There is and never will be equality. That utopian concept is a lovely idea but, it won’t work. Every human on this earth has differing abilities and motivations. Each of them are born unique, some enhanced by circumstance and situation, while some reflect the inverse of that. Mentally, physically, morally, and on and on…..Man has created laws and rules to guide the behavior as to what is acceptable by the herd, forever. It can never change the mindset like the simple concept of respect for self and ones own actions.

We humans have drifted off towards a “feeling” dominated concept as opposed to an action oriented sense of accomplishments. If you’re a man behave as such and likewise women. If taking responsibility was inherent at birth, laws wouldn’t be needed. We can create a law that forbids water to run uphill. Good luck with that and the majority of this PC crap. Words to define last weeks words, to redefine the weeks before that, is an exercise in futility.

The reason for sayings like the old adage “A picture is worth a thousand words”, is because the basis is rooted in the actions of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Show some respect for yourself, your neighbor, your cities and towns, your state, your country and your fellow man in general. Do something good. One thing. One time. Control your mouth and guide your actions in a responsible way. Then you might have a shot at the closest thing to equality, you’ll ever need.

On Republicans and race, Jack Kemp was an exception to the rule and that’s probably because (if I recall correctly) he didn’t say anything that would offend those who are offended by statements that may be considered inflammatory but were true in nature regardless.

1) The Southern Strategy
2) The distaste that (largely) white rural and suburban voters have for any issues having to do with strictly urban problems…which in turn DOES lead to disinterest from statewide office holders. Bush didn’t get elected by offering up a platform that promoted revitalization of our urban/industrial core. The evangelicals, without whom he simply could not have one (in much the same way that Dems can’t win without black votes, are largely a rural & suburban demographic in the South and Midwest.

I personally don’t feel Bush is a racist, but I think he’s still terrible for urban dwellers. He’s an out-of-touch silver spooner who doesn’t even have a practical framework for real working and poor peoples’ issues.

3) Not EVERY Republican gets vilified for addressing race. For instance, I think Jack Kemp used to generally be very well regarded for his serious interest in addressing urban issues and economic development. He came at the problem from a very traditionally conservative approach, but he cared enough to show up.

But ST, the Bennett remarks are offensive on at least two counts. It isn’t so much that he used a rhetorical straw man and then shot it down. It’s the color of the strawman he drew that was the problem…in his repeated self-defenses, I heard him keep talking about reducing crime by aborting pregnancies among blacks. It’s that connection…portraying the face of crime as black that was so disgusting.

As a person who also holds dear the value that we shouldn’t misuse good social science and science research for political ends, I also thought his portrayal of the argument of Freakonomics to be dishonest. The ONLY thing that the book showed was that there is a statistal connection between the legalization of abortion and a reduction in crime rates 20 years later. It categorically DOES NOT advocate abortion as an answer to crime. The research may highlight a possible danger associated with unwanted children, but in that case, the problem is how to avoid having unwanted children. There are many possible ways to approach that problem.

All in all, I think we’d be better off if both Jesse Jackson AND Bill Bennett would keep their traps shut. At this point, neither seems to have much to contribute except their exceding pleasure at hearing themselves talk.

AWESOME article – very much in line with my last. I will do a TRACKBACK for that.

In the meantime, keep up the GREAT work! I will reference your article tonight on my blog!

Cheers, Timmer

Brian, if the president was able to control the economy and how well each individual did within that economy don’t you think he/she would just make it a much better economy? That way they could get elected again. If you knew economics 101 you’d see that the president has very little control of the economy. Your Clinton better Bush worse arguments are childish and based on a lack of understanding of how the economy is controlled by the people with influence by things like taxes and spending by the government as well as the Interest rate and monetary policy.

To delve into your lack of understanding let me ask you two questions:
1) What did Clinton do to improve the economy. Please explain the change in policy and what it’s effect was on the economy
2) What did Bush do to hurt the economy. Please explain the change in policy and what it’s effect was on the economy.

Brian wrote about his ways of speaking, “You are incorrect. President Bush and the Republicans have been cutting taxes for the rich. I did not say, “President Bush and the Republicans have been only cutting taxes for the rich”. Note how I did not use the word “only”. You are twisting what I said and then saying it was incorrect.”

Let’s do an exercise. If I say, I’ve been giving $20 a week to my older daughter, you are correct that it doesn’t say that I’m not giving $20 a week to my younger daughter also. But, when reporting the truth and the facts YOU and the media cannot simply hide behind the fact that they said I’m giving $20 a week to my older daughter and not report the ENTIRE truth the whole truth so help you God. If it is true that I’m giving both daughters $20 per week (which I don’t) then it would be wise to say that unless asked a specific question about the older daughter only.

It is true that every income tax payer and even some non-income tax payers got a tax cut. This has the effect of improving an economy. If you do not think so, instead of getting into a discussion about how you don’t write the whole truth properly, please discuss why you don’t think tax cuts for every income tax payer improves the economy. What is the cause and effect of allowing every income tax payer the ability to keep more of what they earned? Realizing again that 96% of income taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners, it is a non-conversation to talk about rich getting tax cuts as if the poor can ACTUALLY receive an income tax cut. Below a certain income they don’t pay income taxes.

Brian wrote, “I have not kept track on how much money is spent on Medicaid from one year to the next.

That my friend was obvious. You made an incorrect accusation which would be nice if you retracted it.
Medicare facts

Brian wrote, “When George W. Bush became President the federal government’s budget had a surplus of over 200 billion dollars. We now have budget deficits of 300-400 billion dollars. Do you think this is good?”

Brian, again, economics 101. The surplus is due to the federal government’s revenues outpacing expenditures due to the booming economy. The economy’s health has little to do with who is President. I can understand people believing this but it simply ISN’T true. And the economy started falling before Bush got into office. I’m not blaming Bill Clinton. I’m simply saying that yes more people will be in poverty when the economy goes down. And the exact right thing to do in a down economy is to lower taxes. Do you Brian dispute that? Please explain why you think lowering taxes for all income tax payers would hurt the economy. We’d all love to see this logic. /end sarcasm.

People have nothing better to do than blow the most mundane things out of proportion. This post is not so much a defense of Bill Bennett (because he has nothing to defend) as it is a response to people who keep e-mailing to ask if I’m going to r…

The New Orleans incident gave rise to a lot of unsubstantiated rumor across the board.

Evon: “Those who follow abortion statistics say that Black women abort at the rate of three times the rate that white women do. I didn’t know this until this debate. I do remember being at a political gathering years ago that was much more “liberal” than I was, a woman tried to convince me that legalized abortion was a good idea because it would result in fewer n***** (she did use that word) babies being born to mothers who didn’t know how to raise them. She perceived that I was more conservative than she and thought this would be a winning argument. It wasn’t.”

Sounds like an incredibly arrogant and naive woman, not to mention racist.

Those who follow abortion statistics say that Black women abort at the rate of three times the rate that white women do. I didn’t know this until this debate. I do remember being at a political gathering years ago that was much more “liberal” than I was, a woman tried to convince me that legalized abortion was a good idea because it would result in fewer n***** (she did use that word) babies being born to mothers who didn’t know how to raise them. She perceived that I was more conservative than she and thought this would be a winning argument. It wasn’t.

In that state those of us who were pro-life did notice that the people pushing for legalized abortion lived in the wealthier suburbs while the clinics were usually located in the big cities.

My statement that President Bush is against poor people is not based on what is in his head but by his actions.

My statement that “there are a large percentage of blacks living below the poverty line” was for all blacks in the United States, not “blue states” or “red states”. Under the previous Democratic President the percentage of blacks living below the poverty line in the United States was approximately 33% at the beginning of his administration and approximately 23% at the time he left office. Since President Bush has been in office, the percentage of blacks living below the poverty line has increased. Apparently the conservatives’ method of “teaching an able-bodied person how to fish rather than give him fish” does not seem to be working very well, although in many cases it seems more like the conservatives’ method is abandoning an able-bodied person rather than teaching him to fish.

As for the poverty level of blacks in “red states” vs. “blue states”, I don’t have any statistics, but I seriously doubt that blacks living in Mississippi or Alabama have a much higher standard of living than blacks living in Massachusetts or Connecticut.

You said: Brian incorrectly wrote, “has been cutting taxes for the rich.”.

You are incorrect. President Bush and the Republicans have been cutting taxes for the rich. I did not say, “President Bush and the Republicans have been only cutting taxes for the rich”. Note how I did not use the word “only”. You are twisting what I said and then saying it was incorrect.

I have not kept track on how much money is spent on Medicaid from one year to the next. I do know that President Bush’s 2006 budget proposes cuts in Medicaid totaling 60 billion dollars over 10 years.

When I said, “but there are no plans by the President or Congress to raise it (the minimum wage), I meant there has not been a bill passed to raise the minimum wage at a future date. As for passing a bill to raise it, I have not seen President Bush pushing for an increase in the minimum wage. He has been willing to publicly push for partially privatizing Social Security but I never hear anything from him about raising the minimum wage.

You said:

Seems you have lots of reading to do. And not on your websites that you have been reading on. What helped me is visiting the library 3 times a week for a full year in 1991. That converted me from liberalism to conservatism.

My views are not based what is said on web sites or what is written in books. My views are based on the condition of this country close to five years after President Bush took over as President.

When George W. Bush became President the federal government’s budget had a surplus of over 200 billion dollars. We now have budget deficits of 300-400 billion dollars. Do you think this is good?

During the previous eight years before George W. Bush became president, the poverty rate declined every year. After George W. Bush became president, the poverty rate increased every year. Do you think this is good?

During the time that George W. Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton was in office, the stock market tripled in value. The stock market is now lower than when George W. Bush became president. Do you think this is good?

What books have you been reading in the library anyway? Were you reading conservative propaganda by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity?