Nov

30

2004

Game Over

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | Comments Off

When you are the coach of a fabled collegiate football team, the coach of a pioneering profesional football team, or the head of a civil rights group; performance counts.

In all of these cases it is about wins and loses. For the sports teams it is measured in how the team does on the field of play. For the head of the NCAAP, it is measured in the elections. If you don’t turn out the black vote for the Democratic candidate, (and especially if the trend is that the Democrats are losing the black vote in the long run), then you have a choice, quit or be fired.

Either way you wish to interpret the end of Mfume’s reign, he is gone, and the NCAAP will be manuvering to find an able replacement who can resurrect the good old days when Democrats could count on the Black community to vote in lockstep. Those days may be gone forever, as it is abundantly clear that Republicans, lead by President Bush, are the ones recognizing the talented, and promoting the capable, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Perhaps someone at the NCAAP will be visionary and the organization will realize that a man like Bill Cosby has more understanding of the details that make advancement happen, than do those who continue to repeat the old rants proclaiming victimization. However, I am not holding my breath until they replace Mfume with a reasoned, forward-looking, individual with an understanding (and the resolve), to point out where people are failing to take the responsibilities, and where they are failing to make choices, which will positively impact their futures. After all, said the cynical middle-aged man, where is the profit in actually helping people?

Nov

29

2004

Nice guys finish last

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

Remember the first blush response from the Democrats back on November 3rd? “Kerry didn’t fight back and play dirty like the Republicans do.”

Tell that to Steve Gardner.

Nov

29

2004

Fame – in Boston, at least

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | Comments Off

Just before the holiday, we were happy to learn that The Black Republican was featured in a segment of Pundit Review Radio back on November 20. The radio bloggers said how much they liked our blog and read the post We are all Black Republicans now. You can hear the show through an Audioblog link at Pundit Review.

Everyone here at TBR would like to thank Kevin & Gregg for the kind words and support. It means a lot to me personally that my work is well-regarded in a city renowned for spotting talent. (Sorry, guys – it’s just too easy. And you have this to console you now anyway.)

Nov

28

2004

This hallowed ground

Filed Under History | Comments Off

For everyone who is a history fan, especially of the Civil War, here is some welcome news.

Nov

28

2004

What they say about Great Minds

Filed Under History, Politics | Comments Off

Todd S. Purdum appears to have an eye for history, and knows where to go to put that history into perspective. In The New York Times, he compares periods of one-party rule in Washington, trying to divine what might come of the current majority.

What I found most interesting were some quotes from a noted and influential historian – who happens to have been a major political figure in his own right.

But history also suggests a perilous twist on an adage as old as Athens: Whom the Gods would destroy they first give control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. With responsibility for all of government comes accountability for all of government, and the picture is not always pretty.

“There are three pretty obvious patterns,” said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who should know. “There are majorities which are motivated to do very large things, which resonate with the country – the Homestead Act, land-grant colleges, all of the Progressive reforms, the rise of the New Deal. The other possibility is that you get a majority that doesn’t do much bad and doesn’t do much good, like lots of state legislatures.

“And third, you can have majorities that get out of touch and either become corrupt or get arrogant and isolated, the way the Democrats after the 1992 election clearly didn’t understand the country and threw away their majority.”

Later on, Gingrich seems to be agreeing with another American historian and watcher of things political – albeit slightly less famous.
Certainly, there have been early signs of elephantine hubris, chief among them the House majority’s willingness to rewrite its own ethics rules for the sole purpose of assuring that its majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, would not have to step down should he be indicted as a result of any of the inquiries now swirling around him. Only a dominant party would dare do a thing like that. It was the Republicans themselves, after all, who instituted the rule that indicted members could not serve as leaders. They did so a decade ago after supplanting the long-ruling Democrats, whom they derided as ethically sloppy.

“It was a mistake, because it was a public statement that the party would change the rules to benefit one individual,” Mr. Gingrich said of the DeLay decision. “That’s a mistake, period. Are the rules subordinate to the interests of the powerful, or are the powerful subordinate to the interests of the rules? In a free society, the rules govern.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself. But at least I tried.

Nov

27

2004

Vive la Revolution

Filed Under History | Comments Off

The Economist has an insightful look into the death of the network news and the rise of the blogosphere with Dropping the Anchorman. Here’s one place where they seem to see the deeper story, and don’t just deliver platitudes to the emergence of New Media.

For most of the post-war era the American media were dominated by a comfortable liberal consensus. The New York Times was the undisputed king of the print news, while the network anchors lorded it over TV news. That consensus is now under siege. The attacks are partly coming from the cable networks?particularly from conservative Fox News. (Charles Krauthammer once quipped that Rupert Murdoch had spotted a niche market?half the country. Sure enough, Fox is now America’s top-rated cable news network.) But old media also face a newer and more unpredictable source of competition?the blogosphere. Bloggers have discovered that all you need to set yourself up as a pundit is a website and an attitude.
Damn straight.
The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean’s presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans’ then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried.
Damn straight II.

Amazingly, amid all this great analysis of how the blogosphere is strategically affecting the news, there’s still just a little bit of that Old Media condescension – or is it an admission of guilty indulgence? – about tactics.

It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.
Naturally, those of us looking at it from this side of the lens wouldn’t call it “scandal-mongering”. We like to think of it as “truth-telling”.

There is a nice recovery in the end to resume the bow toward New Media, which (I agree) despite a rightward tilt is more an institutional change than an ideological one.

Mr Rather’s passing does not mean that the liberal orthodoxy is about to give way to a new conservative one. It means that all orthodoxies are being chewed up by a voraciously unpredictable news media, which is surely all to the good.
The American coronation of the Fourth Estate as the embodiment of the other three Estates is over, and bloggers are more than eager to play their part and say, “Off with their heads!”, and “Long Live the Revolution!”. I wonder where those metaphors will end. Hopefully some time before a Napoleon crowns himself.

Nov

23

2004

Rather Puzzling

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

Imagine the Principal of your child’s school recklessly careens into the school parking lot, ignoring years of driving experience and all manner of prudence, he jumps the curb and slams into the building. Emerging from his car he proclaims that he did nothing wrong, and that his action serves to expose the architect as incompetent for putting the road so close to the building. But days later admits that it is possible that colliding with the school building was possibly a breach of responsible driving, and if it is such a breach he wants to be the one to discover and announce what went wrong. The School Board succumbs to the pressure exerted by an interested citizenship and announces an investigation will be held. Then, in a move which will have scholars debating the cause and effects of such a decision for years to come, the School board announces that they will wait until after the school year ends to announce the findings of the investigation. So, the school year ends, and before the investigation finishes, the Principal comes along and announces that he will step down as Principal, at a near time of his choosing, because he wants to go back to doing what he really loves; driving the school bus.

Oh, and by the way, did you hear that Dan Rather says he is stepping down in March so that he can re-live the past?,

“I have always been and remain a ‘hard news’ investigative reporter at heart,”

Maybe he can start investigating whether his report supported by forged documents was based on facts?

“If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story,” Rather said in an interview last night. “Any time I’m wrong, I want to be right out front and say, ‘Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.’ ”

That is news which he will be hard pressed to make believeable.

Nov

23

2004

Giving thanks on Thanksgiving

Filed Under War and Terrorism | 1 Comment

I have always believed that this was the greatest, most compassionate, and most generous country this world has ever known, and that Americans are always stronger, faster, smarter and braver than anyone else. I am really not sure how national pride and love of country became so deeply ingrained into my psyche, just as I can’t explain why I choke up singing God Bless America.

The only thing I can think is that I gained much of this patriotism by going with my dad to his VFW Post. While dad drank beer and laughed with his buddies, I roamed around the building looking at all the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force (Army Air Corps) patches that decorated the walls. They were wonderfully colorful hand painted works of art, each about 12×18 in size, arranged along the top of the walls like a border, angled down slightly so as to be more viable, and all bearing at least one name… and as my dad’s name was under the 11th Airborne patch. I remember spending hours sometimes, just looking at those patches, drinking Frosty root beer, eating Snyders pretzels, and playing songs on the Wurlitzer JukeBox (which were always free ’cause one of the guys showed me how to push the button on the back that gave you free plays!) Sometimes these names, which I learned from my dad and his buddies, were the names of the men that served in that particular unit, had a blue or gold star next to them. These were the same stars the teacher would put on the top of your page when you did a good job, and in my young mind, I assumed that must be what these stars meant as well.

I don’t remember exactly when I got the courage to ask what the stars meant. My dad had always admonished me not to ask any of these guys what they did when they were in the military – if they wanted to tell me they could, but never ask. He was very adamant about this, which was unusual since, because he only saw me once a month (my mom and dad were divorced when I was 3 and I lived with my mother), he tended to indulge me, so this admonishment was unusual enough to sink in. I think it was when I saw someone changing the star next to one of the names under the biggest patch in the place – a great big yellow shield, trimmed in black, with a black stripe running diagonally down from the upper left to the lower right, and a black horses head in the upper right corner.

He was changing it from a blue star to a gold star.

So I asked.

The man who was changing the stars told me that a blue star meant that a person was actively serving in the military, and a gold star… well that meant that a person was killed in action, in this case a battle in a place called Vietnam. I was 8 or 9 years old, and this was my first recollection of that war. Later that day my dad reminded me that this was the older boy I had played basketball with the previous summer at this very VFW Post. I remember wishing then that I could remember the boy’s face… I couldn’t, and I felt bad for that. I remember thinking that this was a boy, not that much older than me, what was he doing in the Army? I had met him, he was a nice kid, and he was dead.

Then I began to notice all the stars around the room.

And I began to realize that all those old guys my dad was drinking beer with, the ones he didn’t want me pestering to tell their war stories, they all had their own blue stars up there at one time… and they all were boys once, too.

Glen Beck and the USO have put together a program whereby a person can contribute $15 and provide a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine, serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan theaters, a calling card that will give them 33 minutes of phone time to their family back home. Of that $15, half goes to purchase the calling card and the other half goes to the USO. Those brave men and women – boys and girls really – will not be home for the holidays and, unfortunately, some will only come home draped with a flag. So when you are enjoying the turkey and the fixings this Thanksgiving remember what these men and women have, are, and will be sacrificing. Giving $15 is something everyone can do to show our troops that America is proud and thankful for the terrible and tough job they are doing so well. To donate call 1-877-522-7000 or visit the USO website.

Nov

22

2004

The problem with bashing nativism

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

In the Wall Street Journal, Jason L. Riley makes the case that President Bush should ignore the cries of “nativists”. He opens up with the definition of “spin”, according to William Safire’s New Political Dictionary. Here’s one to counter him: nativism, according to Webster’s is: “a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants, or the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation.”

I think we can safely say that in most cases, “nativist” is a racial pejorative – as it should be. Those who would close off the borders of a country of immigrants to any new immigrants, especially based on any racist arguments, deserve to be referred to with pejoratives. But I know a lot of conservatives who speak about immigration reform starkly in terms of enforcement of existing immigration law. It’s hard to argue with the notion that people who violated the law should be invited to stay in the country without paying some penalty.

Yet – and here’s where too many conservatives part with me – the President has not proposed that we do any such thing. His program would require those in the country illegally to pay a fine.

Undocumented workers now here will be required to pay a one-time fee to register for the temporary worker program. Those who seek to join the program from abroad, and have complied with our immigration laws, will not have to pay any fee. All participants will be issued a temporary worker card that will allow them to travel back and forth between their home and the United States without fear of being denied re-entry into our country….

Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way. They will not be given unfair advantage over people who have followed legal procedures from the start. I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. Granting amnesty encourages the violation of our laws, and perpetuates illegal immigration. America is a welcoming country, but citizenship must not be the automatic reward for violating the laws of America.

Be wary of those who cry endlessly for border enforcement by trashing the President on the grounds that he wants to let illegals remain in the country under “amnesty”. Unless you’re one of the harshest of the law-and-order advocates, you should recognize the concept that a fine is a penalty, and that not all offenders of all crimes must serve jail time. If your beef is that you believe all illegal immigrants should be returned to their native country before they can participate, say so. But don’t hoist any of this “amnesty” garbage on me, and don’t tell me that having a paper trail on documented guest workers will not give us better control of the border. It will allow the Border Patrol to stop concentrating on waves of Mexicans who outnumber them 100 to 1, and concentrate on ALL undocumented immigrants, including those who may be entering the country to harm us.

I don’t think Mr. Riley recognizes enough that President Bush doesn’t ignore all those who have questions and concerns about border security, and those who merely misunderstand that he isn’t trying to offer amnesty to illegals. As we learned in the recent election, Americans have to know what it is that we’re supporting, not just what it is that we’re against. Another American sums up the immigration issue this way:

We will be free only so long as the borders of the United States are open to immigration and trade, closed to invasion and corruption, and securely defended by policies maintaining our national sovereignty and traditional identity.
America must support immigrants and their desire for a better life in this great country of ours. But it must not be at the expense of our security or our sovereignty, or the sanctity of our laws and our traditions. That is the stance of The Black Republican.

Nov

19

2004

A totally shallow thread

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | Comments Off

I’m always told (usually by women, often liberals) that men just look at a woman’s face and body for their looks and sexual potential, while women look at a man for other things – that, for example, many women find a smart man sexy. “And guys just don’t get this.”

Following up on my Noonan post yesterday, I realized many people don’t think Rice is sexy. Strangely, it’s never occurred to me (as evidenced by my comment) that she isn’t. I’ve thought she’s at least cute, if not pretty, but racist cartoonists seem to love exaggerating her facial features with buck teeth.

Perhaps more than looks, I’m really captivated by the fact that she’s obviously brilliant, politically aware (an understatement), talented in languages and music, appreciative of sports (especially football) and has never succumbed to the pressure that she’d have to be married to have a full life. In short, she’s a catch that’s uncatchable – and that’s damned compelling for me.

So, I guess I’ve got a question…. Who’s being shallow here?

UPDATE: Total War has some thoughts on the attacks on Condi.

Nov

19

2004

When crusaders begin to pillage

Filed Under Law and Ethics | Comments Off

Earlier in the week, House Republicans decided to alter a rule they adopted in 1993 that bars any member from serving in a leadership position if he or she has been indicted. As the Washington Times points out, this is a perfectly reasonable and rational course of action, given the recent political maneuvers taken by a district attorney in DeLay’s home district in Texas.

It’s also the wrong course of action.

Republicans captured the House in 1994 running largely on an agenda opposing corruption. Previous Democratic Congresses had a penchant for passing pay raises in the middle of the night, running a bank inside the Capitol that allowed them to bounce checks with impunity, and tax-and-spend their way into huge budget deficits. Newt Gingrich and his stalwarts on the Right promised to renounce all these positions – and more.

No longer would committee chairmen like Dan Rostenkowski rule committees with an iron fist for decades. No longer would Speakers of the House like Jim Wright negotiate sweetheart book deals that allowed them to cash in when unions purchased large orders in bulk, purportedly to distribute them to their members. In fact, it was a too-similar sweetheart book deal that alienated the Republican rank-and-file from Mr. Gingrich, eventually leading to his ouster in 1998. The Crusaders had taken Jerusalem, and they were dedicated to the task of erecting the New Temple.

The sad and ironic thing about crusades is that when they’re over, the crusaders, full of vigor and zeal, are usually too filled with adrenaline to return to the rocking chair on the porch and the plow in the field. They cast about looking to set their eyes upon something else they can conquer, and when they find none, they look for someone to conquer. Raping and pillaging usually follow.

And the last two Congresses have proven Republicans are not averse to pillaging when it suits them.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not so naive as to buy into the line coming from the partisan hacks at The New York Times. The House Republicans aren’t practicing “Regressive Ethics” and do not “think they have a mandate to eradicate Congressional ethics standards.” After all, the Times’ democratic friends in Congress don’t even have such a rule, and I don’t see them clamoring for the Democrats to adopt one anytime soon. It’s a case of corruption from the ever-present inside-the-Beltway mentality.

In the end, I agree with John Podhoretz, who says it well in the New York Post: “The message it sends is this: Party, not principle. And that is a terrible message, because when parties sacrifice principle for power, they begin to eat away at their own legitimacy.”

Nov

18

2004

Shut up, the lady’s talkin’ here!

Filed Under Politics | 1 Comment

Shhhhhhh! Listen up, or you’ll miss some classic Peggy Noonan stuff here.

The criticism of Ms. Rice has been fascinating. Her critics need to sit down and have a Coke, as Bob Dole said. A friend said to me yesterday, “She is boring.” I thought, really? You can’t be boring enough; we’ve had quite enough excitement.

Another person said, “She’s not very feminine.” My first thought was: Neither was Colin.

I once compared Ms. Noonan as the conservative stiletto to Ann Coulter’s hatchet. That must be why my ribs are so sore after reading that line.
My second thought was: How startling is this conversation? I should probably explain it was held in Manhattan.

“I think she is extremely ladylike in her bearing and manner,” I said. “Soft voice, pastel suits, heels, not a hair out of place.”

“Yes,” my friend said, “but she doesn’t give off any sparks of sexuality.”

Is it wrong of me to presume that the person she’s talking to is a heterosexual woman or a homosexual man? I’ll forgive the Grand Dame for agreeing, because she’s got a point, and I don’t want to ruin it.
“That’s another thing I like about her”, I said. We don’t want a secretary of state running around giving off sparks of sexuality, do we? We don’t want a secretary of state giving off sparks at all. We want a nice, quiet, calming, competent, sophisticated, even-keeled person to do a good, solid, nonshowy job.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that in a few years, we’re going to look back and notice that the “nice, quiet, calming, competent, sophisticated, even-keeled person,” after visiting with men like Chirac, Schr

Nov

17

2004

Cosh, I Wish I’d Said That

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | Comments Off

Predictably, the successes achieved by regular folks in PJs has been noticed by the MainStreamMedia and the liberal left, and unable to compete with something they really don’t understand, many of the ignorant have sought to emulate the sleepwear-clad by starting their own blogs (or trashing those that who have already earned a following). Believing that the means of delivering their propaganda was in need of a face-lift, they are latching onto what, no doubt, they see as the latest trend, a new MTV-like venue, a Talk Radio-esque stab at competing on the other guy’s turf. Of course, they miss that it is actually their message that needs to get with the times.

Until they figure out that conservatives are not stupid, out of their minds, or mind-numbed Bible thumping robots, they will forever be out of sync with the American mindset. Yes, I did just say that they don’t get what America has always been about, not that we haven’t been telling them. They just don’t want to listen.

So, back to blogging; expect to see advertising for blogs, a new assault on what has been an interest driven medium. These new bloggers will not be satified to write to their weblog and move on to write again. They will be looking to sex up interest so that they can increase their exposure – and remember, on Madison Avenue nobody shows up for work in pajamas. Advertising executives also will not get what is happening, they won’t follow the decorum, they won’t feel a part of the collective, they won’t contribute individual genius, they won’t know where, when and how to converse.

For, in a sense, all the blogdom is, is one big conversation, one very big conversation where nobody gets away with any confidence games. Don’t try to shine me, don’t try to shine the Pajamahdeen. If you are not sure what I mean, I suggest that you ask Dan Rather. If you wish to lie, cheat, fool, bear false witness or propagandize, and you wish to do so within a blog; be afraid, be very afraid. For someone, somewhere, will know the truth, and you will be called out.

Okay, all of that now off my chest, let me share the post that opened this sluice gate.

…but there are many taps to drink from on the Internet – it’s up to you to choose the one without coliforms.
Hallelujah Colby Cosh! With that simple line you have condensed the need for the individual to be responsible for assessing the intellectual integrity of what is presented on the Internet. A bold concept, people thinking for themselves! Let’s be careful people, this could lead to an informed and educated populace; what next then, a Press that informs rather than persuades? A government which is responsive to the wishes of its citizens? Truth, justice and the American way? Heaven forbid!

What’s a socialist to do in that kind of world? How in the name of Allah would an Islamofacist recruit if the Truth was omnipresresent? Why, if you drown out the demagogues, ordinary people would become intellectual demigods! Stalin would not approve.

The article that inspired Mr. Cosh to write on this subject (this time) is less than interesting. I recommend that a dose of anti-biotic be administered before viewing this load of ******* (this is an opportunity for the reader to insert his/her own colorful metaphor).

Nov

17

2004

We are all Black Republicans now

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | 1 Comment

In the Daily News, Michael Goodwin takes note of the very blackness of the Bush administration – and more importantly, the total absence of notice from the American people.

Against expectation, and without divisive debates over affirmative action and quotas, he has built an extraordinary record of minority appointments to his inner circle. He did it by sneaking them in the front door while everybody was watching.

Condoleezza Rice’s nomination yesterday to be secretary of state is the latest and most dramatic example. That she would be the first black woman to hold the post – and that she would succeed Colin Powell, the first black man – is a groundbreaking moment in American racial history. Our original sinners would be shocked.

But we’re not, and that, too, takes the breath away. America clearly is ready for a black official to be our representative to the world. And both Powell and Rice are so obviously qualified that it’s as though race is not a factor for or against them.

Am I alone in thinking this is absolutely wonderful? That black people can now occupy some of the highest, most powerful offices in America – and nobody says boo about how they got there?

The MSM has been absolutely apoplectic since the election over the exit poll results suggesting many Americans voted for Republicans on values. But perhaps something was lost in all the buzz. To the extent that Americans voted for morality, this is the first time I’ve read anyone suggest the values we voted for were integration, tolerance, and anti-prejudice. If Republicans are so racist, as so many Democrats suggest we are, where are the riots and marches and cross-burnings across the Red fruited plain, in protest of the continued presence of black and brown skin in the halls of power and among the President’s closest advisors?

Nov

17

2004

The All-Patton Team

Filed Under Foreign Affairs | Comments Off

I’m often terrible at predicting things like this, but Tony Blankley may have coined a new nickname for the President’s newly-emerging foriegn policy staff.

With the nominations of Condoleezza Rice at State, Porter Goss at CIA, Donald Rumsfeld (or an equally tough replacement) at Defense and Stephen Hadley at NSC, the president has created an all-Patton foreign and defense team. Moreover, he has a team that understands that among the necessary targets of their firepower must be, not only our foreign enemies, but also the slouching, sly, insubordinate bureaucrats under their chain of command.

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories