Walter Williams OK's Discrimination

First things first--I misread Ross Mackenzie's article yesterday. For some reason I put Ponyang in China rather than North Korea where it actually is. So I apologize for that mistake, and promise you i will almost certainly make that kind of mistake again.

Moving on to today's article, we have the sad spector of Walter Williams shilling for racism.

There are those who would argue that Walter Williams decision to embrace conservatism makes him a sellout to his race (Williams is Black), but I am not one of them. I understand that the Conservative Viewpoint has positive aspects for all races, and I don't think any American owes political allegience to one party or point of view by virtue of the color of their skin.

But what Williams supports today is dispicable. He states, "Suppose leaving your workplace you see a full-grown tiger standing outside the door. Most people would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch. That prediction isn't all that interesting, but the question why is. Is your decision to run based on any detailed information about that particular tiger, or is it based on tiger folklore and how you've seen other tigers behaving? It's probably the latter.

"You simply pre-judge that tiger; you stereotype him."

OK Williams let me put forward this argument, one I don't believe but that is believed in many places in this country (and not just in "the red states." Black people are self evidently dangerous. They are stronger physically, given to violence as a way to solve their problems, and have resentments against normal (white) America. The Government and the Law should be careful to keep thse potential menaces under control, by locking as many of them up as possible, and keeping the rest in a state of terror and fear.

Why not?

Well for one thing, people aren't tigers. Conservatives are always telling America that Mankind is not made up of animals but when it comes down to it, you really mean, many human beings are not animals (the white upper and upper middle class), and others are (blacks, hispanics, "white trash," etc.).

My scenario mentioned above is one interpretation of America's draconian drug laws, and it's interpretation that has a lot of validity.

War Without End

Two articles today about the current clash between the West and El Islam.

Ros Coward wrote in the Guardian UK, published at commondreams.org about the recent Nigerian Riots over the Miss World competition. His basic theme is that we need to choose more carefully which values we take with us into the third world. He's careful to position this incident, and the bombing in a Bali night club as the third world responding to Western Cultural Imperialism. He states, ". . . casual imperialism caused offence when the west paraded its interests and values as self-evidently desirable. Now the reluctance to attack representatives of western values has disappeared even among those with no involvement in extremist organizations." In other words, it was the clubber's fault for daring to dance in a Muslim Country. The deaths and injuries are legitimate when inflicted on Western Imperialists.

The use of the Miss World pageant is a helpful springboard to attacking this issue. It makes the west look petty and vulgar. Well enough. But unless people are free to be petty and vulgar, they aren't free. What about the young girl in Nigeria who sees what the Miss World contestants have to offer? Who desires the freedom and opportunity that women in the west desire? Is Mr. Coward comfortable condemning her to a life of near slavery to satisfy his anti imperialist world view?

The second article, by Ross Mackenzie, at Townhall.com discusses the ongoing war and is so filled with lies and half truths and misleading statements its breathtaking. Lets take a look at one paragraph.

"They said - remember? - Bush II, the graduate of both Yale and Harvard, is stupid. They said he wasn't really president and couldn't lead. They said he could not get an enabling resolution for Iraq through Congress, but he did - with a majority of congressional Democrats voting against him. They said he could not prevail in the UN Security Council, but he did - unanimously. They said he could not enlist the NATO allies, but next week he likely will - just watch. One day soon he may even win over a majority of the Arab regimes as well."

I'm not sure that Bush has escaped permanently his label as stupid, but lets leave that aside. "They said he wasn't really president and couldn't lead." Well of course this fails to take into account the huge bump in popularity Bush received after September 11. Americans are going to follow a president in war; it's what we do.

"They said he could not get an enabling resolution for Iraq through Congress, but he did - with a majority of congressional Democrats voting against him." I don't know what the final vote was off the top of my head, but it's clear that Bush could not have received his resolution with out the support of many Congressional Democrats. More to the point, the debate wasn't about whether or not Bush could get permission, but whether or not he would seek it.

"They said he could not prevail in the UN Security Council, but he did - unanimously." Again the issue wasn't that He couldn't get permission (although odds were against him), but whether or not he would go to the UN or decide to invade Iraq unilaterally. I'm personally glad that he decided to work within the UN, but there were many commentators on the right who argued that UN approval was unnecessary and in some ways detrimental.

McKenzie argues straightforwardly for an ongoing war against the Arab/Islamic world in order to eliminate anti American sentiment in that region. Good plan. And then, in a fit of insanity, argues for war against China, after we have finished off Iraq.

Voyages

Two quick things. Thank you to Ms. Kate Seller for correcting me. It was not the Canadian Prime Minister but an aide of his who called President bush a moron.

The other is that I am on the road the next couple of days--i should be able to update ok, but in case i don't, that's why.

Have a nice day.

Your weekly Rush

Apparently the Canadian Prime Minister called President Bush a moron this week. You might think this would push all of Limbaugh’s buttons, but it didn’t. Instead Rush encouraged his fans to laugh at it.

One of Rush’s prevailing opinions is that the United States should export liberalism around the world so that all the other countries will be messed up and Americas power will increase. This reflects the common American perception that all the other countries in the world are merely bit players in the American Drama. Canada forms no important opinions on it’s own, but merely reacts to the United States. Rush is proud of his uniculturalism, and unlikely to care very much about this criticism, but the rest of you should realize after a moments reflection that all the nations of the earth are full of people trying to make their life the best they can, who make decisions often based on local issues or challenges and who do not focus on the United States twenty four hours a day.