Archive for Liberal Ignorance

He’s a Two-Time Loser!

The food stamp president is also the homeless president!

The number of homeless children in the United States has surged in recent years to an all-time high, amounting to one child in every 30, according to a comprehensive state-by-state report that blames the nation’s high poverty rate, the lack of affordable housing and the effects of pervasive domestic violence.

Titled “America’s Youngest Outcasts,” the report being issued Monday by the National Center on Family Homelessness calculates that nearly 2.5 million American children were homeless at some point in 2013. The number is based on the Education Department’s latest count of 1.3 million homeless children in public schools, supplemented by estimates of homeless preschool children not counted by the agency.

The problem is particularly severe in California, which has about one-eighth of the U.S. population but accounts for more than one-fifth of the homeless children, totaling nearly 527,000.

Follow my line of thinking: California has lots of illegal aliens; California has lots of homeless children; Obama wants to let in (has already let in) thousands more illegal (hence homeless) children.

I can never remember—is he Dumb or Dumber?

But there is good news!

After soaring in the years since the recession, use of food stamps, one of the federal government’s biggest social-welfare programs, is beginning to decline.

There were 46.2 million Americans on food stamps in May, the latest data available, down 1.6 million from a record 47.8 million in December 2012. Some 14.8% of the U.S. population is on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, down from 15.3% last August, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show.

Okay, it’s not that good:

Food-stamp use remains high, historically speaking. The share of Americans on the benefit—which lets them buy basics like cereal and meat and treats like cookies, but not tobacco, alcohol or pet food—is above the 8% to 11% that prevailed before the financial crisis.

Back to the homeless kids:

Child homelessness increased by 8 percent nationally from 2012 to 2013, according to the report, which warned of potentially devastating effects on children’s educational, emotional and social development, as well as on their parents’ health, employment prospects and parenting abilities.

That was during years three and four of the “recovery”. And after nearly a trillion dollars in “stimulus”. Almost six years of Obamanomics, fifty years of the so-called Great Society—anybody want to try something different? Maybe Reaganomics? Again? Or do you want to double-down on Elizabeth Warren?

The only downside of the burgeoning reporting (better late than never) of Obama’s corruption is that it overshadows the reporting (or lack thereof) of his incompetence.

Comments

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

So, now that all hell has broken loose with Jonathan Gruber’s disgraceful, arrogant, elitist remarks about how ObamaCare was passed as the Law of the Land only by way of lies, obfuscations, and evasions…sorry, what did you say?

All hell hasn’t broken loose? The mainstream media are not touching it?

Not CNN? Nope.

The New York Times? Nope.

NPR? Nope.

USA Today? Nope.

NBC, CBS, ABC? Nope, nope, and nope.

You’ve all seen and heard the remarks. Not only did he call the American people a bunch of dopes, he called ObamaCare supporters a bunch of dopes. They bought it; the rest of us knew they were lying. We all said so at the time. (How dumb must Chief Justice Roberts feel right now? Not half as dumb as he should feel.)

It even turns out that Gruber made a habit out of bragging how smart he was, and how dumb we were.

And not one word in the “respectable” media. (To its immense credit, the Washington Post has plenty.)

I do try to keep hyperbole to a minimum (oxymoronic as that may sound), or at least tongue in cheek, but I do not inhabit the same world as my neighbors anymore. I may not be smarter (or dumber), but I know things they can’t even imagine. The most terrifying of which is that the institution of the press is as corrupt as any medieval pope or Roman emperor (or Massachusetts Speaker of the House). We are just as dumb as they want us—I never said Gruber was wrong.

PS: Gruber did appear on local PBS with liberal lioness, Emily Rooney. You won’t last past the sickening question, trust me, so it won’t take long.

Comments (1)

Ebola Follies

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind: [A few additional thoughts to Aggie's similar post below]

A second Texas nurse who has contracted Ebola flew on a commercial flight from Ohio to Dallas with a slight temperature the day before she was diagnosed, health officials said on Wednesday, raising new concerns about U.S. efforts to control the disease.

Chances that other passengers on the plane were infected were very low, but the nurse should not have been traveling on the flight, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Thomas Frieden told reporters.

