Tag Archives: Salon.com

Salon.com’s Joan Walsh: White People Got Freddie Gray Killed

Joan Walsh, published author and writer for Salon, doesn’t seem to like white people very much. In fact, she seems to blame what happened to Freddie Gray on white people in-general.

Before we get into the America-hating articles that Joan Walsh has written lately, a little bio might be helpful. Walsh is the author of “What’s the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America.” I’m not sure who the “us” is that needs to find their way in the next America or what the next America supposedly is, but both of those concepts sound like a push to continue the country on its currently hell-bound track.

Ms. Walsh is the not-so-amazing talent behind articles like “The hideous white hypocrisy behind the Baltimore ‘Hero Mom’ hype” and “How job flight & police brutality spelled doom for Freddie Gray’s neighborhood

From the latter article, Joan posits that what happened to Freddie was due to the “hole at the center of these communities: disinvestment, job flight, wage erosion; the ‘disappearance of work.'” But these issues are laid out as causes of inner-city troubles instead of examining them as the effects of something else – something deeper and harder to fix.

What causes these businesses to leave? Why is there “job flight?” Her article on the subject does not examine the business environment, political leadership, community leadership or other societal factors.

If the local populace want to loot and burn their local establishments, that is their choice, but who’s actually to blame?

Could it be the de-emphasis of church and community that big-government liberals have pushed for generations? Without a core for a community, it becomes more reliant on the political leadership and slowly quits listening to its own elders. Church leaders’ voices get replaced by the likes of Al Sharpton – what could go wrong?

As a result of these riots, riots before these and extremely high crime rates, banks will NOT loan money to put new businesses in those locations. Before long, no new jobs will show up and the stores and restaurants that do exist will have no choice to but to move to friendlier neighborhoods – the death spiral of the inner-city continues.

In her article on the “Mom of the Year” Joan scolds white people for their admiration of a black Mom yanking her child out of the riots:

anyone white who’s applauding Graham’s moment of desperation, along with the white media figures who are hyping her ‘heroism,’ is essentially justifying police brutality, and saying the only way to control black kids is to beat the shit out of them.

See, white people caused police brutality because they, according to Joan, believe that you have to “beat the shit” out of black kids.

White people did not torch Baltimore, nor Ferguson, nor L.A. nor Oakland nor any other neighborhood that allowed their local environment to deteriorate to the point that businesses decided to operate elsewhere.

Going off on white people when Baltimore has a black Mayor, a black police commissioner and a mostly black city council seems odd. Add in that  half of the officers charged in Gray’s death were black makes Joan’s arguments even more ill-thought.

There are awful things that happen due to racial issues. Making everything about race belittles the truly racist actions that occur.

Before long, crying “racist” will have no more impact than saying that someone isn’t your friend anymore. They may just take their ball and go home – much like those businesses in black communities.

Those businesses (owned by black and white alike) are doing what they have to in order to survive. While leaving the neighborhood might be similar to taking your ball and leaving, it is is not the same as causing someone to get killed.

MSNBC’s ‘The Cycle’ Spins Mandatory Voting As Good For America

Krystal Ball of MSNBC’s The Cycle

The day before the Supreme Court ruled ObamaCare’s individual mandate constitutional — as a tax, not as an exercise of the commerce clause — the mostly-liberal panel at the brand-new 3 p.m. program The Cycle explored the question of what, in the view of the panelists, that government should consider making Americans do against their will.

For her part, panelist Krystal Ball insisted that America should be more like Australia, which forces its citizens to vote in it federal elections or else to pay a fine. Unsurprisingly, Ball’s fellow liberal panelists Toure Neblett, and Steve Kornacki were sympathetic to the proposal, with only conservative panelist S.E. Cupp denouncing it as antithetical to the notion of political liberty.

Ball, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2010 in a safely Republican district,  stated that such a measure would mitigate the influence of money in politics and lead to a more “representative democracy.”  Furthermore, Ball stated that the absence of money in our elections would decrease grassroots operations aimed at suppressing the vote.

Salon.com’s Steve Kornacki agreed stating that it will lessen the nasty side of campaigning which seeks to turn out voters who are favorable to your side while discouraging voters favorable to your opponent. Toure, the inimitable 9/11 truther, also agreed and said that Election Day should be a national holiday and that voter registration should be mandatory as well.

Cupp was the only voice of reason stating that apathy isn’t nor should be a crime. Conservative columnist  Jonah Goldberg agreed. In response to former Obama budget director Peter Orszag, who holds the same position, Goldberg wrote in the National Review on June 27 that:

One of the chief benefits of coerced voting, according to Orszag, is that it increases participation. Well, yes, and kidnapping drunks in pubs increased the ranks of the British navy, but it didn’t turn the conscripted sailors into patriots.

There was also an inane notion that a lottery and cash prize for people to incentivize them to vote was a free market initiative.

Goldberg slams this and the utopian mindset that this mandatory voter participation would create a more “representative democracy.”  In fact, as Goldberg states, “… fining people, say $15, if they don’t vote and using the proceeds to set up a lottery to bribe reluctant voters. If the old line that lotteries are taxes on stupid people is correct, then the upshot of this proposal is that the cure to what ails democracy is an influx of large numbers of stupid voters.”

Sorry Krystal, but incentivizing people to vote with the carrot of a lottery and the stick of a fine doesn’t make it a free-market initiative, because free markets by definition are marked by freely-contracted exchange, not government coercion and subsidy.

 

WashPost Front-Pager on Collapsing Net Worth Missing One Word: ‘Obama’

A new economic report from the Federal Reserve doesn’t offer much hope. On the front page of The Washington Post,  Ylan Q. Mui underlined “the Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992.”  

Furthermore, “the data represent[s] one of the most detailed looks at how the economic downturn altered the landscape of family finance. Over a span of three years, Americans watched progress that took almost a generation to accumulate evaporate. The promise of retirement built on the inevitable rise of the stock market proved illusory for most. Homeownership, once heralded as a pathway to wealth, became an albatross.”  What’s more interesting is that Mui’s article doesn’t mention Obama once  — in a front page piece during an election year — right after he told reporters the private sector is “doing fine.”

Mui quotes Mark Zandi, economist for Moody’s, saying “It’s hard to overstate how serious the collapse in the economy was…we were in free fall.” However, some have taken this to be another indictment of Bush administration policies.

Steve Kornacki at Salon.com noted that despite this terrible news, Obama may still succeed at blaming Bush.  He cites an Obama 50% approval rating andin  “an upcoming book, political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck used data stretching back 60 years to create a model that predicts presidential approval based on economic conditions. As of the end of 2011, Obama was racking up scores significantly better than the model suggested he should be.”

Furthermore, “Sides and Vavreck suggest that, among other things, Obama may be benefitting from the public’s lingering memory of George W. Bush’s presidency and, more specifically, the imploding economy he passed off to Obama in January 2009. The new Fed figures may support this idea, in that they illustrate how steep, and pervasive and enduring the decline in family income has been since the final year of Bush’s tenure.”

After four years, a failed stimulus, high unemployment, three consecutive trillion dollar deficits, and an unconstitutional trillion dollar new health care entitlement program, it’s still somehow Bush’ s fault.

This default setting liberals have displaying their animosity towards Bush is both amusing and painfully insufferable.  When will they criticize the president for failing to take responsibility on the economy?

Kornacki states that “Obama won’t be able to run a Morning in America campaign, but he’s counting on context winning out, with a crucial chunk of voters remembering what he inherited (and, perhaps, understanding the obstruction he’s faced from Republicans in Congress) and giving him the benefit of the doubt, even if they’re not enthusiastic about it. For now, his poll numbers suggest Obama might actually pull this off. But the election is still five months away, and it’s an open question whether his support can withstand more discouraging unemployment reports and all of the Republican attacks to come.”