us, we sure as hell can be experts about them.

How many folks know that Dr. Rice co-founded the Center for a New Generation? It's an after-school K-8 academic enrichment program for low-income kids (mostly black or Latino) in the San Francisco Bay Area, not far from her ol' Stanford stomping grounds. Based on Antonia Felix's biography of her, educational opportunity is near and dear to Dr. Rice's heart (and in 2001, she received a National Council of Negro Women award partly due to this work). This follows her late father's extensive work with academic achievement and youth development.

These activities, and her day job, hardly show race traitordom to me. Nor is Condi out bragging about her activities, but best believe this sistah is busy implementing her stealth agenda.

Black Museums in Trouble

2004-05-07T02:33:00.000-05:00

Last month Detroit's Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History, the nation's largest black museum, announced its financial troubles. This month it's Philadelphia's African American Museum, which has a $30,000 shortfall and is relying on volunteers to keep it open.

Granted, museums nationwide are struggling to compete for folks' attention in this super-options world. Folks are tightening up their wallets. Yet a couple questions nag me: why aren't black folks adequately supporting these museums? Both Detroit and Philly have enough buppies to pursue as potential donors. Where are the creative marketing strategies to draw folks from various backgrounds to these places, to increase their value to the city? Despite requests to do so, in neither instance should government (i.e., taxpayers) be stepping in to bail museums out.

Republican Contract With Black America?

2004-05-07T00:28:00.000-05:00

Last September, Thomas Sowell proposed a GOP Contract with Black America, but without a ten-point plan. I tried building upon his idea -- I'm a libertarian independent, but want to see more competitiveness for black votes -- and even sent it to a three high-level Republican operatives back in mid-March. The goal was a vision to attract black voters in battleground states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Missouri, where a few percentage points can decide who wins the state. I never heard back from these individuals. I recently read a Zogby Poll which shows that only 6% of blacks support President Bush vs. 89% for Sen. John Kerry. I understand that the GOP wants to deploy its resources where there will be more effectiveness, but how about voter education in-between elections? Why aren't black Republicans doing this work?

Here's a piece of what I sent to the operatives. Now, I personally don't even agree with every point. However, most black Americans vote on economic issues so that was my focus:

1. Voting Rights Act reauthorization

The right to vote is enshrined in the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which never expires. The Voting Rights Act serves as an extralegal measure to further boost the 15th Amendment, to prohibit poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, etc. This expires in 2007. In honor of the contributions that black Americans have made to U.S. democracy, we Republicans will reauthorize the Act by its 40th anniversary in 2005. Meanwhile, Democrats are so out of touch that they haven't even brought up this critical issue.

2. Job retraining for outsourced U.S. workers

Pass President Bush's $250 million proposal to fund job retraining in community colleges, to help outsourced workers prep for career shifts.

3. School vouchers to escape bad schools

A 2002 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies survey shows that 57% of blacks (70% of those with kids) support school vouchers, where parents can choose public, private, or parochial schools for their kids. Reform rarely reaches promising low-income students trapped in failing schools, and vouchers offer a chance for a safer and higher quality school environment. Meanwhile, Democrats have held a school vouchers bill hostage in Congress, ignoring black parents' concerns.

4. Reduce red tape on small businesses

Black-owned small businesses are growing at a higher rate than U.S. small businesses in general. Small businesses employ the majority of Americans, and more specifically are critical to revitalizing black communities.

5. Tax credits to low-income U.S. workers for health care

Refundable tax credits will enable uninsured Americans to buy medical coverage.

6. Expand faith-based community initiatives

Religious groups increasingly provide social services once provided by state and federal agencies. Churches are among the strongest institutions in black communities. While Democrats mock religious faith, we Republicans recognize this theology of social action and the role of religion in restoring America's moral compass in all its communities. President Bush aims to expand faith-based initiatives to include drug treatment, aid to the homeless, and prison reentry to go to religious organizations.

7. Further oppose slavery of black Christians by Arab and black Muslims in Sudan

Slavery is a violation of fundamental human rights, not to mention to lack of religious freedom in Sudan. Democrats have consistently ignored this issue, and many have even refused to work with groups seeking to end slavery. Yet Republicans in both the federal government and Republican groups have led the way on the issue in the U.S. As the political party that freed America's slaves and is at the forefront of opposing Sudan's practices, we Republicans will further work with the United Nations to eliminate this horror.

8. Personal reemployment grants for unemployed U.S. workers

President Bush proposes a pilot program to crease employment accounts of up to $3,000 grants to unemployed U.S. workers to pay for retraining, moving, and health care.

9. Tax-free lifetime savings accounts

Almost 50% of black Americans are middle class, and 76% live above the poverty line. We Republicans recognize blacks' $649.5 billion combined GDP and blacks' desire to channel their growing incomes into more wealth, through savings and investment. In building the ownership society, we Republicans support tax-free savings accounts so Americans of all backgrounds can use their money as they see fit without the current penalties that discourage savings.

10. Social Security privatization commission

This allows any American worker to invest monies in stocks or bonds. Social Security's return on investment is a meager 2%, the market 8%. Many blacks enter the workforce earlier and die sooner than other Americans. 1 in 3 black men doesn't live to age 65. Under privatization, his heirs can start a business, pay for college, or buy a home. 2/3 of blacks rely on Social Security for 2/3 of their retirement income, so more privatization means more financial security.

USA & Sudan: Not Moral Equivalents

2004-05-06T21:35:00.000-05:00

Apparently the U.N. believes that Sudan is morally superior to USA. On Tuesday, Sudan got a 3rd term on its Human Rights Commission. Meanwhile, USA -- a founding member of the commission -- was kicked out of the 53-member body in 2001 and then reinstated last year.

U.S. Ambassador Sichan Siv rightly called Tuesday's vote an "absurdity" and walked out on the charade. Specifically, he accused Sudan's Arab Muslim government of massive human rights violations and "ethnic cleansing" against blacks in the western Darfur region.

The Sudanese government has now responded. Osman Ismail, its Minister for Foreign Affairs, cried "hypocrisy." "The United States is one of the biggest human rights violators, whether in Iraq, or in other parts of the world," he said. "But still it assumes it is the number one protector of human rights. The United States should look first to what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they can talk about human rights in Sudan."

The Iraq situation is an outrage, and I staunchly support prosecuting offenders to the fullest extent of the law. Yet for there to not be world outrage at Sudan's ascension to the U.N. Human Rights Commission yet again is beyond absurd. For Sudan to lecture the U.S. about human rights issues is beyond absurd. Let's see...the U.S. is a constitutional republic. It has freedom of the press, freedom of religion, constant assessment of racial equality, and a human rights record that's lightyears ahead of Sudan. A U.S. soldier reported the Iraqi abuses, a U.S. television station broke the story, many Americans are outraged, there are investigations about it.

Meanwhile, Sudan is a theocratic totalitarian state with no freedoms. Its Arab Muslim government slaughters the black citizenry at will while the world yawns (who cares about "niggers," especially Christian ones? Besides, this issue doesn't serve the world's fave sport...anti-Americanism). Two million folks have been killed in Sudan since 1983, hundreds of thousands of refugees are on the run, slavery still exists and rapes are a regular occurrence in this 'Arabization and Islamization' campaign. When has Sudan ever taken initiative in addressing its abuses? Only knee-jerk anti-Americanism can trump foreigners' common sense in calling these two countries anywhere near moral equivalents.

Given that almost half of the U.N. Human Rights Commission are countries with massive human rights violations (e.g., Zimbabwe, Cuba, Egypt, China, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia) it's no surprise that they gave buddy Sudan a pass. Shouldn't there be a minimal standard of decency to get on the commission? When will the U.S. get aggressive about U.N. stupidity?

Welcome!

2004-05-06T21:28:00.000-05:00

Welcome to Crispus! This site will promote libertarian thought, infused with black American culture. The blog is named after Crispus Attucks, the former slave who was the first person to die in the American Revolution (Boston Massacre, 1770).

Attucks was born circa 1723 in Framingham, Massachusetts. At age 27, he ran away to Boston. On March 5, 1770, Attucks heard that a boy had been beaten by a British soldier with his gun. Attucks gathered 100 angry colonists and defied a group of British soldiers.

From the very beginning, black Americans have been key players in building up America not only as a nation, but as a beacon of freedom. Through both good and ugly times, blacks have been a key moral conscience to challenge America to live up to its creed. It is in this spirit that I dedicate my blog to Brother Crispus.