The woman, Amber Vinson, 29, was isolated immediately after reporting a fever on Tuesday, Texas Department of State Health Services officials said. She had treated Liberian patient Thomas Eric Duncan, who died of Ebola and was the first patient diagnosed with the virus in the United States.

As Aggie reported earlier, Obama canceled a fundraising junket so as to appear to be involved (if not interested) in the effort to stave of an epidemic. No wonder stocks tanked (see below). If he cancels golf this weekend, move to New Zealand as soon as you can.

Frieden said Vinson had been monitoring herself for symptoms of Ebola and failed to report that her temperature had risen to 99.5 degrees before she departed for Dallas. Even so, Frieden said the risk to other passengers was “very low” because she did not vomit on the flight and was not bleeding.

He added that authorities had identified three people who had direct contact with her before she was isolated.

Dr. Mary DiOrio, interim chief of the Ohio Department of Health’s Division of Prevention and Health Promotion, told reporters Vinson visited family in Akron from Oct. 8 to Oct. 13 before she flew to Dallas on Frontier.

Lovely young woman, I’m sure. Doing God’s work. Of course she should not have taken the flight; of course she should have reported herself a week ago. But she did, and she didn’t. People do s**t like that all the time, sometimes with consequences, sometimes without.

I just love (as in hate) the fact that the CDC declares that an American citizen should not have taken a flight, yet recoils in horror at the suggestion that Liberian nationals from a Hot Zone be denied entry. We are so [bleeped]. Hello, Auckland!

Comments (1)

Hating on the Handicapped

What is it with Democrats and the disabled?

Wendy Davis is almost certainly not going to be the next governor of Texas. Apparently, though, she’s willing to try just about anything to alter that reality.

“A tree fell on Greg Abbott,” the narrator says. “He sued and got millions. Since then, he’s spent his career working against other victims.”

This ad is the sort of highly risky gambit you only see from a long-shot campaign. And, as often as not, these sorts of “Hail Marys” fail miserably.

I checked. Abbott is leading by at least 10 points in the polls. Ms. Davis is a fetching woman, with shapely legs that look nice in pink sneakers. Her footwear and and her abortion are chief claims to fame. Or infamy. Now we can add this.

You remember the other occasion a Democrat screwed up over a person in a wheelchair:

Never gets old.

At least Biden meant no harm. Unlike…well, you just have to see:

You’re one to talk:

What do you expect from the modern progressive? They even celebrate the death of a person in a wheelchair at the hands of Arab terrorists.

Comments (1)

Random Hatreds

While preparing my royal cup of coffee and preparing the Bloodthirsty Puppy’s breakfast of quail and squab, I heard a story on the local NPR station about Scott Brown’s race against Jeanne Shaheen. Women will be key to Shaheen’s reelection, we were told, something Brown has to work against if he is to win.

“He doesn’t have a uterus. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” one woman said. I stopped in mid kibble-scoop. Doesn’t that strike you as somewhat icky? If it doesn’t, what if I dismissed Shaheen as useless without a prostate?

What if I dismissed Jesse Jackson simply because he has black skin? That would be icky.

So why isn’t this?

In man-on-the-street interviews aired Monday night, not a single L.A. resident was able to say who Biden was. But they had some interesting ideas.

“A terrorist?” one man postulated, with another asking if he was “a movie star” and another claiming he’s a “Republican who’s going to be president soon, I’m assuming.”

Shown a picture of Biden, the African-American man was asked if he thought the vice president was a friend of Obama. “No,” he said. “He looks like he’d probably oppose things Obama’s doing.”

“How come?” the interviewer asked. ”I’m basically going off skin color right now, to be honest with you,” the man replied.

Biden doesn’t have a uterus, either. He’s a two-time loser. It’s okay, Joe, so am I.

The Shaheen supporter and the random black man were hardly embarrassed to spew their prejudices. Men, especially white men, are dismissed as irrelevant haters. But who’s doing the hating?

Comments (1)

Girls Gone Defiled

The debate over abortion is complicated by two undeniable rights: the right to life and the right of a woman to control her own body.

We right-to-lifers (well, this right-to-lifer anyway) weigh the arguments, and come down on the side of the feminists who demand that abortion be safe, legal, and rare. Abortion will continue, but with restrictions. That seems to us (me) the only solution that honors both rights (or dishonors them equally). Does the right-to-terminate crowd make the same intellectual efforts at compromise of the uncompromisable?

