From the article:

"I don't think we expected anything to change overnight because we had an African-American in the White House, but the fact still remains that we've got a constituency that is suffering," said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland.

Some did. Entitled racist Peggy Joseph seemed to think that Obama has to pay her mortgage and put gas in her car.

The constituency that is suffering is doing so by its own damned hands. It shouts at its own, like Bill Cosby, when he suggests that blacks take responsibility for their own actions. It fails to bring prosperity to that constituency when it is in charge in major American cities and in entire nations abroad. It promotes lawlessness in glaring examples.

Pretty soon, somebody's going to think that criminality and failure are genetic traits. It can't be choice, can it?

One wonders if a group is so hot and bothered to have special, federally-funded programs specifically tailored to their ethnic "needs," if they are really all that vested in the actual concept of "equality."

As I understand it, the civil rights movement was about bringing equality to minorities. But maybe it wasn't about leveling the playing field, as much as about turning the tables?

We won't truly have equality until they start taking the "race" and "gender" questions off of job applications. If it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't matter, right?

If a man should be judged by the content of his character, and not the color of his skin, then the color of his skin should not determine if he qualifies for financial aid.

IMHO.

Well shoot... if we are gonna have it that way then next time there is a white President in office, I am gonna demand that there be special programs in place just for for whites to help those poor white folks living the white ghetto (aka: Trailor Parks).

Oh wait. *smacks forehead* An all white program would be considered racist and discriminatory... Duuuuhh....

But I guess an all black program is okay...

"But maybe it wasn't about leveling the playing field, as much as about turning the tables?"

I rather doubt that's what MLK Jr wanted, but that's sure what it's turned into. Are there any black-run countries doing well? I haven't heard of any, but there may be one. But I'm sure that's all whitey's fault too.

Like yourself, our president has decided it's important to offer leadership to people about how to lose weight.

Also, ontopic precisely, here's a new way to admire Welch.

See also: "Most important, the United States is a champion of an idea that has global appeal, and Asia is not."

Obama is not the most adoring subscriber to that idea.

The only thing that is going to "lift up the African-American community." is the African-American community itself. And it can start by getting rid of the "African" part.

Oh... Like, Amy already did a post about the Welch thing.

So anyway, the last couple of years have been about people losing their naivete. Is there any voting bloc that hasn't been slapped around in the last five years or so?

But unlike Amy, he won't be dispensing science-based advice. He'll be creating a massive new bureaucracy, empowered to interfere with our personal nutrition decisions in the name of "health", but which will actually make us fatter.

Result: Oh, look, people are still getting fatter. Better give the bureaucracy more power!

Go ahead and level the playing field. Then we can watch first-hand as the smartest, the luckiest and the strongest end up with most of the marbles and the rest of the world ends up exactly where it is now, crying for a level playing field.

It's called institutionalized victimhood, and it's not solely the purview of the black community.

How many generations ago were any black lineages actually in Africa? Does a fifth generation descendant of Irish immigrants call himself an "Irish-American?" Does a descendant of a Chinese worker brought over to work on the railroads in the 1800s refer to herself as an "Asian-American?" Why this insistence on "African-American" when many of the self-described "people of color" could just as well be from Haiti or Jamaica? Can a fifth-generation white person from South Africa who imigrates to the US claim special status as an "African-American?" Why not? Because they're not black? That's racist!

If you're poor and white, you're just poor. If you're poor and black, your oppressed?

Come on, people.

"I can't pass laws that say I'm just helping black folks. I'm the president of the United States. What I can do is make sure that I am passing laws that help all people, particularly those who are most vulnerable and most in need. That in turn is going to help lift up the African-American community."

Obama's got it [mostly] right on this one.

The president doesn't pass laws, Congress does. The president signs them into law.

I call myself Swiss-American. Of course, I'm 1st generation on my mom's side (not on my Dad's, they've been around since colonial times or before). And I'm binational. I suppose if it was my great-grandma rather than my mom who immigrated I wouldn't call myself that. I don't call myself Irish-American after all.

