Filed under: Conservatism, Media Bias, Politics, Progressivism | Tags: Chris Matthews, Martin Luther King Jr., Michael Steele, Racism
[updated to embed video]
Seriously! Being a half-wit, he, of course, doesn’t realize that’s what he’s saying, but it’s precisely what he says nonetheless. Is the man’s mouth attached to his brain? Is his brain attached to anything? He goes to a Democrat convention, sees blacks and whites segregated into racial groups and sees the realization of MLK’s dream; he goes to the Republican convention and sees blacks and whites mixed together, interacting , integrated and he sees racism.
I will grant that Matthews is quick — hyperactive really — he’s the fastest interrupter this side of the Atlantic and his mouth moves a mile a minute. The problem is that it isn’t connected to anything — at least not to anything that works. Transcript:
I go to the Republican convention; I go to the Democrat; and as a white guy, one of the things I notice about the difference — one thing I notice about black people at different conventions — you go to the Democrat convention — black folk are hanging together having a good time; they’re all smiling and enjoying themselves — they feel very much at home. You go to Republican, you get the feeling you are all told individually “now don’t bunch up, don’t get together, don’t get together, don’t crowd or you’ll scare these people. Is that true in the Republican Party? Is that still true in your party? Did you fear that if you get together with some other African Americans that white guys might get scared of you?
…isn’t there still a difference between the two parties on race?
Yes! Chris, there is! Republicans are still the party of integration; Democrats are still the party of segregation. The Republican party has always been the party that treats black people as equals, and the Democrat party has always been the party, and remains the party to this day, that treats blacks (and other minorities) as inferiors, first as slaves, then as untouchables, now as helpless victims who need special rules, a thumb on the scales, and the helping-hand of enlightened, benevolent, white “progressives”to get ahead. A philosophy, I might add, that has been devastating to the black community. Yes, Chris, Republicans are still the party that judges people by the content of their character while Democrats forever judge people by the color of their skin.
And that Steele couldn’t smack that condescending slimy spitball of a smear out of the park is about as concise an explanation as any why he is no longer Chairman of the GOP.
Filed under: Conservatism, Economy, Politics | Tags: Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey's Problems, Not Arrogant Enough/!
Dang! Well, that’s very clear, and another reason to respect him. Do notice the reason.
Filed under: Domestic Policy, Education, Health Care, Statism | Tags: Child Nutrition Programs, Nanny Statism, Where Are the Starving Children?
Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced plans to expand the child-dinner program. Already operational in 12 states and the District of Columbia, the program will now be available in all 50 states — mostly in urban areas.
First it was school lunches, which were easy because it’s hard to get kids out of bed and ready for school, and pack a lunch for school too. You have probably noticed that lunchboxes aren’t showing up much in the back-to-school promotions at your neighborhood drugstore. Actually, some are showing up at antique sales.
Now there are school breakfasts, for those parents that the government assumes are so harried that they can’t manage a bowl of oatmeal for the kid. But school dinners? Don’t most kids get out of school at 3:00 p.m. at least? Is it dinner then or do they turn around and come back to school for dinner? Yes, I know, after-school programs, better described as government day-care.
USDA undersecretary Kevin Concannon announced the expansion last week, and said that the goal is to make sure that kids are getting adequately fed and getting nutritious food. “Our goal is to provide a systematic and a reliable way for children across the country to get adequate nutrition 365 days a year,” Concannon said.
Congress last year appropriated $350 million for the Summer Food Service Program which provides nearly 2 million children with up to three meals a day during the summer months.
The Obama administration clearly believes that government can solve the problems of obesity and “food insecurity” in this country. Aren’t these two terms contradictory?
Michelle Obama’s celebrated Child Nutrition Bill passed Congress in December and is aimed at improving the quality of food offered through the child feeding programs. Government feeding programs provide children with high-calorie and overly processed foods are obviously at least partly to blame for the rise in obesity since the 1970s.
The new Child Nutrition Bill offers 6¢ more per meal to fix all that. The bill requires fewer starchy vegetables, more leafy green and orange vegetables. Anyone who has visited a school lunchroom has probably been appalled by the waste. What kids mostly don’t like are cooked and raw vegetables and salads. And I’ve seen plenty of kids skip lunch because they don’t like what is served.
There is a lot of hype in the whole question. I have read that kids are being considered obese or not by their body-mass index, which was never intended for that kind of measurement. Several sources have said that childhood obesity rates have not changed in the past decade.
The playgrounds at public parks in my neighborhood have removed almost anything that moves or could encourage movement, in the fear that a child might get hurt and the parents would sue. I’ve been around at recess at elementary school too, and seen plenty of kids just standing around talking, for most really active activities have been cancelled there too.
More fruits and vegetables would be good, and less-processed starchy foods as well. More vigorous exercise would be good. Less nanny government would be even better. I don’t think the federal government should be in the business of supplying and controlling what our kids eat. The Constitution defines what the federal government can do, and the federal government is busily trying to do much, much more. And they do most things very, very badly.