You tell me:

If you would like to be filled with despair for the prospects of democracy, spend a few minutes attempting to decipher the psephological musings of Lena Dunham, the distinctly unappealing actress commissioned by Planned Parenthood to share with her presumably illiterate following “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should, Too).” That’s 21st-century U.S. politics in miniature: a half-assed listicle penned by a half-bright celebrity and published by a gang of abortion profiteers.

You think that’s strong? Grab your Ray-Bans (with UVA and UVB protection):

A people mature enough to manage the relationship between procreative input and procreative output without recourse to the surgical dismemberment of living human organisms probably would not find much of interest in the work of Miss Dunham. But we are a nation of adult children so horrified by the prospect of actual children that we put one in five of them to death for such excellent reasons as the desire to fit nicely into a prom dress.

It’s not for nothing that, on the precipice of 30, Miss Dunham is famous for a television series called Girls rather than one called Women. She might have gone one better and called it Thumbsuckers. (The more appropriate title Diapers would terrify her demographic.)

I’m of a generation that went to college with women. If you referred to an 18 year-old coed as a girl, and you had your balls scorched with a blow torch. (Refer to her as a coed and you got away with a warning kick in said scrotum.) One learned to adjust, and those lessons stayed with one for a lifetime.

Have I lived too long?

Miss Dunham and likeminded celebrities think of voting in terms of their sex lives. Miss Dunham, in an earlier endorsement of Barack Obama, compared voting in the presidential election to losing one’s virginity — you want it to be someone special.

“I wore fishnets and a little black dress to vote,” she writes, “then walked around with a spring in my slinky step. It lasted for days. I can summon it when I’m blue. It’s more effective than exercise or ecstasy or cheesecake.” And that of course is the highest purpose of our ancient constitutional order: to provide adult children with pleasures exceeding those of cheesecake or empathogenic phenethylamines.

Miss Dunham’s “all about me!” attitude toward the process of voting inevitably extends to the content of what she votes for, which is, in her telling, mostly about her sex life. Hammering down hard on the Caps Lock key, she writes: “The crazy and depressing truth is that there are people running for office right now who could actually affect your life. PARTICULARLY your sex life. PARTICULARLY if you’re a woman. Yup.”

Yup? Nope.

Those of us who have been working against various mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act are as a matter of fact attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in Lena Dunham’s sex life, the details of which we would gratefully leave to her own idiosyncratic management. It is the so-called Affordable Care Act that has involved us in subsidizing birth control, abortifacients, surgical abortions, and who knows what else, for the strong, powerful, self-actualized American woman who cannot figure out how to walk into Walgreens, lay down the price of a latte, and walk out with her own birth-control pills, no federal intervention necessary. The very conservative editors of this magazine are in fact trying to make it easier for them to do so with over-the-counter birth control. I suspect that Miss Dunham does not know very many conservatives, so allow me to pass along the message: We really, truly, sincerely do not wish to be involved in your sex life.

Are you listening Sandra Fluke? (Very doubtful.)

I followed my feminist instructions in no small part because I wanted to get into their feminist pants. As some of my much-desired prey would be grandmothers by now, I am more inclined to be swayed by if not Ms. Dunham, at least some of her castmates:

Yet I am not. Juvenile behavior is never sexy, no matter how “easy” it may be.

Comments (1)

Who Wants to Play “Islam/Not Islam”?

President Obama assures us that ISIS (which he pronounces ISIL in his “Negro dialect”) is “not Islamic”.

I always thought Islam was like pornography. No, not that way! Heavens, not, not in the…pornographic sense. Rather as in you know it when you see it. But if Obama is to be believed (I think I see your problem, BTL), if Obama is to be believed, Islam is not always in the eye of the beholder. ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), sometimes ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), or just IS (Islamic State), is not Islamic. Not no way, not no how. So what else is not Islamic?

Ready to play?

Boko Haram (“Western education blows chunks”): Islam/Not Islam?

Not Islam, very good! Where are their turbans and robes? Besides, what Muslim would take an underage girl as his bride? (Don’t answer that.)

Hezbollah (Party of Allah), not to be confused with Ebola: Islam/Not Islam?

Not Islam again! Say, you’re good. Despite the name, the Party of God is no party at all. Party-poopers of God is closer to the mark. No Fun Boring Sourpuss Drags of God would be closer still, but unwieldy as a name. So when you hear Party of Allah, think instead Party of ethno-religious hatred and genocide.

Al-Shabaab, or Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (Punk-Ass Bitches): Islam/Not Islam?

Nope, still Not Islam. These wet behind the ears jihadists wouldn’t know Islam if it strapped on an explosive vest and blew up their crosstown bus. They’re just full of youthful exuberance, blowing off steam. And rockets, grenades, and mortars.

Hamass, an acronym for Harakat al-Muqwamah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Bowel—sorry, Resistance Movement): Islam/Not Islam?

Is that your final answer? Cause it’s not—Islam, that is. Hamass is like the Elks or the Lions, a fraternal order of civic leaders, mad men, and psychopaths. But not a single holy man among them. Not one.

I’m afraid that’s all we have time for today. Thanks for playing. Comeback next time when we ask: are the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army, al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, Ansar al-Islam, Armed Islamic Group of Algeria, and the Army of Islam (just to pick from the As) Islam/Not Islam?

Study hard!

Comments

Low-Hanging Fruitcake

Picking on Chris Matthews is like bullying a special needs student: reprehensible and condemnable.

Forgive me:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It was a great speech. I thought it was a case in which the president of the United States didn’t just speak at the U.N. but to the U.N. He was talking to the members of the U.N. Some was good politics making the connection with his grandmother coming from 100 miles away from Nairobi.

Is that the “white grandmother” or the other one? Anyway, Matthews loves every Obama speech, including “gimme a bacon cheeseburger with gravy fries.”

He went after Israel, too. There was a little punch in the nose of Netanyahu saying the status quo is not sustainable. Everybody knows Netanyahu’s game is to play for tie. Pushing off, coming up with excuses, demanding the Arabs declare Israel the Jewish state. Every technique to avoid a two-state solution. And he said there has to be a two-state solution.

Did he just blame Israel? After Hamass’s war crimes this summer, he just blamed Israel? The nerve of that Bibi demanding Arabs acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state. What a tool. (Matthews, not Netanyahu.)

We’re a better country than we were ten years ago. I wish more people would think about that.

We are? How? I can’t think of a single way. The debt’s massively bigger, the economy incomparably worse, race relations in the toilet, Islamofascism on the march, and Matthews own network, MSNBC, trailing every network but the Macrame Channel in the ratings.

You think about these guys sitting around all day planning revolution and killing people and cutting their heads off.

What are they doing for the world? I thought it was a pretty strong statement. I think most people in the world today really want to be educated.

Why do they want to be suicide bombers? What a hopeless career move. To be blunt about it. I’m going to kill myself.

You ask that now, Chris? Did you eat paint chips as a child? “Coming up next on Hardball, Pet Rocks: fad or forever?” What a complete nincompoop.

And he still wasn’t done:

MATTHEWS: Unfortunately, there’s a parallel with the african-american kid in north Philly situation. You grow up in a situation where there no more blue collar the only deal being offered to you is the drug dealer. We have our problems.

We do, Chris, but the African-American kids in North Philly (or Chicago, or Detroit, or LA, etc.) are homicide killers. And too often (as in almost always), they’re victims are other African-American kids. Another trait that makes us not better than we were ten years ago.

So, sorry for hazing the harebrained host of Hardball. I’ll do some community service to make up for it.

Comments (1)

Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach laments his dissolving friendship with Naomi Wolf:

This Thursday, September 11, Naomi Wolf and I will be debating the question, “Is Israel guilty of genocide in its war against Hamas?” at the Manhattan Jewish Experience on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Naomi is a friend of mine. We both have history at Oxford. She earned her degree as a Rhodes scholar and I served as rabbi to the students for 11 years. Naomi reached out to me for a book she was writing and having been a fan of her work I greatly enjoyed making her acquaintance. She subsequently attended Shabbat dinner with my family. Naomi’s books have raised important issues, particularly in the realm of women’s rights and social justice, which is why I was shocked when I learned that Naomi was involved in a blood libel against the State of Israel with false and shocking allegations of a Palestinian genocide.

I, in turn, responded that in all her condemnations of Israel Naomi manages to virtually omit all mention of the brutal attacks and true genocidal ambitions that Hamas has toward the Jewish state and the Jews. Naomi in an interview later said that she never meant by her words that the Jews didn’t need a Jewish state. I challenged her to a public debate and she graciously accepted.

We’re all free to choose our own friends, but let’s brief the good rabbi on the Rhodes Scholar with whom he broke bread.

Most recently, Ms. Wolf publicly sided with that pestilence known as Occupy Wall Street:

Oops! Wrong movement, wrong picture.

Could they be more smug? Wolf has speculated that the long overdue crackdown on the Occupy movement was a government conspiracy, and on this I think she’s right: a conspiracy of the government to do its job and uphold law and order. The Occupy camps were incubators of disease, crime, filth. Never mind their symbolism (empty and bogus to my way of thinking), their dismantling and sterilization was way, way, way past time.

Wolf also once described Al Gore as an alpha male, but I think this is a misunderstanding: he’d ballooned up to the size of Alpha Centauri was her point (as has she, it might be noted, as have many of us).

I’ll leave aside her feminist views. I am generally favorable toward feminism in the abstract, less so toward today’s feminists and its modern practice. Too often the only issue is abortion, which we have repeatedly shown is harmful to women and minorities.

No, if Rabbi Boteach is not familiar with Naomi Wolf’s politics, we’ll leave him one more example, which should clear up the matter:

In The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation-state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
Create secret prisons where torture takes place
Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens
Set up an internal surveillance system
Harass citizens’ groups
Engage in arbitrary detention and release
Target key individuals
Control the press
Treat all political dissidents as traitors
Suspend the rule of law

The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application of all the 10 steps in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks.

Right practices, wrong presidential administration. Let’s take a look:

Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: The Tea Party.

Create secret prisons where torture takes place: Every day Gitmo stays open is a betrayal of his promise to close it.

Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens: The IRS.

Set up an internal surveillance system: The NSA.

Harass citizens’ groups: The IRS and the FEC.

Engage in arbitrary detention and release: The FBI’s treatment of James Rosen.

Target key individuals: See most of above.

Control the press: When not with the press’ own complicity, by stealth and by force.

Treat all political dissidents as traitors: See IRS above.

Suspend the rule of law: Making and amending law without Congress.

Hope this helps, Shmuley. Wolf’s adoption of Hamass is part of a pattern, not an aberration.

Comments

Another One-Sided Conversation on Race

In lieu of an actual conversation on race—you know, a dialogue—sometimes, I just start talking.

There are so many misconceptions on race, it seems to me, particularly on the harm done to black people by black people. We spend so much time huffing and puffing about Michael Brow and Trayvon Martin (both of whom were willing collaborators in their own deaths, we now know), we forget the thousands of black people executed in cold blood by other black people. It’s practically sui-genocide (or geno-suicide). The facts don’t lie.

But facts don’t tell a story, pictures do:

If you’ve been reading us for any length of time, you know my heartache over Hadiya Pendleton, a beautiful, promising young woman from Chicago who got caught in the crossfire of a drive-by shooting in Chicago. She had just returned to that “killing field” of black people after performing at President Obama’s second inauguration (a symbolism too painful for me to explore). But Hadiya is just one face among thousands of the victims in the War on Blacks By Blacks. Some (many) don’t even have faces. Yet.

Abortion in the black community is at an epidemic:

“Black women in New York City aborted more than half of their pregnancies in 2012, topping the number of abortions recorded by women of every other racial or ethnic group in the city.” The report revealed that more than any other ethnic group in NYC, black women were the leading abortion patients and also had the highest pregnancy and miscarriage rates.

[A]according to the 2010 census data, blacks made up 12.6% of the population. And, as Abort73.com broke down:

In 2009, a total of 286,623 blacks died in the U.S.14 That same year, an estimated 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States.15 If 35.4% were performed on black women, that means almost twice as many blacks were killed by abortion as by all other causes.

This being the 50th anniversary of various civil rights and Great Society acts and programs, it is a time for reflection on those movements too. Regular readers here will know (because I mention it all the time) that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act passed not only with Republican support, but that Republicans out-supported racist, segregationist Democrats.

