Cobb

I think the reason you might not see anything wrong with it is because you woke up a bit early.

Take a look at it again later in the evening.

The central argument (blacks shouldn't support one party unanimously) is on point. Damn near everything else is weak weak weak.

This was controversial? (Or are you having misgivings about the messenger?)

Well, I suppose to Maxine Waters and other so-called "black leaders" it was controversial (and I'm sure that she made a fuss...)

Sounds pretty on point to me too.

Here in the midwest we only hear Larry Elder 3-4 AM on WLS 890 from Chicago. Lucky I'm an insomniac.

Elder's 15 points are all on target, aren't they? They reflect some intellectual honesty about economics and what motivates people.

Horowitz does us a favor by promulgation.

I agree with lester on that piece of trash.

I went toe to toe over that trash with Horowitz online and when he substitute hosted for Michael Reagan.

From memory alone:

Delay and Army both had 90%+ of the votes from their districts. His comparison breaks down right there.

On the growth of the middle class, that's misapplication of stats. If there's 1 middle class person at point x. then 2 at point x+1, that's a 100% increase. At point x+2, to match that growth, you have to have 4. That kind of growth is easy when the numbers are small in the beginning. It's harder to maintain when the numbers get higher.

On Black employment, federal gov't employs 18%, not 24%. And even if 24%, so what? Since when is providing a stable income for family a crime? That's what that breaks down to right there.

Is it probably better if Blacks were represented in both parties? Yes. But Horowitz is still a lying putz.

Oh, and again I'll ask: why is there no disdain for Jewish people who vote 80-85% for Democrats? Then, Horowitz tried to say that percentage is not bad.

Yeah, right.

OK he's neither wrong nor convincing.

DarkStar - You gave me an idea to blog about yesterday; I think you may have given me another. I want to address your frequently-asked question about other voting blocs and why there's no outcry when Jews vote for Dems. Race is instrinsically different from someone's religion. Going after us "Christian Right" is no where near the same as going after me because I'm "colored." I'll have to articulate why in my post. Suffice it to say I find it extremely distateful to be viewed from a black lense.

By the way, Horowitz's article is on point, as is his other on 10 reasons why reparations are a bad idea, found on my blog.

On Horowitz, once again he's a putz.

The general idea of placing all political eggs in one basket is correct. You won't find people who disagree with that point in general. It's the details where people diverge.

Next, when Republicans avoid a group of people based on race, where's the outrage there? You can't argue 1/2 of the question. You have to address the entire part. Republicans have avoided 2 groups of voters: Blacks and homosexuals.

On Delay and Army, even Horowitz conceded it was valid.

My serious problem with Horowitz is that he may start of with an arguable premise, but then he destroys it by mistatement of facts, blatant lying, and on issues of race, flat out race baiting and race hustling.

On Tavis Smiley's BET show, Smiley asked Horowitz why he titled his book "Hating Whitey." Horowitz laughed and said it was to get attention to the book.

So the putz screams out against race baiting, then deliberately does it.

One time when he substitute hosted for Michael Reagan, he blasted Black voters. Then he had a segment with Shannon Reeves where he basically agreed with Reeves position, which is more in line with mine concerning GOP and Blacks. In short, it's against Horowitz's position. After that segment, Horowitz went back to blasting Black voters.

Anyone who heard the segments could tell that Horowitz was being logically inconsistant.

Race is instrinsically different from someone's religion. Going after us "Christian Right" is no where near the same as going after me because I'm "colored."

Ok. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

But I hope you will also address why it's okay to avoid the group based on race.

DarkStar says "...On Black employment, federal gov't employs 18%, not 24%. And even if 24%, so what? Since when is providing a stable income for family a crime? That's what that breaks down to right there..."

As a taxpayer I DEEPLY resent this. The role of the federal government is NOT to provide stable income (jobs) for ANY class of people, but to do those tasks enumerated in the Constitution AND NO MORE.

As a citizen I fart in your general direction. The role of the federal government is to be impervious to the fluctuations of the market and establish permanent functions for society. If it takes ten million federal employees to defend the constitution, control air traffic, inspect meat, regulate nuclear waste disposal, print currency, patrol borders then there are ten million permanent, non-outsourceable, red-blooded American jobs. Period. Your outrage as a taxpayer is a sneeze in my hurricane of patriotic duty.

If you don't like that blackfolks are overrepresented in those patriotic-type jobs, then you know what kind of response you get over here.

Cobb, if a particular blackfolk is best suited for a particular Constitutionally-mandated job, then he should absolutely have that job. No questions asked.

And I know a bunch of 'em in that category.

And if another black holds a position simply to "provide a stable income for family" without regard to productivity, constitutionality, or service to the common man, then the system's broke, and "patriotism" is a joke.

And I know a few in that category.

Get the point?

I get it and I refuse to concede it. A job is a job and families gotta eat. You are free to start your own private company and show the world how you can serve the common man for a lower price. Good luck.

Cobb, then you are as untrue to the principle of "Conservative" as the left is to "Liberal".
You seem unwilling or unable to debate Williams or Sowell or Hamblin or Elder except to obfuscative in code. You do NOT show any understanding of why the standard of living of the American Black is higher than in any other country on the planet.

A clue: I have a contract with my government; it's called the Constitution. I take it out and read it once in a while to observe if some newfangled program is authorized or not. I find most of the new stuff fails the test. I find a lot of the old stuff that failed the test many decades ago is both devisive and counterproductive today.

And when I ponder where we're going, I fear for the answer.

The standard of living for American blacks, as well as all other Americans is the highest in the world because of our open society and capitalism. The perfect analogy is because Bill Gates wants to drive his Porsche in the fast lane, all Americans get excellent freeways. The standards for our richest are shared. Where ever you can find $20 bottles of wine, it's easy to get a gallon of milk. This has nothing to do with government efficiency.

Blacks prosper because they step up to the plate and work and the pay is good.

I have no idea where you're going. I'm simply defending blacks choice of work in government jobs. Are you trying to undo Irish cops? Are you saying blacks are the cause of government inefficiency?

LaShawn, anytime you've got a group of people with an identity transmitted by biology through the mother, you've got a group that can be referred to as an ethnic group if not a race. Comparing Jewish voting patterns and black voting patterns then is quite appropriate.

Anytime you've got a group that bases its political behavior and attitudes on that group affiliation, you've got the conditions for "groupvote." Hence comparing the Christian Right to African Americans is perfectly appropriate as well.

Hororowitz can be tossed in the dustbin of history. Who'll remember him in 25 years? Any of his work? Later for him.

What do the children of government workers do? Do they turn around and work for the government? Or do they work for the private industry? Or do they create their own businesses?

This child of a government worker worked for private industry, worked for his own company, works for private industry, and is laying the foundation for working for his own company.

The government worker helped put food on the table, helped keep a roof over our head, and helped feed the family.

I will NEVER accept that a Black person working at an honest job, is less than noble.

So, I too, fart in your general direction.

"...Are you saying blacks are the cause of government inefficiency?.."

Of course not.

What I'm railing against is a government that all-too-often creates programs that are not Constitutional, staffs them with folks who feel insulated from any necessity to compete, and fails to remove the ones who do not serve the public interest. Whether such a workforce is 90% black or 90% white makes no difference; if they are merely showing up to collect a paycheck then it's a dole, and sets a miserable example for the family of the worker.

& DarkStar says "...I will NEVER accept that a Black person working at an honest job, is less than noble..."

No disagreement there. What I'm saying is that too often the government job is NOT honest, in that it's not a valid function of government, and/or not staffed in a competitive fashion, and/or not performance-evaluated it a meaningful way.

In that case the JOB should be eliminated, to give the worker (with a scare resource, his skills) a chance to better employ those skills.
(Econ 101, eh?)

BTW, I love talking with you guys. I get frustrated with the local codewords and syntax, but that's all part of my learning-in-retirement program, I guess.

DarkStar, you said: "... when Republicans avoid a group of people based on race, where's the outrage there? ..."

If you're referring to Dubya skipping over NAACP to visit Urban League, you're not paying attention. He had no reason to endure the toxic ecosphere of JJ and Mfume and that fringe. They wouldn't listen anyway. Urban League was the best place to carry on a dialogue.

I'm not a Bush-KoolAid sipper, but I give him credit for this decision.

Where there's a will, there's often enough a way. Bush could have invited Mfume and the gang up to the White House for a big-ass "heart-to-heart" if he wanted to. Hash shit out, then do a press conference afterward about how they had an honest and "frank" discussion about "the issues." That inital talk may not have resulted in any concrete action (actually, that's almost guaranteed, innit), but it would have broken a logjam and a real, live, honest to goodness process could have begun.

Horowitz' last line in his article is most prophetic. When they miss opportunity after opportunity, it really does reinforce opinion that they don't really give a shit one way or the other, except where useful as a poke to help push their own agenda.

small notes:

* I'd be curious to know what the real numbers are re the standard of living of american blacks vs. canadian blacks.

* if there are disproportionate numbers (wrt % of population) of blacks applying for gubmint jobs, then it should, by god, result in a disproportionate number of black employees. frig, man, a good job is a good job. i'd rather 99% employed by government (and a 1% unemployment rate) and us whining about some weird gubmint stigma than how things are now.

* the only thing blacks and the "asian community" (like, whatever that means) have in common is that they're both visible minorities. we have completely different cultures, histories and prospects. it's a ridiculous comparison. it's like comparing vanilla icecream and standard office paper because they're both white.

* too much farting in here.

BIG notes:

1. "Honest and frank"? With JJ and Mfume? LMAO!
The further Dubya (or any pol) stays from these pretenders the better off he is.

For one thing, Bush can't rhyme like Bro Jesse.

2. NAACP's mere existance depends on a logjam. There will never be a real or virtual "breaking the logjam" with these power-hungry guys.

If you're referring to Dubya skipping over NAACP to visit Urban League

Good lord man, no!

When BET had a Sunday talking head show, they asked Republicans to appear on the show. 99% of the time they refused. That's an example.

Ellen Sauerbry was running for gov. in Maryland. A Black group asked her to address their group. She agreed at first. Her campaign manager then said if she appeared, she would anger her base. She then told the group she wouldn't speak to them.

That's actively avoiding Blacks.

The further Dubya (or any pol) stays from these pretenders the better off he is.

WTF!?

Geez louise, you guys is makin me spit. You're either FOR the Republicans making inroads into Black mindshare or you're not. GW and the gang have to create and take opportunities to make connections. To at least appear to want to make a case. Like, in person, getting their bloody hands dirty.

Whether you admit it or not, the NAACP (and others) is still a champion in the minds of many. What they say goes. If you claim you want to get more Blacks voting Republican this is an obvious way to start.

That they ignore it, time after time, is telling to me.

"...Whether you admit it or not, the NAACP (and others) is still a champion in the minds of many. What they say goes. If you claim you want to get more Blacks voting Republican this is an obvious way to start..."

As long as NAACP keeps Rev Jesse and Big Al and Mfume in their - ahem - leadership ranks, their credibility will continue to deteriorate; and as more True Believers begin to doubt that leadership, they will start looking for real leaders as in "Say, why are we so better off than our cousins in Nigeria or Liberia or Togo? How do we keep this engine going?"

I'm looking 20 years down the road.