In the mid-1970s, I was a member of Boy Scout Troop 3115, a ribald collection of teens from the Orange Mound section of Memphis (black) and the Poplar-Higland corrider (white). Roughly half white and half black, the troop was stationed at the Tennessee National Guard Armory and headed up by Mr. Bill Lanier, a sargent in the guard. We caused Mr. Lanier untold nightmares, as we were mischievious and full of devilment. While we were good at "scout" things -- we had numerous awards we'd won at scout events -- we were also good at fighting (often each other) and finding other assorted trouble. I often think of this period as my "Huck Finn" period, as I learned of the woods via the numerous camping trips and of black folks, whom I had never been around much prior to the scouts. Some of my fondest memories of my youth can be found in the camping trip weekends I shared with Jesse Green, Andrew Phillips, Michael Prichard and other members of Troop 3115. Bill Lanier is/was a great man for giving so much of himself during this time. Lord knows, many members of the troop would have found "other" things to get into were it not for the Boy Scouts.
My personal experience with the Boy Scouts is why I am so angered by the Do-gooder-social-engineers and their attempts to destroy the Boy Scouts of America. The latest assault in Philadelphia is outrageous and merely the latest attempt by the left to impose "San Francisco" values on the normal and decent.
The left has a long history of hating the Boy Scouts. The ACLU filed the first lawsuit against the Boy Scouts in 1980. This was the beginning of a litany of forays brought against the Boy Scouts. The year 2000 was a particularly brutal year for the scouts. With the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the scouts -- their policy to deny homosexuals access to boys as Scout leaders -- and the real threat George W. Bush would win the 2000 election, the liberals stepped up the attacks on the Boy Scouts:
- The Clinton Administration launched investigations into the Scouts and ties to federal agencies, particularly its relationships with national parks and military installations.
- Al Gore called for a law demanding that the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals in its ranks.
- The city of Los Angeles voted to evict the Boy Scouts from public facilities.
- Broward County's school board also voted to evict 60 troops and Cub Scout packs from its schools.
- Private business Knight-Ridder, Inc. and Levi's stopped funding the scouts.
- United Way chapters also cut off funding for the scouts.
The message was clear: run afoul of the newest preferred minority -- homosexuals -- and you'll be punished.
The situation in the "City of Brotherly (literally) Love" is beyond outrageous.
Addressing more than 30,000 scouts in August 2005, President Bush reminided the scouts that "At times, you may be come across people who say that moral truth is relative, or call a relgious faith a comforting illusion." The President must have been thinking of Philadelphia's city solicitor Romulo Diaz.
The "Cradle of Liberty Council" serves more than 64,000 boys, mostly from the inner-city and fatherless homes (just like many of the kids in my Troop 3115). Since 1928, the council has been headquartered at the Beaux-Arts Building -- a building the Boy Scouts built in 1928 -- for the symbolic sum of $1.00 a year. But because a Boy Scout pledges to live "morally straight" and because the city of Philadelphia has bought into the phony homosexual civil right movement, the Boy Scouts are being threatened with eviciton from their longitme home. Romulo Diaz, an open homosexual and the city solicitor, has given the Cradle of Liberty Council until December 3, 2007 to come up with $200,000.00 -- fair market rent -- or they must vacate the building. Of course, the council could remain, their $1.00 agreement in place, if they give homosexuals access to the council's 64,000 boys.
What an outrage.
Has America not learned a thing from the experience of the Catholic Church and its homosexual priest problem of the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s? The U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released the John Jay Report in 2004, and it revealed that 4,392 accusations had been levied against homosexual priests, with most sexual assaults occuring between the late 1970s and the early 1990s. Fully four percent of Catholic priests had engaged in molesting adolescent boys, resulting in millions of dollars being granted to victims via settlements reached in courts across the country. In 2006, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles paid $60 million to settle 45 cases of abuse, only to shell out $660 million in 2007. The Dioceses of Dallas, Boston, Louisville, Orange, and Phoenix all agreed to settle cases in the nine year period between 1997 and 2006 to the tune of $242 million. Because they had lawsuits and trial dates pending, several dioceses -- Portland, Spokane, Tucson, Davenport and San Diego -- filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to save their parishes from financial ruin.
Is this the fate we want the Boy Scouts to suffer?
If you ask the radical homosexuals and their mafia-like backers, the answer is a loud "yes." How dare any organization believe in moral absolutes in this day and age of "secular-progressives" and their gospel where right and wrong are merely matters of interpretation.
Radical homosexuals and their defenders will view the example of the Catholic Church and say the problem was "pedophilia" and not homosexuality. Au contrare, I would add. The overwheliming majority of the complaints in the Catholic Church scandal regarded priests molesting adolescent boys, not young children. Pedophiles like pre-pubescent boys and girls. While NAMBLA -- a prominent member of the homosexual mafia -- might enjoy groping young boys, the homosexual priests preyed upon adolescent boys, young men, if you will.
Romulo Diaz can say, "We will not subsidize...discrimination..." in Philadelphia, but what he really means is, "Unless we homosexuals get a shot at these teenage boys, the Boy Scouts will not be allowed to use city property, no matter what the Supreme Court says."
Joseph Farah of World Net Daily has written extensively of the phony homosexual movement and, in particular, of its hostility towards the Boy Scouts. He poses the following question for all to consider: "Would you rather live in a community populated by the Boy Scouts and Scout leaders or one populated by members of ACT-UP?" Discuss. (Oh, and by the way, don't answer until June 2008
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Racism Forever -- Please!
On June 14, 1997, President Bill Clinton announced with great zeal his proposed "dialogue" on race, his "One America in the 21st Century" initiative. America's "first black" president, I guess Mr. Clinton felt it his responsibility to lead such a conversation. In a 1995 speech, Mr. Clinton bandied about his racial bona-fides: "I graduated from a segregated high school seven years after President Dwight Eisenhower integrated Little Rock Central High School. My experiences with discrimination are rooted in the South and the legacy slavery left."
I dismissed the effort at the time because such -- a discussion on race -- was not possible then. Nor is it possible now. For whatever reason, any conversation on race evolves into a monologue, with blacks on one side, wagging their fingers at whites and saying, "Shame, shame, shame." Ward Connerly said the initiative was "the sound of one hand clapping." With the lefty panel Clinton appointed to head these "conversations," there would plenty of guilt trips laid out, and little conversation held.
At one time, I believed -- naively, it turns out -- that my generation, those born in the 1960s, would be the generation to put the "race" issue to bed. After all, we came of age after the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim Crow was someone we never knew. We attended integrated schools. We were raised -- at least, my two brothers and I were -- not to judge someone on the color of their skin. We were the first generation to have some regular, and even daily, contact with that "other" race. Surely, all the mistrust, strife, anger and bitterness of the past, a past we had only heard of, would be buried by us.
How wrong I was.
I believe race relations are worse in 2007 than they were thirty years ago in 1977, my tenth grade year in high school. And things are only getting worse.
What the hell happened?
The "Racism Industry" is what. An amalgamation of activists (s--t starters), attorneys (well-dressed parasites with law degrees) and black-only organizations (Marxists with an axe to grind), the Racism Industry finds prosperity and political clout in keeping, not hope, but strife alive. If something causes animosity, bitterness or anger between the races, then there's a good chance you will find a member of the Racism Industry behind it. Long gone are the days of peaceful groups of well-dressed and well-spoken people rallying for the right to vote and a fair shot at the American Dream. They have been replaced with activists demanding equal outcomes and other assorted aims of the Racism Industry:
Of course, this sort of grievance-mongering is not new. Booker T. Washington spoke of such as early as the late 1800s: "There is a another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Mr. Washington was speaking of many of his critics, most notably W. E. B. DuBois, the Harvard grad noted for his "talented tenth" theory that the talented ten percent of blacks would lead the race. Mr. Washington's words aptly describe the latter-day crop of "DuBoisian" fellows: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. These two (and other like-minded players) have never met a racial stir -- real or perceived -- that they did not want to exploit for their own gain.
Jesse Jackson has established a profitable career for himself and his family. Like Tony Soprano used his "waste management" position to cover his illegal activities, so too does Jesse Jackson. His "Operation PUSH"-- People United to Save Humanity -- is a non-profit front used by Jackson to wash literally millions that have come Jackson's way. Kenneth Timmerman's 2002 book Shakedown highlights the good reverend's tactics and windfalls of his activism. Using 18 chapters, 400+ pages and an astounding 1,000 plus footnotes, Mr. Timmerman paints the picture of a guy always out looking for the next score. During the Carter Administration, Mr. Jackson was able to get millions of dollars in federal grants funneled into the education wing of PUSH. The jig was up, however, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Reagan Administration and its audits led Reverend Jackson to his true calling: the corporate shakedown. Beginning with Coca-Cola in 1981, Jackson has used his tried and true tactics to extort millions from American corporations. The M-O is simple. First, find an alleged racial slight with a company (like Coca-Cola's dealings with apartheid South Africa). Secondly, threaten boycotts or protests of the company. By the second step, companies usually settle with Jackson. Literally. While other blacks have benefited from Jackson's efforts, no one has benefited like Jackson himself and those closest to him. His half brother, Noah Robinson, was awarded a syrup distributorship by Coca-Cola in September 1981, one month after a $30 million settlement had been reached. Jackson's two sons own a beer distributorship in Chicago -- gained in the same manner. Anheuser-Busch, Texaco and Nike have all felt the brunt of Jackson's "work." Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Jackson's mau-mauing toward corporations was as automatic as the John Stockton-Karl Malone pick and roll of the same era: guaranteed to deliver. Seeking "justice," Jackson got himself a lot of it in the form of dollar bills.
While Jesse Jackson is a racial extortionist, Al Sharpton is a racial arsonist. Jackson seeks financial gain, while Sharpton is out for political chits. The Reverend Al cut his teeth in the 1980s, when he, like some sleazy lawyer at an accident scene, would show up at any incident that hinted of a racial angle that could be exploited. With his James Brown hair-do, sweat suits and vituperative tongue, Sharpton fanned any racial flames he could, often making a tragic situation even worse. No incident shows Sharpton's dishonesty like the Tawana Brawley affair. In November 1987, fifteen year old Tawana Brawley claimed she was abducted, raped and smeared with feces by a group of white men, some of whom were police officers with the Duchess County (New York) police department. A grand jury determined that Brawley's story was a hoax, designed to cover her being out too late one night. Despite any evidence to support Brawley's claim, Al Sharpton and his goons -- in this case, attorneys Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason -- arrived to exploit the race aspect of the case. The three even went as far as to accuse Duchess County assistant district attorney Steven Pagones of taking part in the fictional assault and rape. Sharpton even told Pagones to "sue" him if he was lying, which Pagones did in 1997. A jury awarded Pagones a $345,000.00 judgement, of which the good reverend has yet to pay one red cent.
Similar protests by Sharpton in 1991 (Crown Heights) and and 1995 (Harlem's Freddy's Fashion Mart) actually resulted in the deaths of people. Jackson, while dishonest to the core, does not cause the deaths of people in his wake.
One might think that such shady dealings and outrageous rhetoric would take away the credibility of someone. Think again. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run for the presidency (as Democrats, of course). If anything, it appears that each's record has heightened their profile. Judging from events of the past year, Jackson and Sharpton have taken on Christ-like proportions, as white people who make "insensitive racial remarks" must trek to Jackson or Sharpton and pay tribute and beg for forgiveness. Michael Richards, the former Seinfeld star, went to Jackson to beg forgiveness for his use of the word "nigger" on a comedy stage. Don Imus used "nappy-headed hos" to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team, and the next week he appeared on Sharpton's radio show to grovel and kiss the ass of Sharpton. At this writing, it is not certain which of the race-hustlers Dog the Bounty Hunter will appeal to to atone for his racial comments made during a private conversation with his son.
What irony. Al Sharpton, who has called Jews "diamond merchants, and Jesse Jackson, who referred to New York City as "Hymietown," are now the arbiters of the speech police. What a country.
I dismissed the effort at the time because such -- a discussion on race -- was not possible then. Nor is it possible now. For whatever reason, any conversation on race evolves into a monologue, with blacks on one side, wagging their fingers at whites and saying, "Shame, shame, shame." Ward Connerly said the initiative was "the sound of one hand clapping." With the lefty panel Clinton appointed to head these "conversations," there would plenty of guilt trips laid out, and little conversation held.
At one time, I believed -- naively, it turns out -- that my generation, those born in the 1960s, would be the generation to put the "race" issue to bed. After all, we came of age after the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jim Crow was someone we never knew. We attended integrated schools. We were raised -- at least, my two brothers and I were -- not to judge someone on the color of their skin. We were the first generation to have some regular, and even daily, contact with that "other" race. Surely, all the mistrust, strife, anger and bitterness of the past, a past we had only heard of, would be buried by us.
How wrong I was.
I believe race relations are worse in 2007 than they were thirty years ago in 1977, my tenth grade year in high school. And things are only getting worse.
What the hell happened?
The "Racism Industry" is what. An amalgamation of activists (s--t starters), attorneys (well-dressed parasites with law degrees) and black-only organizations (Marxists with an axe to grind), the Racism Industry finds prosperity and political clout in keeping, not hope, but strife alive. If something causes animosity, bitterness or anger between the races, then there's a good chance you will find a member of the Racism Industry behind it. Long gone are the days of peaceful groups of well-dressed and well-spoken people rallying for the right to vote and a fair shot at the American Dream. They have been replaced with activists demanding equal outcomes and other assorted aims of the Racism Industry:
Of course, this sort of grievance-mongering is not new. Booker T. Washington spoke of such as early as the late 1800s: "There is a another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances because they do not want to lose their jobs."
Mr. Washington was speaking of many of his critics, most notably W. E. B. DuBois, the Harvard grad noted for his "talented tenth" theory that the talented ten percent of blacks would lead the race. Mr. Washington's words aptly describe the latter-day crop of "DuBoisian" fellows: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al. These two (and other like-minded players) have never met a racial stir -- real or perceived -- that they did not want to exploit for their own gain.
Jesse Jackson has established a profitable career for himself and his family. Like Tony Soprano used his "waste management" position to cover his illegal activities, so too does Jesse Jackson. His "Operation PUSH"-- People United to Save Humanity -- is a non-profit front used by Jackson to wash literally millions that have come Jackson's way. Kenneth Timmerman's 2002 book Shakedown highlights the good reverend's tactics and windfalls of his activism. Using 18 chapters, 400+ pages and an astounding 1,000 plus footnotes, Mr. Timmerman paints the picture of a guy always out looking for the next score. During the Carter Administration, Mr. Jackson was able to get millions of dollars in federal grants funneled into the education wing of PUSH. The jig was up, however, with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Reagan Administration and its audits led Reverend Jackson to his true calling: the corporate shakedown. Beginning with Coca-Cola in 1981, Jackson has used his tried and true tactics to extort millions from American corporations. The M-O is simple. First, find an alleged racial slight with a company (like Coca-Cola's dealings with apartheid South Africa). Secondly, threaten boycotts or protests of the company. By the second step, companies usually settle with Jackson. Literally. While other blacks have benefited from Jackson's efforts, no one has benefited like Jackson himself and those closest to him. His half brother, Noah Robinson, was awarded a syrup distributorship by Coca-Cola in September 1981, one month after a $30 million settlement had been reached. Jackson's two sons own a beer distributorship in Chicago -- gained in the same manner. Anheuser-Busch, Texaco and Nike have all felt the brunt of Jackson's "work." Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Jackson's mau-mauing toward corporations was as automatic as the John Stockton-Karl Malone pick and roll of the same era: guaranteed to deliver. Seeking "justice," Jackson got himself a lot of it in the form of dollar bills.
While Jesse Jackson is a racial extortionist, Al Sharpton is a racial arsonist. Jackson seeks financial gain, while Sharpton is out for political chits. The Reverend Al cut his teeth in the 1980s, when he, like some sleazy lawyer at an accident scene, would show up at any incident that hinted of a racial angle that could be exploited. With his James Brown hair-do, sweat suits and vituperative tongue, Sharpton fanned any racial flames he could, often making a tragic situation even worse. No incident shows Sharpton's dishonesty like the Tawana Brawley affair. In November 1987, fifteen year old Tawana Brawley claimed she was abducted, raped and smeared with feces by a group of white men, some of whom were police officers with the Duchess County (New York) police department. A grand jury determined that Brawley's story was a hoax, designed to cover her being out too late one night. Despite any evidence to support Brawley's claim, Al Sharpton and his goons -- in this case, attorneys Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason -- arrived to exploit the race aspect of the case. The three even went as far as to accuse Duchess County assistant district attorney Steven Pagones of taking part in the fictional assault and rape. Sharpton even told Pagones to "sue" him if he was lying, which Pagones did in 1997. A jury awarded Pagones a $345,000.00 judgement, of which the good reverend has yet to pay one red cent.
Similar protests by Sharpton in 1991 (Crown Heights) and and 1995 (Harlem's Freddy's Fashion Mart) actually resulted in the deaths of people. Jackson, while dishonest to the core, does not cause the deaths of people in his wake.
One might think that such shady dealings and outrageous rhetoric would take away the credibility of someone. Think again. Both Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have run for the presidency (as Democrats, of course). If anything, it appears that each's record has heightened their profile. Judging from events of the past year, Jackson and Sharpton have taken on Christ-like proportions, as white people who make "insensitive racial remarks" must trek to Jackson or Sharpton and pay tribute and beg for forgiveness. Michael Richards, the former Seinfeld star, went to Jackson to beg forgiveness for his use of the word "nigger" on a comedy stage. Don Imus used "nappy-headed hos" to describe the Rutgers women's basketball team, and the next week he appeared on Sharpton's radio show to grovel and kiss the ass of Sharpton. At this writing, it is not certain which of the race-hustlers Dog the Bounty Hunter will appeal to to atone for his racial comments made during a private conversation with his son.
What irony. Al Sharpton, who has called Jews "diamond merchants, and Jesse Jackson, who referred to New York City as "Hymietown," are now the arbiters of the speech police. What a country.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Huck Finn: Still Troublesome After All These Years
"We do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking."
-- Mark Twain
As an English teacher since 1991, I get aggravated each year at the inevitable attacks on Mark Twain, as school districts wrestle with demands from one of the permanently dour to ban the teaching of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Birdsville High School (Texas) is the latest in a long, long list of school districts forced to deal with the complaints of parents (or, as is the case in Birdsville, a parent) and activists who are outraged this "racist" tome is taught to high school students.
Seventeen year old junior Ibrahim Mohamed took offense with a lesson plan designed to alleviate such umbrage. The lesson obviously didn't work. Entitled "Word Magic (How To Deal With the N-word When Reading Huck Finn)," the lesson called for the teacher to write several offensive words and phrases, including "nigger," on the board; the intent was to open a discussion on the use of the terms and if context matters. The lesson never got to step two because Ibrahim demanded that the word be removed from the board and any discussion. When the teacher did not remove it, Ibrahim complained to his mother, Tunya Mohamed, who enlisted the usual suspects of the Racism Industry -- the NAACP -- to protest the lesson and have the book removed from the school's reading lists. In addition, the activists want the teacher to do community service for their organization and to apologize in writing, as if she was some sort of pedophile or drunk driver. Ibrahim, according to his mother, is "really upset and very, very depressed."
I have two words for young Ibrahim: Grow up! If, at age 17, you are so despondent upon seeing one word on the board -- a word you probably say with glee while listening to your favorite thug rapper -- how are you going to survive in the "real world," where no one gives a damn about you or your feelings?
A teacher in the 87% black Memphis City Schools, I typically scoff when I hear of another call to ban Huck Finn, especially for the reason cited for banning it: its racist use of the word nigger. Yes, the word does appear in the novel 215 times, which is about the average number of times I hear it in the hallways each day from black adolescents. No, the irony has never escaped my grasp.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim Huck Finn racist, when any analytical reading of the book shows quite the opposite to be true. Twain's classic intended to demean and vilify the slave-holding society of the pre-Civil War south, of which Missouri was a like-minded territory. The frequent use of the word accomplishes this, while giving the reader an insight into a long forgotten era. Frankly, to avoid use of the word in the book would not have been realistic. Like it or not, the word was used by whites in daily conversations then-- much like rappers do now-- to refer to blacks.
Of course, anyone with an IQ above a brick understands that Huck Finn is an "anti-racism" novel. Ralph Ellison, the noted black author, understood Twain's intent: "Huckleberry Finn knew, as did Mark Twain, that Jim was not only a slave but a human being, a symbol of humanity...and in freeing Jim, Huck makes a bid to free himself of the conventionalized evil taken from civilization by the town -- in other words, of the abomination of slavery itself."
A learned man, Mr. Ellison was ruled by his intellect, as opposed to guided by his emotions. Not everyone is predisposed to such.
For the emotionally-guided who refuse to read between the lines of the novel, Russell Baker provides a vivid image these child-like folks can get: "The people Huck and Jim encounter are drunkards, murderers, bullies, swindlers, lynchers, thieves, liars, frauds, child abusers, numb-skulls, hypocrites, windbags, and traders in flesh. All are white. The one man of honor in this phantasmagoria is black Jim, the runaway slave." It doesn't take a PhD to "get" Twain's indictment of the slave-owning society of the south. Jim is the only noble character in the book, and he is the one the other characters (society) hold in contempt. In 2007, how do people not "get" this?
The measure of great art is found in its ability to evoke a response or reaction. Nothing has done just such like Twain's The Adventure of Huckleberry Finn. Earnest Hemingway called the book the "source" of all American literature. The book has managed to inspire and offend in not only the 19th century of its creation, but also in the 20th and now 21st centuries.
It is my guess Mark Twain is smiling when viewing all the trouble his little story has created. He might look at his critics and say these words again: "Be yourself is about the worst advice to give people."
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Title IX: Revenge of the Shrews
President Richard M. Nixon, an otherwise brilliant man, suffered a lapse of naivety on June 23, 1972, when he signed into law these thirty-seven words: "No person in the United States shall on the basis of gender, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Where was President Nixon's cynicism when he needed it? Signed at the height of the feminist movement -- erstwhile known as that "era of bitterness, anger and resentment" -- did he actually believe the law-- Title IX -- would not be twisted, contorted and used by the testosterone-hating-shrews within the feminist cause to attack men in some manner?
Nixon's sense of fair play colored his judgement. Of course, girls should be afforded the same opportunities in education that boys enjoyed. Unfortunately, Title IX in its current form is a sledgehammer wielded by angry and bitter women to exact revenge for the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to pass. Any effort to inject common sense into the law is met with feminazi lawyers and their threats of litigation.
In her book Women Who Make The World Worse, Kate O'Beirn exposes the real aim of Title IX-activists: "The feminists' signature brew of dishonesty, intimidation, and hypocrisy has been he familiar recipe in the campaign they claim is designed to increase the number of women who engage in sports...In the name of leveling the playing field, these women are determined to tackle the male dominance in sports, which they see as a despised vestige of male privilege and powers, and a precursor to male violence." By using Title IX to attack sports at the collegiate and high school levels, it is the goal of the feminists to castrate men (in a figurative sense, of course -- however, with this group of nags, one never knows for sure) and male dominated ventures because all of it is a prelude to some bum beating his wife.
I began coaching wrestling in 1995 at Westside High School in Memphis. Like the average American, I knew little of Title IX or its pernicious enforcement. As my wrestlers became more involved in wrestling, they would ask about wrestling in college. All "inner-city" kids, they loved the sport and were good at it. Other athletes had a chance at a scholarship. Why not them? I began to look into wrestling on the collegiate level and found little to speak of. In Tennessee, for example, there is just one Division 1 school that wrestles: the University of Tennessee- Chattanooga. No Vanderbilt. No University of Tennessee. No University of Memphis. I became very anti-Title IX the more I investigated it. I had wrestlers capable of wrestling in college, but there were no opportunities for them to do such. Courtney Guy was the TSSAA State Runner-up at 215 pounds in 1998. Going into his senior year, he would have been a highly recruited wrestler -- if it was 1972, when there were 777 colleges and universities with wrestling teams. Unfortunately, in 1999, his year of graduation, there were fewer than 100 Division 1 wrestling teams. A scholarship was his only chance at college, as was the case with all the wrestlers on my team. In a sensible world, he would have been competing in college after his high school graduation. Of course, "sensible" is not a word to be used when liberals with an agenda and a chip on their shoulders take hold of anything.
The truth of Title IX is ugly. It is nothing more than government sanctioned discrimination aimed at eliminating male sports. While football and basketball are untouchable to the shrews -- someone has to pay for the social engineering and women's crew teams -- other male sports are not. In 1972, as mentioned, there were 777 wrestling teams in the NCAA. According to Intermat, an amateur wrestling site, 447 collegiate teams have been eliminated since 1972, despite the fact that high school wrestling grows each year and is very popular. The Southeastern Conference, arguably the best athletic conference in the nation, has not one school with a wrestling team. Wrestling is not the only affected sport. Baseball, track, tennis, water polo, swimming, fencing and any other male sport is subject to be eliminated by the insane demands of Title IX compliance. UCLA's swimming team earned 22 medals at the Olympics, yet it was ended in 1993. According to the NCAA, between 1992 and 1997, 20,000 male athletes -- or "athletic opportunities" -- were eliminated. The NCAA now reports that there are more women's teams than there are men's teams; this is entirely due to Title IX. When surveyed, men typically express more interest in athletic competition than women. (Do we need surveys to know this? Look at any elementary playground.) Intramural athletics on college campuses, which are strictly voluntary, are overwhelmingly male, yet female athletes take precedent at colleges due to Title IX and its threat of non-compliance, which can result in a loss of federal money.
While feminists routinely and loudly hail Title IX now, they paid little attention to the law its first decade of existence. It was only after the expiration of the ERA in 1982 that the perpetually-aggrieved of the feminist movement turned its sights on athletics. At midnight on June 30, 1982, the ERA expired, and the "jihad" on male athletes began. Phyllis N. Segal, then legal director of the National Organization of Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, said at the time: "What we need to do, in the absence of a national mandate and clear policy statement, is to apply and defend the progress that has been made and to develop tools to take the profit and habit out of sexual discrimination." The "tool" of choice would be Title IX. Jessica Gavora, author of Tilting the Playing Field, writes of the outlook of feminists in the early 1980s: "Many of the gains that feminists had hoped to secure with the ERA, they saw, could be achieved through expansion and manipulation of the law (Title IX) against discrimination."
Using a 1979 policy interpretation of the law, the Title IX-mafia would use just one prong of the "three prong test" to dismantle male team after male team. While there are three ways to be in compliance with Title IX, only one -- the proportionality prong -- has been used to determine if a school is in compliance: "Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment." Translated this means that if a school has a student body that is 60% female, then 60% of all things athletic must also be female: athletes, scholarships, teams, etc. Failure to be in compliance means costly lawsuits and the aforementioned loss of federal funds. Rather than fight the good fight, spineless bureaucrats and administrators would rather cower at the first sight of the NOW-gang lawyers.
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) oversees Title IX enforcement and compliance. During the Reagan and Bush I administrations, the office performed its job much like a cop does his: react and respond to a complaint or crime. A police officer cannot be proactive and "create" a crime on a slow night. That is profiling, harassment or entrapment. This, however, is exactly what the OCR did throughout the 1990s. It created Title IX "problems" where none existed. Consequently, the 1990s is the decade that saw the most males' teams eliminated.
The election of Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 brought with it many 1960s radicals and their agendas. No one was more radical than Ms. Norma Cantu, longtime member of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Dubbed one of Clinton's "quota queens," Ms. Cantu would live up to the moniker as the head "capo" in the OCR. Under her stewardship, Title IX became an official quota, as Representative Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, in a rare moment of honesty and candor, once noted: "It is the biggest quota you've ever seen. It is 50-50. It's a quota -- a big, round quota."
Unlike the cop on the beat, Ms. Cantu's OCR would not just react to Title IX complaints or problems; her OCR would create them. Unduly influenced by the Women's Sports Foundation, a radical organization formed by lesbian-activist Billie Jean King, Norma Cantu's OCR, it its first nineteen months alone, attacked 240 schools. launching investigative "reviews" into their Title IX practices. Not a single school targeted had ever been the subject of even one complaint. Furthermore, Ms.Cantu ordered the OCR's ten regional offices to "double" the number of its complaints. In other words, it became official policy to harass and intimidate universities and to create problems where none existed.
Norma Cantu's tenure at the OCR was one of spite. Football was never to be discussed as the sport relates to Title IX enforcement. Carrying 100 scholarships/slots per year, if football were removed from the equation, it would allow many schools to be in compliance with the asinine quotas set by Title IX. Cantu and her tribe would never agree with excluding football from the equation, even though there is no female-equivalent sport. It is as if Cantu and the rest of the angry spinsters don't want schools to comply. Full compliance would negate their jobs. Walk-on players, who don't get scholarships and play for love of the game, are included in the numbers game. Consequently, walk-on slots have been radically reduced due to the numbers demands of Title IX. Potential walk-ons have to be "invited" to walk-on by coaches. So committed to proportionality is the OCR that even private citizens, alumni, and boosters cannot fund a team that has been eliminated. The University of Southern California and Princeton ran afoul of the bean-counters in the mid-1990s and chose to shut down their swimming and wrestling teams. Private money and boosters stepped forward to fund each team, but the universities shut them down anyway. Said Carol Zaleski of United States Swimming, "It's not a question of money. It's a question of numbers."
Many in the anti-quota crowd took a sigh of relief with the election of George W. Bush in 2000. Finally, some thought, common sense will find its way into Title IX. Such wasn't meant to be.
In 2002, Rod Paige, Bush's Secretary of Education, announced the formation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a panel of former sports figures and policy wonks who would look into Title IX and its enforcement. The commission hoped to find ways to improve the law. Four townhall-style meetings were held across the nation to allow the public to express their views and offer suggestions for improving the law. The reaction from the usual suspects was immediate and hysterical. Feminists were apoplectic at the mere mention of altering Title IX. "We are deeply troubled by the commission's action," said Jocelyn Samuels, the vice-president of the National Women's Law Center, adding, "This allows the secretary of education to radically restructure current practices..." The irony of Ms. Samuel's words flies right over her head; "radically restructure" Title IX is exactly what Norma Cantu did from her first day on the job. Donna Lopiano, the executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, chimed in also: "The commission has opened the barn door for the Bush administration to weaken Title IX. This gives the education secretary license to do pretty much anything he wants." And Norma Cantu didn't do whatever she felt?
Ultimately, the COA and the townhall meetings were a sham. The Title IX-mafia won in the end. Though all the recommendations of the COA, including eliminating quotas, were approved by an 8-5 vote of the commission's members, Secretary Paige said he would only act on those measures that were unanimous, thus giving a veto to the very people who caused the problems with Title IX and the reason for the commission in the first place. In a future Republican administration -- such would never happen in a Democratic one -- Title IX might be revisited. One can only hope.
Title IX is what happens whenever an angry member of the permanently indignant with an axe to grind gets to exorcise the permanent chip on their shoulder. Common sense is tossed aside in favor of an agenda. More often than not that agenda is about "getting someone" or "atoning" for past sins. It might be the wealthy one moment, or corporations the next, but someone is going to pay when it comes to radicals and their agendas. Men are the "despised sex" for feminists, so male athletes paid the price. Such is the price for "social justice," a term that should make any sane person cringe when hearing it because at some point "they" could be the target for the do-gooders.
Nixon's sense of fair play colored his judgement. Of course, girls should be afforded the same opportunities in education that boys enjoyed. Unfortunately, Title IX in its current form is a sledgehammer wielded by angry and bitter women to exact revenge for the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to pass. Any effort to inject common sense into the law is met with feminazi lawyers and their threats of litigation.
In her book Women Who Make The World Worse, Kate O'Beirn exposes the real aim of Title IX-activists: "The feminists' signature brew of dishonesty, intimidation, and hypocrisy has been he familiar recipe in the campaign they claim is designed to increase the number of women who engage in sports...In the name of leveling the playing field, these women are determined to tackle the male dominance in sports, which they see as a despised vestige of male privilege and powers, and a precursor to male violence." By using Title IX to attack sports at the collegiate and high school levels, it is the goal of the feminists to castrate men (in a figurative sense, of course -- however, with this group of nags, one never knows for sure) and male dominated ventures because all of it is a prelude to some bum beating his wife.
I began coaching wrestling in 1995 at Westside High School in Memphis. Like the average American, I knew little of Title IX or its pernicious enforcement. As my wrestlers became more involved in wrestling, they would ask about wrestling in college. All "inner-city" kids, they loved the sport and were good at it. Other athletes had a chance at a scholarship. Why not them? I began to look into wrestling on the collegiate level and found little to speak of. In Tennessee, for example, there is just one Division 1 school that wrestles: the University of Tennessee- Chattanooga. No Vanderbilt. No University of Tennessee. No University of Memphis. I became very anti-Title IX the more I investigated it. I had wrestlers capable of wrestling in college, but there were no opportunities for them to do such. Courtney Guy was the TSSAA State Runner-up at 215 pounds in 1998. Going into his senior year, he would have been a highly recruited wrestler -- if it was 1972, when there were 777 colleges and universities with wrestling teams. Unfortunately, in 1999, his year of graduation, there were fewer than 100 Division 1 wrestling teams. A scholarship was his only chance at college, as was the case with all the wrestlers on my team. In a sensible world, he would have been competing in college after his high school graduation. Of course, "sensible" is not a word to be used when liberals with an agenda and a chip on their shoulders take hold of anything.
The truth of Title IX is ugly. It is nothing more than government sanctioned discrimination aimed at eliminating male sports. While football and basketball are untouchable to the shrews -- someone has to pay for the social engineering and women's crew teams -- other male sports are not. In 1972, as mentioned, there were 777 wrestling teams in the NCAA. According to Intermat, an amateur wrestling site, 447 collegiate teams have been eliminated since 1972, despite the fact that high school wrestling grows each year and is very popular. The Southeastern Conference, arguably the best athletic conference in the nation, has not one school with a wrestling team. Wrestling is not the only affected sport. Baseball, track, tennis, water polo, swimming, fencing and any other male sport is subject to be eliminated by the insane demands of Title IX compliance. UCLA's swimming team earned 22 medals at the Olympics, yet it was ended in 1993. According to the NCAA, between 1992 and 1997, 20,000 male athletes -- or "athletic opportunities" -- were eliminated. The NCAA now reports that there are more women's teams than there are men's teams; this is entirely due to Title IX. When surveyed, men typically express more interest in athletic competition than women. (Do we need surveys to know this? Look at any elementary playground.) Intramural athletics on college campuses, which are strictly voluntary, are overwhelmingly male, yet female athletes take precedent at colleges due to Title IX and its threat of non-compliance, which can result in a loss of federal money.
While feminists routinely and loudly hail Title IX now, they paid little attention to the law its first decade of existence. It was only after the expiration of the ERA in 1982 that the perpetually-aggrieved of the feminist movement turned its sights on athletics. At midnight on June 30, 1982, the ERA expired, and the "jihad" on male athletes began. Phyllis N. Segal, then legal director of the National Organization of Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, said at the time: "What we need to do, in the absence of a national mandate and clear policy statement, is to apply and defend the progress that has been made and to develop tools to take the profit and habit out of sexual discrimination." The "tool" of choice would be Title IX. Jessica Gavora, author of Tilting the Playing Field, writes of the outlook of feminists in the early 1980s: "Many of the gains that feminists had hoped to secure with the ERA, they saw, could be achieved through expansion and manipulation of the law (Title IX) against discrimination."
Using a 1979 policy interpretation of the law, the Title IX-mafia would use just one prong of the "three prong test" to dismantle male team after male team. While there are three ways to be in compliance with Title IX, only one -- the proportionality prong -- has been used to determine if a school is in compliance: "Providing athletic opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment." Translated this means that if a school has a student body that is 60% female, then 60% of all things athletic must also be female: athletes, scholarships, teams, etc. Failure to be in compliance means costly lawsuits and the aforementioned loss of federal funds. Rather than fight the good fight, spineless bureaucrats and administrators would rather cower at the first sight of the NOW-gang lawyers.
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) oversees Title IX enforcement and compliance. During the Reagan and Bush I administrations, the office performed its job much like a cop does his: react and respond to a complaint or crime. A police officer cannot be proactive and "create" a crime on a slow night. That is profiling, harassment or entrapment. This, however, is exactly what the OCR did throughout the 1990s. It created Title IX "problems" where none existed. Consequently, the 1990s is the decade that saw the most males' teams eliminated.
The election of Bill Clinton to the White House in 1992 brought with it many 1960s radicals and their agendas. No one was more radical than Ms. Norma Cantu, longtime member of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Dubbed one of Clinton's "quota queens," Ms. Cantu would live up to the moniker as the head "capo" in the OCR. Under her stewardship, Title IX became an official quota, as Representative Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, in a rare moment of honesty and candor, once noted: "It is the biggest quota you've ever seen. It is 50-50. It's a quota -- a big, round quota."
Unlike the cop on the beat, Ms. Cantu's OCR would not just react to Title IX complaints or problems; her OCR would create them. Unduly influenced by the Women's Sports Foundation, a radical organization formed by lesbian-activist Billie Jean King, Norma Cantu's OCR, it its first nineteen months alone, attacked 240 schools. launching investigative "reviews" into their Title IX practices. Not a single school targeted had ever been the subject of even one complaint. Furthermore, Ms.Cantu ordered the OCR's ten regional offices to "double" the number of its complaints. In other words, it became official policy to harass and intimidate universities and to create problems where none existed.
Norma Cantu's tenure at the OCR was one of spite. Football was never to be discussed as the sport relates to Title IX enforcement. Carrying 100 scholarships/slots per year, if football were removed from the equation, it would allow many schools to be in compliance with the asinine quotas set by Title IX. Cantu and her tribe would never agree with excluding football from the equation, even though there is no female-equivalent sport. It is as if Cantu and the rest of the angry spinsters don't want schools to comply. Full compliance would negate their jobs. Walk-on players, who don't get scholarships and play for love of the game, are included in the numbers game. Consequently, walk-on slots have been radically reduced due to the numbers demands of Title IX. Potential walk-ons have to be "invited" to walk-on by coaches. So committed to proportionality is the OCR that even private citizens, alumni, and boosters cannot fund a team that has been eliminated. The University of Southern California and Princeton ran afoul of the bean-counters in the mid-1990s and chose to shut down their swimming and wrestling teams. Private money and boosters stepped forward to fund each team, but the universities shut them down anyway. Said Carol Zaleski of United States Swimming, "It's not a question of money. It's a question of numbers."
Many in the anti-quota crowd took a sigh of relief with the election of George W. Bush in 2000. Finally, some thought, common sense will find its way into Title IX. Such wasn't meant to be.
In 2002, Rod Paige, Bush's Secretary of Education, announced the formation of the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics (COA), a panel of former sports figures and policy wonks who would look into Title IX and its enforcement. The commission hoped to find ways to improve the law. Four townhall-style meetings were held across the nation to allow the public to express their views and offer suggestions for improving the law. The reaction from the usual suspects was immediate and hysterical. Feminists were apoplectic at the mere mention of altering Title IX. "We are deeply troubled by the commission's action," said Jocelyn Samuels, the vice-president of the National Women's Law Center, adding, "This allows the secretary of education to radically restructure current practices..." The irony of Ms. Samuel's words flies right over her head; "radically restructure" Title IX is exactly what Norma Cantu did from her first day on the job. Donna Lopiano, the executive director of the Women's Sports Foundation, chimed in also: "The commission has opened the barn door for the Bush administration to weaken Title IX. This gives the education secretary license to do pretty much anything he wants." And Norma Cantu didn't do whatever she felt?
Ultimately, the COA and the townhall meetings were a sham. The Title IX-mafia won in the end. Though all the recommendations of the COA, including eliminating quotas, were approved by an 8-5 vote of the commission's members, Secretary Paige said he would only act on those measures that were unanimous, thus giving a veto to the very people who caused the problems with Title IX and the reason for the commission in the first place. In a future Republican administration -- such would never happen in a Democratic one -- Title IX might be revisited. One can only hope.
Title IX is what happens whenever an angry member of the permanently indignant with an axe to grind gets to exorcise the permanent chip on their shoulder. Common sense is tossed aside in favor of an agenda. More often than not that agenda is about "getting someone" or "atoning" for past sins. It might be the wealthy one moment, or corporations the next, but someone is going to pay when it comes to radicals and their agendas. Men are the "despised sex" for feminists, so male athletes paid the price. Such is the price for "social justice," a term that should make any sane person cringe when hearing it because at some point "they" could be the target for the do-gooders.
Monday, October 22, 2007
It's The Thugs, Stupid!
In my sixteen plus years in the Memphis City Schools (MCS), there was a time when I was shocked at seeing a former student of mine's name in the paper accused of one crime or another. However, I am no longer shocked or even surprised when I read familiar names in the daily newspaper or see familiar faces on the 10:00 news -- names and faces often attached to one heinous crime after another. In most instances, I could have predicted such for these individuals. Such was their behavior in my class, when I tried to teach them English, the operative word being "tried." These non-learners of the first order simply would have none of it. In fact, most of these reprobates I speak of were outright hostile to any and all things school-related: English, math, science, rules, authority, order, etc.
It goes without saying that I was not the least bit surprised to see the mug of Christian Taylor on the August 30, 2007 10 PM newscast. He had escaped a work detail in Frayser, and the story told of his capture after a brief period of freedom in the 38127 area. That Christian Taylor was on the run from the police only seemed fitting to me, as the entire time he was a "student" at Westside High School, all he did was run the hallways, peeking around corners for administrators, taking momentary breaks to curse a teacher, harass a co-ed, disrupt a class, smoke some dope or vandalize the building in some manner. The kid was a chaotic, disrespectful and anti-intellectual ball of dysfunction and a royal pain-in-the-ass at the age of fourteen. God only knows...no, actually everyone knows...the type person he is now. It was not a real stretch to see prison in his future; it was a certainty.
Because the MCS did not expel -- the system does not expel in the numbers it should -- this non-learner, the system, in essence, is partly responsible for the plight of Christian Taylor, for it, by its non-action, told Christian that he could behave in any way he desired without consequence. Christian Taylor figured he could do the same in the "real world." Taylor is an MCS "success story," in that what he did in school prepped him for what he would do in his life after school -- running from the law (after committing burglary or robbery, of course). This is not to say his career is going well, as witnessed by his conviction and prison term.
There are many "Christian Taylors" in MCS high schools right now. For these non-learners, the arrival of their first pubic hair brings with it a wholesale rejection of all that is civilized and decent and a full embrace of the uncivilized and abnormal. The "Three R's" of academia are scoffed at by these types, who much prefer the values of hip-hop/gang/prison culture: sex, drugs and violence. For these non-learners, a book is merely a square projectile to hurl at another student; profanity is often their first language; dope-dealing and home invasions are legitimate career options for these anti-intellectual types. Homework to these non-learners means selling dope to a relative.
I do not exaggerate. Daily, I venture to the Shelby County Jail website. I am seldom surprised by the names or crimes of these former students of mine. A May 2007 visit to the kiosk found 18 former students of mine locked-up for an array of charges ranging from the mild (possession) to the violent (first-degree murder). I am sometimes bothered by what I see, for some of these perps had good heads on their shoulders. They did not, however, possess any desire for anything decent. lusting instead for the "thug life" championed by the dead hoodlum (and sometime rapper) Tupac Shakur.
It is disheartening to see young people -- some as young as thirteen years of age -- willingly and lustfully choosing to join gangs and the life of crime it entails.
I do not believe the schools can do anything to save these type of non-learners. These young people bring problems with them that the school did not create. Therefore, there is not a thing the schools can do to fix them. A school's job is to educate and to prepare the young to be productive and good citizens. It is not a school's job to be a parent. Unfortunately, this has been forgotten, and teachers have to spend an inordinate amount of time on these "nut-jobs," thus hurting the well-intended "real" students.
I got into teaching out of a real concern for young people. I believed that as a coach, I could help young folks navigate their high school years and have a real impact on their lives. Instead, I (and other teachers) have become nothing more than a cog in the "expensive baby-sitting arrangement" Ann Coulter writes of in her best-seller Godless, providing the needed service of "keeping hoodlums off the street during daylight hours."
While not the career I envisioned, I do have a great desk and get the summers off.
It goes without saying that I was not the least bit surprised to see the mug of Christian Taylor on the August 30, 2007 10 PM newscast. He had escaped a work detail in Frayser, and the story told of his capture after a brief period of freedom in the 38127 area. That Christian Taylor was on the run from the police only seemed fitting to me, as the entire time he was a "student" at Westside High School, all he did was run the hallways, peeking around corners for administrators, taking momentary breaks to curse a teacher, harass a co-ed, disrupt a class, smoke some dope or vandalize the building in some manner. The kid was a chaotic, disrespectful and anti-intellectual ball of dysfunction and a royal pain-in-the-ass at the age of fourteen. God only knows...no, actually everyone knows...the type person he is now. It was not a real stretch to see prison in his future; it was a certainty.
Because the MCS did not expel -- the system does not expel in the numbers it should -- this non-learner, the system, in essence, is partly responsible for the plight of Christian Taylor, for it, by its non-action, told Christian that he could behave in any way he desired without consequence. Christian Taylor figured he could do the same in the "real world." Taylor is an MCS "success story," in that what he did in school prepped him for what he would do in his life after school -- running from the law (after committing burglary or robbery, of course). This is not to say his career is going well, as witnessed by his conviction and prison term.
There are many "Christian Taylors" in MCS high schools right now. For these non-learners, the arrival of their first pubic hair brings with it a wholesale rejection of all that is civilized and decent and a full embrace of the uncivilized and abnormal. The "Three R's" of academia are scoffed at by these types, who much prefer the values of hip-hop/gang/prison culture: sex, drugs and violence. For these non-learners, a book is merely a square projectile to hurl at another student; profanity is often their first language; dope-dealing and home invasions are legitimate career options for these anti-intellectual types. Homework to these non-learners means selling dope to a relative.
I do not exaggerate. Daily, I venture to the Shelby County Jail website. I am seldom surprised by the names or crimes of these former students of mine. A May 2007 visit to the kiosk found 18 former students of mine locked-up for an array of charges ranging from the mild (possession) to the violent (first-degree murder). I am sometimes bothered by what I see, for some of these perps had good heads on their shoulders. They did not, however, possess any desire for anything decent. lusting instead for the "thug life" championed by the dead hoodlum (and sometime rapper) Tupac Shakur.
It is disheartening to see young people -- some as young as thirteen years of age -- willingly and lustfully choosing to join gangs and the life of crime it entails.
I do not believe the schools can do anything to save these type of non-learners. These young people bring problems with them that the school did not create. Therefore, there is not a thing the schools can do to fix them. A school's job is to educate and to prepare the young to be productive and good citizens. It is not a school's job to be a parent. Unfortunately, this has been forgotten, and teachers have to spend an inordinate amount of time on these "nut-jobs," thus hurting the well-intended "real" students.
I got into teaching out of a real concern for young people. I believed that as a coach, I could help young folks navigate their high school years and have a real impact on their lives. Instead, I (and other teachers) have become nothing more than a cog in the "expensive baby-sitting arrangement" Ann Coulter writes of in her best-seller Godless, providing the needed service of "keeping hoodlums off the street during daylight hours."
While not the career I envisioned, I do have a great desk and get the summers off.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
The Return of the I-Man
Don Imus is set to return to the airwaves in December at WABS-AM in New York City. He will return better known than at any point in his long career, an unintended consequence of his detractors and their successful efforts to get him canned this past April. His return comes after his firing in April form CBS Radio for his now infamous "nappy headed hos" gibe aimed at the Rutgers women's basketball team. Even though the I-Man apologized privately, publicly (and profusely) to the Rutgers team, a debate has begun among the thought-control left, those jackals who believe Imus: a) was not out of work long enough, or b) should not be allowed ever to ply his trade again.
The decision by Citadel Broadcasting to hire Don Imus has caused hyper-sensitive liberals to do what they love to do: feel indignant and outraged. Do these people ever just rise in the morning and enjoy the day?
Barbara Ciara of the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) feels Imus didn't suffer enough or long enough for his "despicable" actions: "To put him on the air now makes light of his serious and offensive racial remarks that are still ringing in the ears of people all over the country." Stephan A. Smith of ESPN launched into a ten minute tirade on the subject of Imus, saying Imus should be suspended at least "a year." Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women, called the hiring of Imus "a bad dream," asking, "Didn't they learn anything?"
This is all so odd. Back in April, the hypersensitive-thought and speech-police were screaming that Imus should be fired. They got that. Now, they are demanding that he be "suspended a year," as if the firing, the ultimate penalty for an employee, never occurred. Are Stephan A. Smith and his fellow travelers calling on privately-owned broadcast companies never to hire Imus? Though they will never admit it, the answer is an obvious "Yes." If they could "tar and feather" Imus, they would. Don Imus joins the ranks of Al Campanis, Jimmy the Greek, John Rocker and others in the "club," white guys who broke the unofficial 11Th Commandment: "Thou, if thee are white, shall not say (even in jest) an ill word about black people."
The entire incident is disturbing. It says much for the current political environment. A shock-jock, unknown to many, becomes a household name for a comment made with no malice intended whatsoever. Sure, it was dumb thing to say, but are those three little words worthy of a national debate? Or the psuedo-outrage from the usual quarters? I think not.
Abraham Lincoln used just 266 words in his famous address at Gettysburg, yet Vivian Stringer, the Rutgers head coach, spent over thirty minutes before a cable tv audience talking of the hurtful impact of Don Imus's dumb comments. It is a sign of the times that "nappy headed hos" carries as much seriousness as "Fourscore and seven years ago..." How far as we as a nation really come?
I have taught and coached largely black children in my 16 years in the 87% black Memphis City Schools. I have heard much worse language used by black male students toward their female classmates in that time, with "bitch" being the preferred term of address. However, because of all the fuss over the Imus situation, there has been a resurgence in the usage of "nappy headed hos." Prior to April 12, 2007, most, if not all, of my students did not know who Don Imus was. Now, because of this imbroglio, almost all know who he is. And his alleged crime is now commonplace.
Don Imus was not the problem on April 12, 2007; he never was the problem. Getting Imus canned from CBS Radio will be hailed as civil rights win, but it will not help the first black person. It's simply style over substance. Sadly, much of what passes for "civil rights victories" is the same. Black liberals will point and say, "See, we got Imus. We speak for and defend the voiceless." The impact of this type of protest is thimble-deep.
Jason Whitlock, a columnist for the Kansas City Star, sums up the Imus mess and its impact quite succinctly: "We know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old whtie guy with a bad radio show. There's no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out."
The decision by Citadel Broadcasting to hire Don Imus has caused hyper-sensitive liberals to do what they love to do: feel indignant and outraged. Do these people ever just rise in the morning and enjoy the day?
Barbara Ciara of the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) feels Imus didn't suffer enough or long enough for his "despicable" actions: "To put him on the air now makes light of his serious and offensive racial remarks that are still ringing in the ears of people all over the country." Stephan A. Smith of ESPN launched into a ten minute tirade on the subject of Imus, saying Imus should be suspended at least "a year." Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women, called the hiring of Imus "a bad dream," asking, "Didn't they learn anything?"
This is all so odd. Back in April, the hypersensitive-thought and speech-police were screaming that Imus should be fired. They got that. Now, they are demanding that he be "suspended a year," as if the firing, the ultimate penalty for an employee, never occurred. Are Stephan A. Smith and his fellow travelers calling on privately-owned broadcast companies never to hire Imus? Though they will never admit it, the answer is an obvious "Yes." If they could "tar and feather" Imus, they would. Don Imus joins the ranks of Al Campanis, Jimmy the Greek, John Rocker and others in the "club," white guys who broke the unofficial 11Th Commandment: "Thou, if thee are white, shall not say (even in jest) an ill word about black people."
The entire incident is disturbing. It says much for the current political environment. A shock-jock, unknown to many, becomes a household name for a comment made with no malice intended whatsoever. Sure, it was dumb thing to say, but are those three little words worthy of a national debate? Or the psuedo-outrage from the usual quarters? I think not.
Abraham Lincoln used just 266 words in his famous address at Gettysburg, yet Vivian Stringer, the Rutgers head coach, spent over thirty minutes before a cable tv audience talking of the hurtful impact of Don Imus's dumb comments. It is a sign of the times that "nappy headed hos" carries as much seriousness as "Fourscore and seven years ago..." How far as we as a nation really come?
I have taught and coached largely black children in my 16 years in the 87% black Memphis City Schools. I have heard much worse language used by black male students toward their female classmates in that time, with "bitch" being the preferred term of address. However, because of all the fuss over the Imus situation, there has been a resurgence in the usage of "nappy headed hos." Prior to April 12, 2007, most, if not all, of my students did not know who Don Imus was. Now, because of this imbroglio, almost all know who he is. And his alleged crime is now commonplace.
Don Imus was not the problem on April 12, 2007; he never was the problem. Getting Imus canned from CBS Radio will be hailed as civil rights win, but it will not help the first black person. It's simply style over substance. Sadly, much of what passes for "civil rights victories" is the same. Black liberals will point and say, "See, we got Imus. We speak for and defend the voiceless." The impact of this type of protest is thimble-deep.
Jason Whitlock, a columnist for the Kansas City Star, sums up the Imus mess and its impact quite succinctly: "We know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old whtie guy with a bad radio show. There's no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out."
Ms. Conservatism: Ann Coulter
No one riles the Hate-America Left, otherwise known as the Democratic Party, like Ann Coulter. Writer of five best-selling books, Ms. Coulter is back in 2007 with her latest If Liberals Had Brains, They'd Be Republicans, a collection of quotations lifted from her weekly columns, books, speeches, interviews, and television appearances. The book does not disappoint, as it is filled with witty phrases and words with which to skewer liberals when the dinner conversation turns to politics. While the book is hilarious, it is also somewhat sad, for there is too much truth in Ann's depiction of liberals and their nutty worldview. It is disheartening, to say the least, that America is such a "target-rich environment" for Ms. Coulter's sharp pen. These people actually believe in liberalism, that "ism" steeped in naivety, emotionalism, indignation and (pseudo) outrage.
The book is a handbook of "Coulter-isms" -- funny quotations and one-liners about specific liberals and their sacred issues. From abortion to Ted Kennedy to racial profiling, Ms. Coulter attacks all and spares none. The quotations are sorted into categories, mini-chapters with titles such as "Baby-Killing: Abort Liberals, Not Children" and my personal favorite "Teddy Kennedy: Fat, Drunk and Stupid Is A Way to Go Through Life."
Ms. Coulter comes out swinging in the introduction, entitled "Liberals and The Woman Who Hates Them"-- "Uttering lines that send liberals into paroxysms of rage, otherwise known as 'citing facts,' is the spice of life." Ms. Coulter then offers the reader 269 pages of pure spice.
Abortion, the reason for the modern day Democratic Party, is a favorite target of Ms. Coulter. Apparently, according to Ann, abortion has evolved and is now a synonym for civil rights: "What Democrats mean by 'civil rights' is the civil right of a woman not to inform her husband she's aborting his baby; the civil right of a minor to have an abortion without notifying her parents; the civil right of a woman to plunge a fork into the head of a child as it struggles through the birth canal because it has a cleft lip. That's 'civil rights.'" Ouch.
Based on their policies, Chairman Ann finds Democrats to be total racists: "With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race-norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race ethnicity. So do liberals!" The "boost-up" or "leveling of the playing field" is nothing more than covers for liberals' belief that blacks cannot compete with whites without help.
From prominent libs to libs' pet causes, Ann Coulter takes on each in hilarious and biting fashion.
On Muslims:
"Muslims are the only group who kill because they're angry people have called them violent."
"Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim 'Islam is a religion of peace,' Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time."
On Morality and Liberals:
"The Chappaquiddick incident seems to have colored the morals of the entire Democratic Party. The party has become practiced at defending the indefensible. One can imagine Bill Clinton thinking to himself in 1998, Screw it, if Teddy could ride out Chappaquiddick, I'll be damned if I'm going to resign over Monica."
On Al Gore:
"Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. He grew a beard-- just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims...This guy is always jumping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts."
On Jimmy Carter (and keeping the nation safe):
"Here's a foolproof method for keeping America safe. Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible."
On the Confederate Flag:
"It is Democrats who have turned the Confederate flag into a federal issue, because they relish nothing more than being morally indignant. Not about abortion, adultery, illegitimacy, the divorce rate, or a president molesting an intern and lying to federal investigators...Democrats stake out a clear moral position only on the issue of slavery. Of course, when it mattered, they were on the wrong side of that issue, too."
On the War on Terror Strategy:
"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed entire German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." If only the men in Congress and the White House had the cajones of Ann Coulter.
This book is a must for any politico of any stripe. Conservatives will nod in agreement and laugh out loud. Liberals, those whose heads do not explode, will get what they lustily long for: an opportunity to feel offended and aggrieved, while braying and pontificating about the need for targeted hate crime prosecutions of a certain witty and leggy blonde.
I don't expect many conversions from reading this book. Connecting liberals with facts presented in a funny and satirical manner is a bit nuanced for them. Besides, Ms. Coulter has already explained how liberals evolve into conservatives: "Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes."
The book is a handbook of "Coulter-isms" -- funny quotations and one-liners about specific liberals and their sacred issues. From abortion to Ted Kennedy to racial profiling, Ms. Coulter attacks all and spares none. The quotations are sorted into categories, mini-chapters with titles such as "Baby-Killing: Abort Liberals, Not Children" and my personal favorite "Teddy Kennedy: Fat, Drunk and Stupid Is A Way to Go Through Life."
Ms. Coulter comes out swinging in the introduction, entitled "Liberals and The Woman Who Hates Them"-- "Uttering lines that send liberals into paroxysms of rage, otherwise known as 'citing facts,' is the spice of life." Ms. Coulter then offers the reader 269 pages of pure spice.
Abortion, the reason for the modern day Democratic Party, is a favorite target of Ms. Coulter. Apparently, according to Ann, abortion has evolved and is now a synonym for civil rights: "What Democrats mean by 'civil rights' is the civil right of a woman not to inform her husband she's aborting his baby; the civil right of a minor to have an abortion without notifying her parents; the civil right of a woman to plunge a fork into the head of a child as it struggles through the birth canal because it has a cleft lip. That's 'civil rights.'" Ouch.
Based on their policies, Chairman Ann finds Democrats to be total racists: "With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race-norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race ethnicity. So do liberals!" The "boost-up" or "leveling of the playing field" is nothing more than covers for liberals' belief that blacks cannot compete with whites without help.
From prominent libs to libs' pet causes, Ann Coulter takes on each in hilarious and biting fashion.
On Muslims:
"Muslims are the only group who kill because they're angry people have called them violent."
"Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim 'Islam is a religion of peace,' Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time."
On Morality and Liberals:
"The Chappaquiddick incident seems to have colored the morals of the entire Democratic Party. The party has become practiced at defending the indefensible. One can imagine Bill Clinton thinking to himself in 1998, Screw it, if Teddy could ride out Chappaquiddick, I'll be damned if I'm going to resign over Monica."
On Al Gore:
"Gore always comes out swinging just as an issue is about to go south. He's the stereotypical white guy always clapping on the wrong beat. He grew a beard-- just in time for an attack on the nation by fundamentalist Muslims...This guy is always jumping into the mosh pit at the precise moment the crowd parts."
On Jimmy Carter (and keeping the nation safe):
"Here's a foolproof method for keeping America safe. Always do the exact 180-degree opposite of whatever Jimmy Carter says as quickly as possible."
On the Confederate Flag:
"It is Democrats who have turned the Confederate flag into a federal issue, because they relish nothing more than being morally indignant. Not about abortion, adultery, illegitimacy, the divorce rate, or a president molesting an intern and lying to federal investigators...Democrats stake out a clear moral position only on the issue of slavery. Of course, when it mattered, they were on the wrong side of that issue, too."
On the War on Terror Strategy:
"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed entire German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." If only the men in Congress and the White House had the cajones of Ann Coulter.
This book is a must for any politico of any stripe. Conservatives will nod in agreement and laugh out loud. Liberals, those whose heads do not explode, will get what they lustily long for: an opportunity to feel offended and aggrieved, while braying and pontificating about the need for targeted hate crime prosecutions of a certain witty and leggy blonde.
I don't expect many conversions from reading this book. Connecting liberals with facts presented in a funny and satirical manner is a bit nuanced for them. Besides, Ms. Coulter has already explained how liberals evolve into conservatives: "Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)