But this is something I did not know, and I bet you didn’t either:

According to economist Walter Williams, “[f]rom 1900 to 1954, blacks were more active than whites in the labor market. Until about 1960, black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites … As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites; today it’s about 30 percent longer.” According to economist Thomas Sowell, “[t]he poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs … In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959.”

[B]lack economic progress was advancing steadily during the first half of the twentieth century, but proceeded to flat-line in the 1960s and 70s.

What happened, then? Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1960s-era big government happened. Welfare laws were constructed that didn’t view black men and women as human beings in the image of God, but as useless children and at best tools for political gain.

Okay, maybe I could have cut that last sentence, which is more editorialization than fact. Or is it?

Untitled

Laws like the Davis Bacon Act, which barred federal contracts from paying less than union wages, pushed black men out of federally funded or -financed construction jobs at the behest of white unions; segregated public housing pushed blacks into inner-city ghettos where poverty was concentrated and its impact worsened; government handouts punished those who tried to work; and, most evil of all, men who had limited employment prospects were offered a way to feed their families via the federal government—as long as they packed up and left.

A century of Jim Crow made America almost uniquely shameful—more so than slavery itself (which was once commonplace across the world—apartheid much less so). It’s abolishment was long overdue, and required “by any means necessary”. But fifty years is more than enough time to admit they made mistakes—that there are things to fix that don’t go back to the status quo ante. It may be too late for this generation of young black men (and women, and their babies), just as it is too late for the two generations before them. But can we offer real Hope for genuine Change for any children they see to term?

PS: Not if Obama has anything to do with it. Granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens will open the floodgates and inundate the job market. If it was a goal to put black people back to work they were before Liberalism ruined their lives, Liberalism will have dashed that hope once and for all.

Comments (1)

Out of Town

I’ve been waiting to address the ado in Ferguson, MO until I can figure out what the hell happened and is continuing to happen. I’m going to keep waiting.

But as for what happened to America’s great cities, and the black people who live therein, I have something to say:

The Reverend Jesse Jackson is, to the surprise of all thinking people, right about something: “A spark has exploded,” he said, referring to the protests and violence in Ferguson, Mo. “When you look at what sparked riots in the Sixties, it has always been some combination of poverty, which was the fuel, and then some oppressive police tactic. It was the same in Newark, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Los Angeles. It’s symptomatic of a national crisis of urban abandonment and repression, seen in Chicago.”

A question for the Reverend Jackson: Who has been running the show in Newark, in Chicago, in Detroit, and in Los Angeles for a great long while now? The answer is: People who see the world in much the same way as does the Reverend Jackson, who take the same view of government, who support the same policies, and who suffer from the same biases.

This is not intended to be a cheap partisan shot. The Democratic party institutionally certainly has its defects, the chronicle of which could fill several unreadable volumes, but the more important and more fundamental question here is one of philosophy and policy. Newark, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles — and Philadelphia, Cleveland, and a dozen or more other cities — have a great deal in common: They are the places in which the progressive vision of government has reached its fullest expressions. They are the hopeless reality that results from wishful thinking.

Bingo. And to repeat: “This is not intended to be a cheap partisan shot.” I used to be a Democrat, a progressive, if you will. But I grew out of it. I realized, as Kevin D. Williamson puts it, that my “wishful thinking” had no bearing on the “hopeless reality”. I came to accept the wisdom and certainty in Margaret Thatcher’s observation that “the facts of life are conservative”.

But the facts of our cities were anything but:

For years, our major cities were undermined by a confluence of four unhappy factors: 1. higher taxes; 2. defective schools; 3. crime; 4. declining economic opportunity. Together, these weighed much more heavily upon the middle class than upon the very wealthy and the very poor. In the case of Philadelphia, the five counties in the metropolitan area have had a mostly stable population, but the city itself lost more than a quarter of its population between 1950 and 2000 as some 550,000 people fled to the suburbs or beyond. How many people matters, but which people matters, too: They were the ones with the means and the strongest incentive to relocate. Over the same period of time, Chicago lost a fifth of its population, Baltimore nearly a third. Philadelphia is one of the few U.S. cities to impose a municipal income tax (one of the taxes Mayor Rizzo raised), creating very strong incentives to move across the line into Delaware County or Bucks County. This is sometimes known as “white flight,” but that is a misnomer: In Detroit, the white middle class got out as quickly as it could — and the black middle class was hot on its heels. Upwardly mobile people and those who expect to be — i.e., those with an investment in the future — care a great deal about schools, economic opportunity, and safety. And they know where the city limits are.

The more progressive the city, the worse a place it is to be poor and/or black. The most pronounced economic inequality in the United States is not in some Republican redoubt in Texas but in San Francisco, an extraordinarily expensive city in which half of all black households make do with less than $25,000 a year. Blacks in San Francisco are arrested on drug felonies at ten times their share of the general population. At 6 percent of the population, they represent 40 percent of those arrested for homicides. Whether you believe that that is the result of a racially biased criminal-justice system or the result of higher crime incidence related to socioeconomic conditions within black communities (or some combination of those factors) what is undeniable is that results for black Americans are far worse in our most progressive, Democrat-dominated cities than they are elsewhere. The progressives have had the run of things for a generation in these cities, and the results are precisely what you see.

So, if you want fewer Fergusons, you know what you have to do:

Our cities need economic growth and opportunity, functional education systems, and physical security. And where have our few urban success stories come from? We saw a dramatic turnabout in crime and public disorder in New York under Republican Rudy Giuliani, and we’ve seen periods of relatively good governance in two-party cities such as San Diego. At the moment, our most prosperous cities are those such as Houston, cities that are themselves Democrat-dominated but embedded in heavily Republican metropolitan areas or states, and which govern in a way that is much friendlier to enterprise and middle-class interests than is the style that has long predominated in places such as Philadelphia or Detroit.

Houston or Detroit? Your call.

PS: In 1950, Detroit was the fifth largest US city, at about 1,850,000; Houston was 14th, at less than a third the size, 596,000. Today, their places are reversed: Houston is 4th at almost 2.2 million, while Detroit is 18th at barely 700,000. Just sayin’.

Comments

[Bleep] Liberals Say

Aggie wrote this comment to a post below:

Yesterday, one of the low information crowd told me, quite seriously, that the Tea Party was an outgrowth of Occupy Wall Street. Can you believe that?

I can, Aggie, because I hear [bleep] like that all the time. It’s time to start a column of it.

Yesterday:

I was killing time in Cambridge and overheard two students at a language school waiting for their class to start. One was local, and worked in web design for politics. The other was from out of town, but noted that Massachusetts was a pretty blue state, that the politics must be left wing. The local one assured him that was so, and added “I hate Republicans.” The second one responded “I can’t imagine a Republican learning Portuguese.” They continued in like-minded palaver until their class started.

Why would a Republican not take Portuguese? Why would a Democrat? Is there a hidden logic to that statement? People learn Portuguese only to hit on hot Brazilian chicks. Can’t Republicans fantasize about Shakira?

But it was the “I hate Republicans” line that I really should address.

Now, we all use “love” and “hate” liberally (pardon the pun): We “love” pickles, but “hate” relish; love Sandra Bullock, hate Maggie Gyll…Gylen…you know the one I mean. The one everyone hates.

But “hate” Republicans? How many does this person know? There aren’t that many of us around here—which is why she felt so free to speak of us that way. What are the odds, as the other person observed, that one would be loitering outside a Portuguese language class? Or loitering anywhere other than near a Catholic girls’ school or a highway rest stop? It’s a safe hatred, a comfortable hatred, a without-fear-of-contradiction hatred. Aren’t those the most dangerous kind?

The Governor is a Democrat. The Mayor (of Boston) is a Democrat. Both Senators are Democrats, as are all nine Congressmen (it used to be ten until we mercifully lost one to redistricting). There are only four Republicans in the 40-member State Senate, and 30 out of 160 members of the State House. Shouldn’t Republicans in Massachusetts be pitied rather than hated?

Except for the threat (and reality) of violence, Republicans in liberal strongholds are like blacks in the Jim Crow South. Despised, resented, under-(or un-)represented, misrepresented—if our politics were as readily apparent as the dark skin of African Americans, we would only have more such stories to tell, not fewer. But probably not the threat (or reality) of violence.

Move over, “It’s Unexpected!”™ and Dispatches From the Front Lines of Socialized Medicine, we have a new standing headline, [Bleep] Liberals Say.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »