Ponderable

Sheriff Joe said:
Harvard Conference 'of Color' an Exercise in Hating Whitey
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Harvard University's Graduate School of Education held its Annual Alumni of Color Conference earlier this month in Cambridge, Mass. These annual conferences are distinguished by their radical perspective, wherein the USA is depicted as a racist society in need of a complete restructuring.

This year's program had an even more extreme, left-wing theme than those of earlier conferences. The passionate theme this year was "Grappling with Antiquated Systems and Designing Alternatives to Capitalism, Systemic Oppression, and Monolithic Identities." The intent is to eliminate any possibility of accommodation with the status quo. It is clearly an anarchist-communist declaration of war.

Before looking at the three rubrics under which this theme went forward, it might be useful to consider the incredible hypocrisy of this theme being advanced at Harvard University. These people are seeking an alternative to capitalism. However, Harvard University is far and away the most highly endowed of all universities in the USA, with an endowment of over $35 billion. During the year 2015 alone, Harvard alumni giving topped $650 million. The very students, alumni, and professors organizing this conference are the direct beneficiaries of these resources. Capitalism has enabled these endowment funds to flow into the coffers of Harvard, yet the organizers of the conference wish to repudiate capitalism as a model for ongoing progress.

Chapter 1 | Radicalize

Chapter one is rooted in the term 'Radical.' We intentionally chose this word for two purposes. First, when we think of the term 'radical,' the word 'change' automatically comes to mind. In a reductionist era of Trump, radical change and movements are key to our survival as leaders and educators of color. Our second purpose recognizes that 'radical' also refers to the idea that people of color are mathematically 'rooted' in oppression by design[.] ... We won't be able to provide substantive and sustainable alternatives, unless we look these oppressive systems in the face, name them, dissect them, and know exactly how they were designed in order to dismantle them.

The rhetoric of this rubric is pathetic. "Reductionist era" is an empty phrase, since there is no reference as to what is "reduced." We are told that "radical" refers to the mathematical rooting of people of color. One wonders if the writer is referring to square roots, plant roots, or the root of a tooth. The entire paragraph comprises puffed up language. To quote Shakespeare's Macbeth, it is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But the writer really does not care about language. The writer has an in-your-face mentality ("look these oppressive systems in the face, name them..."). Some people are going to be called to account by this conference, and guess what: if you are white, you might expect to be one of them. Elizabeth Barrett Browning asked, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." The conference organizers put the white folk on notice by suggesting, "Let me count the ways you oppress me."

Chapter Two | Reimagine:




Chapter Two is entitled 'Reimagine,' inspired by our nation's desperate need for 'radical imagination.' Radical imagination is the ability to re-imagine the world, life, and social institutions not as they are but as they could and should be[.] ... This chapter is about drawing on the past, telling different stories from different perspectives about how the world came to be the way it is, remembering the power and importance of yesterday's struggles and honoring the way they live on in the present.

Again, the reader is struck by the sophomoric language of this rubric. The writer believes that its language is soaring, but like a glider that fails to catch the wind, it comes crashing down by the weight of its humdrum prose. In the first part, imagination is linked abstractly to radicalization. Imagine a world run by haters like the ones who organized this conference – people who will steal your hard-earned cash and give it to a person of color and laugh in your face. I can see their grinning faces saying, "I have a Harvard degree – haha, haha – and I'm taking your unimaginative dollar bills and your unimaginative job and your unimaginative vote and putting them all in the shredder. From now on, you're old news. And if you don't like it, then go get some Imagination." You see, dear reader, the "I" in imagination stands for the ego, and this pure, ahistorical ego fails to appreciate stuff like "natural rights" (of every individual), freedom (my responsibility in a universe of choices), and equality (a person not "of color" has just as much justification to live his or her life as a person of color).

Chapter 3 | Reconstruct

Our final chapter of this conference dives into 'Reconstruction.' The idea to recreate is the perfect coalescence after defining and rethinking how to approach these antiquated systems of oppression. To reconstruct is to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something tangible and actionable, a prototype idea ready to permeate our respective communities[.] ... The US is already entrenched in a complicit nightmare for people of color and marginalized communities. 'Reconstruct' is a commitment to staying woke, or rather, staying awake through the praxis of action.

The author of this paragraph catches his misuse of the words "to staying woke" by saying "or rather, staying awake" but fails to edit out "to staying woke." He wants the reader to know that despite his affiliation with Harvard, he is still a citizen of the street. Correct English is all part of that "white privilege" that is so oppressive and to be despised. Further, the vapid prose throughout the rubrics continues with reference "to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something ... actionable[.]" The reader must ask, "What planning?" There was no mention of planning, but only of destroying oppression and the economic system, and then of imagining something into existence.

Planning? That is an archaic concept introduced by the oppressors who seek, through their plans, to mislead their people into such horrible concepts as K-12 education; cures and therapies for heart problems and cancer; social security; a minimum wage for the unskilled; freedom to look for one's own dwelling, business start-up, or job; promotion at regular intervals for the committed and skilled employees; pensions; highways with the wonderful opportunities to travel and live where one pleases; and engaging with others to worship God in spirit and truth. Planning? Is that not a favorite term of white, European civilization? Harvard thinks it is better to imagine, dream, and to drive the oppressors into the sea rather than get involved with the uptight white world of planning. Planning is for the sycophants among the oppressed peoples, not for the macho in-your-face fighters against oppression.

From the above summary, we can see that this conference just past was another splenetic exercise in railing against the so-called oppressors who are white and capitalistic. The tone of the rubrics describing the conference is more vitriolic and more sophomoric than in previous conferences. The language used represents the dumbing down of Harvard at the same time as the social justice warriors intensify their shrill rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Funny they chose March Madness to hold their Annual Color Conference as the NCAA holds an annual color conference of its own without knowing it
 
California’s Prop. 47 Revolution: How it’s changed the state

C7DF2BOCBNHP7DICURO2FEVRBI.jpg

Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell during a press conference at Sherman Block Sheriff's Headquarters Building on January 14 in Monterey Park. (Los Angeles Times)




A year ago, California voters adopted Proposition 47, changing drug possession and five other non-violent felonies into misdemeanors. Backlash began almost immediately, with critics arguing that the change in law is directly responsible for recent increases in crime, and defenders asserting that police, prosecutors, courts and others in the criminal justice system have been unwilling to bring their practices up to date to implement the new law.

The Times’ opinion page is examining how Proposition 47 has changed California. We’re looking at whether it has lived up to its promise, and we want to know what police, courts and politicians need to do to make sure the change in law has the most positive effect on the largest number of people. We also want to know what they need to do to prevent unintended and unwanted consequences, such as higher crime.

So what’s the controversy?Read more
Police and prosecutors say Proposition 47 is responsible for recent increases in crime across California. Advocates argue police have stubbornly failed to adjust their practices to cooperate with its intent.

Why is law enforcement upset?Read more
Prosecutors say Proposition 47 took away their “felony hammer.” No longer can they hang the threat of significant prison time over drug users, to scare them into treatment. But is this “hammer” really necessary to deal with drug offenders?

la-oe-1026-gascon-prop-47-pro-20151026-003

A sheriff's captain peers into the 4400 module inside L.A. County's Men's Central Jail on Aug. 8, 2014. (Los Angeles Times)

What happens to the inmates who have been released?Read more
In short: not enough. Special funds for drug rehabilitation and re-entry services won't be released until next year. So many of these former inmates are on their own.



What about drug courts?Read more
Drug court participation is dropping in California because of Proposition 47 because eligibility for many drug courts requires a felony conviction. Have we inadvertently removed a means of helping addicts get clean?

Are police handcuffed in dealing with career criminals?Read more
Just because they no longer have the "hammer" at their disposal doesn't mean police can't make misdemeanor arrests. The bigger question is, why aren't they doing so?

Are any officials in California handling Prop. 47 well?Read more
Not many. But, thankfully, Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer seems to be up to the challenge.

la-oe-1029-manley-prop-47-drug-court-20151029-001

A drug court in Pasadena on Oct. 27. Since the passage of Proposition. 47, participation in drug courts has dropped off in L.A. County. (Los Angeles Times)

So were California voters duped by Prop. 47?

The answer, of course, depends on whom you ask. San Francisco district attorney George Gascón says the law needs a chance, but that preliminary results look good.

The 4,402 people released from prison under Proposition 47 are saving California more than $770,000 a day. There are also more than 35,000 Californians who have asked the courts to change their old felonies to misdemeanors, and an additional 123,087 people who have petitioned the courts to alter their current sentences.

Before Proposition 47, people convicted of a felony for possessing drugs for personal use often found themselves housed with more hardened offenders. They were inevitably released without having the root cause of their addiction or mental illness addressed. What’s worse, their felony convictions would often preclude them from finding work, as employers are 50% less likely to respond to applicants with records.

Read more
Assn. of Deputy District Attys. President Marc Debbaudt, on the other hand, argues that Proposition 47 is responsible for the rise in crime across California.

The justice system lost all leverage to mandate rehabilitative drug programs. There is no incentive for an offender to accept a court-ordered 18-month to two-year intensive treatment program when the maximum consequence for a drug conviction is a six-month term in county jail. In many cases the jail sentence means only a few days, or even just hours, in custody because the jails have to make room for the felons sent from state prison under that other great reform called realignment. The treatment program rolls are down 60% in L.A. County, and addicted offenders are not getting the treatment they desperately need.

Read more
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Harvard Conference 'of Color' an Exercise in Hating Whitey
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Harvard University's Graduate School of Education held its Annual Alumni of Color Conference earlier this month in Cambridge, Mass. These annual conferences are distinguished by their radical perspective, wherein the USA is depicted as a racist society in need of a complete restructuring.

This year's program had an even more extreme, left-wing theme than those of earlier conferences. The passionate theme this year was "Grappling with Antiquated Systems and Designing Alternatives to Capitalism, Systemic Oppression, and Monolithic Identities." The intent is to eliminate any possibility of accommodation with the status quo. It is clearly an anarchist-communist declaration of war.

Before looking at the three rubrics under which this theme went forward, it might be useful to consider the incredible hypocrisy of this theme being advanced at Harvard University. These people are seeking an alternative to capitalism. However, Harvard University is far and away the most highly endowed of all universities in the USA, with an endowment of over $35 billion. During the year 2015 alone, Harvard alumni giving topped $650 million. The very students, alumni, and professors organizing this conference are the direct beneficiaries of these resources. Capitalism has enabled these endowment funds to flow into the coffers of Harvard, yet the organizers of the conference wish to repudiate capitalism as a model for ongoing progress.

Chapter 1 | Radicalize

Chapter one is rooted in the term 'Radical.' We intentionally chose this word for two purposes. First, when we think of the term 'radical,' the word 'change' automatically comes to mind. In a reductionist era of Trump, radical change and movements are key to our survival as leaders and educators of color. Our second purpose recognizes that 'radical' also refers to the idea that people of color are mathematically 'rooted' in oppression by design[.] ... We won't be able to provide substantive and sustainable alternatives, unless we look these oppressive systems in the face, name them, dissect them, and know exactly how they were designed in order to dismantle them.

The rhetoric of this rubric is pathetic. "Reductionist era" is an empty phrase, since there is no reference as to what is "reduced." We are told that "radical" refers to the mathematical rooting of people of color. One wonders if the writer is referring to square roots, plant roots, or the root of a tooth. The entire paragraph comprises puffed up language. To quote Shakespeare's Macbeth, it is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But the writer really does not care about language. The writer has an in-your-face mentality ("look these oppressive systems in the face, name them..."). Some people are going to be called to account by this conference, and guess what: if you are white, you might expect to be one of them. Elizabeth Barrett Browning asked, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." The conference organizers put the white folk on notice by suggesting, "Let me count the ways you oppress me."

Chapter Two | Reimagine:




Chapter Two is entitled 'Reimagine,' inspired by our nation's desperate need for 'radical imagination.' Radical imagination is the ability to re-imagine the world, life, and social institutions not as they are but as they could and should be[.] ... This chapter is about drawing on the past, telling different stories from different perspectives about how the world came to be the way it is, remembering the power and importance of yesterday's struggles and honoring the way they live on in the present.

Again, the reader is struck by the sophomoric language of this rubric. The writer believes that its language is soaring, but like a glider that fails to catch the wind, it comes crashing down by the weight of its humdrum prose. In the first part, imagination is linked abstractly to radicalization. Imagine a world run by haters like the ones who organized this conference – people who will steal your hard-earned cash and give it to a person of color and laugh in your face. I can see their grinning faces saying, "I have a Harvard degree – haha, haha – and I'm taking your unimaginative dollar bills and your unimaginative job and your unimaginative vote and putting them all in the shredder. From now on, you're old news. And if you don't like it, then go get some Imagination." You see, dear reader, the "I" in imagination stands for the ego, and this pure, ahistorical ego fails to appreciate stuff like "natural rights" (of every individual), freedom (my responsibility in a universe of choices), and equality (a person not "of color" has just as much justification to live his or her life as a person of color).

Chapter 3 | Reconstruct

Our final chapter of this conference dives into 'Reconstruction.' The idea to recreate is the perfect coalescence after defining and rethinking how to approach these antiquated systems of oppression. To reconstruct is to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something tangible and actionable, a prototype idea ready to permeate our respective communities[.] ... The US is already entrenched in a complicit nightmare for people of color and marginalized communities. 'Reconstruct' is a commitment to staying woke, or rather, staying awake through the praxis of action.

The author of this paragraph catches his misuse of the words "to staying woke" by saying "or rather, staying awake" but fails to edit out "to staying woke." He wants the reader to know that despite his affiliation with Harvard, he is still a citizen of the street. Correct English is all part of that "white privilege" that is so oppressive and to be despised. Further, the vapid prose throughout the rubrics continues with reference "to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something ... actionable[.]" The reader must ask, "What planning?" There was no mention of planning, but only of destroying oppression and the economic system, and then of imagining something into existence.

Planning? That is an archaic concept introduced by the oppressors who seek, through their plans, to mislead their people into such horrible concepts as K-12 education; cures and therapies for heart problems and cancer; social security; a minimum wage for the unskilled; freedom to look for one's own dwelling, business start-up, or job; promotion at regular intervals for the committed and skilled employees; pensions; highways with the wonderful opportunities to travel and live where one pleases; and engaging with others to worship God in spirit and truth. Planning? Is that not a favorite term of white, European civilization? Harvard thinks it is better to imagine, dream, and to drive the oppressors into the sea rather than get involved with the uptight white world of planning. Planning is for the sycophants among the oppressed peoples, not for the macho in-your-face fighters against oppression.

From the above summary, we can see that this conference just past was another splenetic exercise in railing against the so-called oppressors who are white and capitalistic. The tone of the rubrics describing the conference is more vitriolic and more sophomoric than in previous conferences. The language used represents the dumbing down of Harvard at the same time as the social justice warriors intensify their shrill rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Race Relations Are Improved by Free Markets, Not Collectivist Politics
Markets make friends where politics creates enemies.


by Richard M. Ebeling

Government Policies Have Hindered Improvement in Race Relations

So why hasn’t the market succeeded more effectively and fully in improving the lot of those who are the descendants of slaves in America? To a great degree, I would argue it has been caused by the political power of special interest groups and economic policies introduced by government. In the nineteenth and through much of the twentieth centuries, white labor unions were notorious, in many instances, in using their strike threat power to exclude members of the black community from entering various segments of, especially, the skilled labor market.

At the same time, minimum wage laws have also worked to price many unskilled minority workers out of the labor market. It has legally prevented a member of a racial minority from making himself more attractive to a potential employer by offering himself at a wage (marginally) lower than, say, a white worker. This has limited the ability for market incentives to undermine and reduce racial discrimination in the marketplace over time.

Having been driven out of potential labor market opportunities due to minimum wage laws, government regulations of business have also often made it too costly for low income and relatively unskilled members of the black community to start their own private enterprises. As consequence, it has made enterprise and employment in illegal black markets more attractive in some minority communities. Locked away in government-subsidized housing and dependent on government welfare payments and in-kind benefits, dealing in the illegal drug market has seemed to too many as a way to escape from poverty through the making of “easy money.” It has also resulted in a disproportionately high incarceration rate among young black men, who then have prison records that add to the difficulty of later finding their way into a better economic life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top