by baldilocks

Don’t get it twisted; not a Godwin’s Law violation

Countless times, I’ve seen the assertion that Republicans don’t “care about” black people, starting well before Kanye West’s infamous opinion about George W. Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It’s a notion that sits on very many questionable foundations. I’m not talking about the assertion that Republicans don’t care about black people, but the notion that they should, as if the caring is a good thing.

Conversely, it’s often expressly stated that Democrats do “care about” black people. But aside from what that care entails, why should any government entity care about me? I smell paternalism.

Now, unlike the Social Justice Warriors, I have nothing again paternalism in its proper context: God the Father, individual fatherhood, grandfathers, pastors, etc. Government and political parties, however, placed into that framework tend to ring all my tyranny bells. I mean, it isn’t as if government or leaders of government haven’t sought to insert themselves into the categories that I listed above, once or dozens of times.

In fact, in this country, government has, indeed, put itself in the place of individual fathers. And the generational results of this “care” have been catastrophic for black citizens, and, increasingly, for all Americans.

So, when a Democrat tells me that Republicans don’t “care,” about me, I feel a sense of relief which most of them can’t imagine. I don’t want Republicans—or Democrats—to care about me. I want them to do the jobs listed in the Constitution and I want them to stay out of the way as I try to care for myself.

But, as I’ve said before, the notion of government and political party as succor—as parent—is almost too ingrained into the psyches of all Americans and especially, black ones. The idea is so well indoctrinated into black American minds that anyone white who repudiates this notion is considered a racist and any black person, a race traitor.

We are interfering with the gravy train.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done on February 1, 2017! Follow her on Twitter.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB:  Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!


What’s the use of being elected or re-elected if you don’t stand for something?

Grover Cleveland

I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday.

G.K. Chesteron, 1923

Yesterday in the Washtington post Chris Cillzza lamented that the political middle had disappeared.

In 1982, there were 344 Members whose voting records fell somewhere between the most conservative voting Democrat and the most liberal voting Republican in the House. Thirty years later, there were 11. That means that in 1982 the centrists — or at least those who by voting record were somewhere near the middle of their respective parties — comprised 79 percent of the House. In 2012 they made up 2.5 percent of the House. So, yeah.

I find it interesting that apparently the left has become just as liberal as the right has conservative yet is never called “extreme” but I think Cillizza is his lament and chart seems to miss something about politics.

It’s not a fraternal order.  It’s not the Elks, the Eagles or the Lions club.  All are decent clubs that do good things but there really isn’t much of a difference between one or the other,

A political party isn’t supposed to be like that.  A party has a platform and a particular beliefs.  In theory a person joins and supports a political party because of those common beliefs and values and votes for one party over another because he or she wants to advance those ideas or values.

If people are however in a party because it happens to be the club they joined then belief and principles becomes “flexible” because the purpose is to serve the “club” rather than the people.

For example, consider this quote from Tip O’Neill’s autobiography:

Sam Rayburn:  Now I don’t give a rat’s ass whether or not you like the legislation.  If it’s a party issue, your obligation is to get it on the floor.  Once it gets there, of course, you’re on your own and you’re fee to vote your conscience—or your district.  But on the Rules Committee, if we need your vote, you’ll give it to us–even if you hate the bill , and even if it goes against the economy of your Area.

Now to a Chris Cizilla and to those who miss the good old days when things got done there is absolutely nothing wrong with he concept.  This is simply how things were done and it’s  same they aren’t done that way again.  It’s  no big deal.

Think about what that actually means.

It says that to get power and advance what the bosses want you are expected to ignore the voter who you work for,  the principles you believe in and the region you represent to serve what others want, you are not a public servant, you are the servant of the bosses.

It doesn’t bode well for the people but it’s perfect for special interest, you don’t have to buy dozens or hundreds of members of congress, you just have to buy a few leaders and you’ve got whatever your client wants.

Now if you have a leader like Sam Rayburn whose primary thought was the good of the people that enormous power to make or break will usually be advanced for his interpretation of the common good.

But how often do you actually end up with such people in leadership, how much more often does such power go to those who wish wealth for themselves and the hell with the people along as they and theirs get it, remember even Tip O’Neill another man of the people was famous for these words to Democrats when he needed a vote and believed he was wrong:  “I don’t need you when I’m right.”

Me I’d much rather a person who works for me, stands with me and fights for the best possible deal for me, government of the people rather than government of the interests.  Look at the large Unions and you’ll see where that leads.

If that’s the type of government that the left pines for it says something about them, and it isn’t good.






This is it:

Today marked the demise of the “temporary” 0.2% Federal Unemployment Tax Act surtax, originally enacted in 1976 and subsequently extended six times. The purpose of the “temporary” surtax was to replenish revenues used to fund Federal unemployment benefits paid in the wake of the 1973-75 recession.

Representative Dave Camp:

“The fact that it has taken 35-years for this ‘temporary’ tax to expire clearly illustrates the dangers of higher taxes – once in place, they are unlikely to ever go away,” Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the Ways and Means chairman, said in a statement. “We need employers paying more salaries, not paying higher taxes.”

Accounting Today reports the tax had been extended 8 times since it was set to expire.

The moral of this story? The moment you allow a new tax, you are giving the Federal or state government a new way to feed the beast and support patronage on the state level.