Oh well. Soon I will be American-Swiss.

Right on Steve B. Right on.

Question: Can't we all just get along? Answer: Hell, no!

The Irish were not wanted here at one point and there were a lot of signs on businesses that stated it plainly: NO IRISH!

I was floored when I first heard about the Japanese prison camps here. I think our ancestors were all truly oppressed at one time or another.

Just another one of those inconvenient facts of life (like the black former slaves who were freed and then picked up a few slaves of their own).

And let's not forget the natives, who would have a thing or two to say about oppression, regardless of how they treated their own captives or slaves.

"Are there any black-run countries doing well? I haven't heard of any, but there may be one. But I'm sure that's all whitey's fault too" momof4

I can think of one black-run country that's doing well, namely Botswana. Poor by first world standards, sure, but amazingly successful considering that 3/4 of it is a desert full of thorns & scorpions. And the reason it stands out is because it's democratically elected leaders have NOT blamed whitey. When Sir Seretse Khama was negotiating independence with the British, the colonial officials kept using expressions like "there's a nigger in the woodpile" over & over again. He just pretended not to notice. On Indepedence Day in 1966, a reporter asked him what he was going to call the Presidential residence. He put a big grin on his face & said "the Woodpile!".

Botswana is right nest door to Zimbabwe, where Mugabe has done nothing but blame whitey to this day. When it was still Rhodesia, it was known as the bread-basket of Africa, for good reason. Now the GDP of Zimbabwe is $ 250, & that of Botswana is $ 7500. I can't think of a better example anywhere to show how much harm perpetual grievance can do, compared to a positive attitude.

"Botswana and Zimbabwe: A Tale of Two Countries"

http://tinyurl.com/yatly3o

"According to Scott Beaulier, an economist at Beloit College, "Khama adopted pro-market policies on a wide front. His new government promised low and stable taxes to mining companies, liberalized trade, increased personal freedoms, and kept marginal income tax rates low to deter tax evasion and corruption."

According to Transparency International, Botswana is the least corrupt country in Africa, ranking close to Portugal and South Korea.

Botswana is also the setting for Alexander McCall Smith's No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency novels.

Botswana is right nest door to Zimbabwe, where Mugabe has done nothing but blame whitey to this day.

In another example of the law of unintended consquences, Botswana and Khama were instrumental in the overthrow of white rule in Rhodesia and the establishment of Zimbabwe. Today, Botswana is struggling to deal with a massive influx of refugees from strife-torn and impoverished Zimbabwe.

When I lived in south Florida, there was an ethnic cluster there of first- and second-generation Jamaican blacks who were well educated and successful.

Part of Haiti's problem is that its prevailing culture is pretty much a catalog of what not to do in order to have a successful society. It is chock-full of mysticism, bizarre supernatural belief (I'm not talking about everyday religion here; I'm talking Santarianism and animal sacrifices and stuff), voodoo, and cargo-cult wishful thinking. Not even the wildest-eyed sub-subcultures in America rate by comparison. It's my impression (I'll admit I'm not well versed on Haitian history) that this was something the French did to them. In South Florida, the handful of Haitian immigrants sucked up a hugely disproportionate share of social services, because they were complete basket cases compared to the other immigrant groups.

PLUG ALERT!

If anyone is interested in becoming better informed on Haitian history while enjoying good literature, my cousin has written 3 novels based in the slave rebellion period, along with a "little biography" (his description) of Toussaint Louverture. He's a wonderful writer, has lived in Haiti for extended periods, and speaks French and Creole. You can't help but learn a lot while reading his work.

Link to his Amazon page:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_7?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=madison+smartt+bell&sprefix=madison

Oh, his name is Madison Bell.

Threadjack Ahoy! Pricklypear said: "Go ahead and level the playing field. Then we can watch first-hand as the smartest, the luckiest and the strongest end up with most of the marbles and the rest of the world ends up exactly where it is now, crying for a level playing field."

HA! If they get their way, the smartest and et al will wind up being the ones who have to struggle to get by!

There's a schoolteacher who writes regularly in my alt-weekly. Usually, I find him right on the mark about the challenges teachers face, but we disagree highly on magnet schools. He believes that Magnet schools should not be there for high achieving students. To paraphrase, "High achievers will do well anywhere". There should only be magnet schools for those who struggle and those "disadvantaged" (re: poor and black, mostly).

This irks me to no end. To me, it sounds like he's saying "No special programs to help you reach your full potential, because just being on the upper end of average is good enough." I went to an Art Magnet, where for the first time in my academic life, I really got to flourish. It was a fun, active place where academic achievement wasn't a stigma for being outcast; where your skills actually helped determine your popularity, and the only fight was between the lunch ladies (true story!). It was a complete switch from regular high school, and to this day, I'm grateful that I had the opportunity to go there. I'm also extremely proud to have been good enough to gain entry (you had to audition).

I don't like hearing about "leveling playing fields", because that almost always seems to mean "eliminate competition for everything" which leads to "everybody gets a handout except people who are moderately successful".

Sorry about the mild threadjack. The phrase "leveling the playing fields" got my dander up.

We all knew this was going to happen to this President, right?

Does it really surprise anyone that the "gimme-more's" of this nation are turning on him? After all, he got to be the leader of the free world by unearned racial entitlement programs.

What's the philosophical difference between how Obama got to be President and what these folks are asking from him now?

While I agree with his opinion on this issue, I am not so sure he really has room to talk.

Obama and his chutzpah.

If I had to guess, Corner, I'd say you and Prickly are in near complete agreement. If I read her correctly, she's saying that "leveled playing fields" will eventually lead to the bestest figuring out how to succeed in the leveled circumstances, from whence will arise further cries for yet more leveling.

I like that expression "got my dander up".

The late Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. wrote a short story "Harrison Bergeron" (1961) (Online Here) about forced equality under a government determined to make people equal in everything by handicapping them physically and mentally. Very funny, and spot on about the politically correct view of equality.

Yeah, I kinda read too fast on 'pear's point and realized it afterwards *chagrin*

That Vonnegut story was wonderful and terrible. But mostly depressing. It's to close to truth. At least, that's how I feel on bad days.

Why does Obama need to lift up the African-American community? Can't the African-
American community lift themselves up?

Or to put it another way: it's your average poker game, (or any other game, like Monopoly.) There's your level playing field, everybody starts out the same,with the same assets.

Then you add human nature and individuality, and you end up with the luckiest and the smartest ending up with the most money. (or Boardwalk and Park Place.) Oh, and by lucky and smart, I don't mean necessarily Honest and Goodhearted.

Then another player uses strength and physically rips the money away (or pulls a gun, same thing)and robs everybody else while he's at it. Maybe the luckiest player was in the bathroom at the time, and the smartest player had hidden some of his winnings while the strongest wasn't looking.

In any case, the rest of the table is left feeling broke, cheated and stupid for playing the game in the first place,and wishing someone would come and make it right!

And that Vonnegut story is one of the most depressing things I ever read.

Anyone ever see this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaklEq36_dk

> We all knew this was going to happen
> to this President, right?

Yes... But there are still new details of interest. Welch nailed one of those details in the piece Amy linked the other day. We've ALL been anticipating the disappointment felt by the naive Obama voters; we might not have anticipated the toddling of the wingnut left, who'd been confined to some dank basement of ideological masturbation for so long that they're clumsy in broad daylight:

"Progressive Democrats, after being outfoxed by Ronald Reagan, triangulated to the policy margins by Bill Clinton, then routed under the first six years of George W. Bush, are having many of the nostrums they championed during the wilderness years tested in the real world for the first time in decades. The initial results of this long-delayed peer review have been a shock to the progressive system."

You're absolutely right. By sheer ideological integrity, we KNEW this would go badly anyway. But we might not have anticipated it would be a like a freshly-widowed senior on his first-first-date after 45 years of mediocre marriage. We might have expected them to have straightened their ties and combed their hair, hoping to get it right this time.

And for those of you who cant be bothered to spend three minutes reading that story there is a 90 minute movie adaptation.

Wasnt all that good

Obama's constituency is the teachers' unions and the trial lawyers. He will pursue policies that ensure his support by those groups, regardless of the impact on other Americans of any race or economic condition.

Any expansion in the size and scope of the gov't will be a "special" program for blacks. Anyone who has ever worked for the public at any level knows this.

Obama knows this, too, so this is really the only way he can disproportionately benefit blacks without being called on it.

Why is it that any policy directed to FAVOR a group...ends up HURTING it?

Is it because so many of these programs discourage marriage and encourage single motherhood and the marginalization of fathers? No, its because we don't give out enough condoms or offer enough sex ed classes. So we must divert vital money from real classes so the parent(s) don't have to do their job.

Is it because giving away money to people who aren't working encourages people to continue to not work? No, its because the people who could hire them are to racist to do it. So we need special hiring requirements based upon the very principles that our constitution prohibits.

Is it because the educators teaching the children of these people have little motivation, no ability to discipline, and neither the schools nor parents have authority to fire the incompetent ones? No, the teacher unions need more money, so do the administrators, after all, that is what the students are there for.

...do I need to continue?

I worked with a fine gentlemen "of color" while in the Marines. He was "clean & well-spoken." Ivy league education. Awesome individual. He confided the struggles he faced from his black "peers" growing up who accused him of being too "white." His nickname was "Carlton" (as in Fresh Prince of Bel Air).

It makes you wonder: if being educated, erudite, and successful is denigrated as selling out to the "white culture," what does that suggest is being offered as a counterpoint in "black culture?"

One of the biggest struggles blacks seem to face today is this continued insistence on rebelling against their white "masters." Rap culture, anyone? If you perceive yourself as being subjugated, doesn't that often turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy?

Blaming someone else for your problems doesn't actually SOLVE any problems. It merely absolves YOU of any responsibility in coming up with the solution, right?

There's a line from a Queensryche song, about this:
"Black man, trapped again, holds his chains in his hands.
Brother killing brother for the profit of another.
Game point. Nobody winds."

The American dream is about people who overcome obstacles and makes something of themselves. Not those who rely on more and more government largesse as their income, provision and security.

Again, this doesn't apply just to blacks, or any minority. It's about anyone who wants that "special government program" to help take away the burden of self-determination and responsibility.

The false assumption is that "strugglers" and "high achievers" are mutually exclusive. High achievers may struggle every bit as much, if not more than others.

"And the trees were all kept equal by hatchet, axe and saw."

I actually like Obama's response. As a previous commenter stated, he's mostly right there. I think, however, he (Obama) and I would vehemently disagree how to achieve that stated goal.

Go to www.youtube.com and search for Dr. Manning,

He is a black pastor from Harlem, and he tells blacks to stop blaming whitey and start working.

He says blacks are slaves by their own choice.

He really lambasts them.

Well, why shouldn't black folks get confused?

After all, doesn't every woman elected to some office proudly proclaim that "this is a proud day for women everywhere, and I'm going to do everything I can do to promote women's interests" while men who may have voted for her stand by smiling stupidly?

The problem is the libertarians (and formerly republicans) believe in the equality of opportunity. The democrats (and socialists, communists) believe in the equality of outcome.

I would agree that there needs to be a certain matching standard for school minimums (rigorous), but nothing wrong with having magnet schools.

The military is still the best example of the virtues of a meritocracy, to a certain point. High rank enlisted, and mid-grade officer starts bringing personal preference into the equation.

I love working in a meroticracy.

Sadly, it does not always work out that way...but when it does...there is no better experience.