SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MJ who wrote (116809)11/3/2011 8:51:58 AM
From: joseffy3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224720
 
The media's hypocritical double-standard--Jesse Jackson and Herman Cain................

Media AWOL on Sexual Indiscretion -- When Jesse Jackson Was Front-runner
,,,,,,,....................................................................................................................
Townhall.com ^ | November 3, 2011 | Larry Elder
townhall.com

Charles Krauthammer of Fox News: "Do you think that race, being a strong black conservative, has anything to do with the fact you've been so charged (with sexual harassment)? And if so, do you have any evidence to support that?"

Herman Cain: "I believe the answer is yes, but we do not have any evidence to support it."

Playing the race card is vulgar, whether done by Al Sharpton or President Barack Obama -- as he did to contain the Rev. Wright scandal. Especially when, as here, the complainant admits he lacks evidence. If Cain were not a front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination -- a shock probably even to him -- the media wouldn't bother. But when the quest goes from curiosity to conceivable, the scrutiny increases exponentially. And who knows how the media got the information, possibly from one of Cain's presumably non-racist GOP rivals.

Cain can -- and should -- complain about the media's hypocritical double-standard, however. There is a real-world, apples-to-apples comparison to examine whether, as a conservative, Cain is being subjected to harsher treatment that the Rev. Jesse Jackson was not.

During the heat of the 1988 race for the Democratic presidential nomination, rumors surfaced of Jackson's alleged numerous and rampant instances of infidelity. He was, for a while, his party's front-runner.

Democratic Underground, a left-wing website, recalls, "(After) Jackson won 55 percent of the vote in the Michigan Democratic caucus, he was considered the front-runner for the nomination, as he surpassed all the other candidates in total number of pledged delegates."

Unlike Cain, Jackson actually won several primaries and caucuses -- and finished second in pledged delegates, beating out rivals such as future Vice Presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden.

To blunt whispers of Jackson infidelity, his wife, Jackie, warned Life magazine: "I don't believe in examining sheets. That's a violation of privacy. If my husband has committed adultery, he better not tell me. And you better not go digging into it because I'm trying to raise a family and won't let you be the one to destroy my family."

Whether the media feared being accused of racism or whether it feared Jackie, there were no "establishment media" stories on Jackson's alleged sexcapades. That is, until years later, when Jackson admitted fathering a child with a staffer to whom he paid money for a house and who received monthly payments.

Black conservatives -- along with white male Christian conservatives and child molesters -- remain one of the few groups to which the usual rules of civility and restraint do not apply. Consider these recent comments about Cain:

"(Cain) really doesn't want to be overtly associated with African-Americans." -- MSNBC's Martin Bashir on Cain's failure to appear at the Martin Luther King Memorial dedication.

"I think that (Cain) makes that white Republican base of the party feel OK, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he is giving that base a free pass, and I think they like him because they think he is a black man who knows his place. And I know that sounds harsh." -- MSNBC Democratic strategist Karen Finney.

"(Cain) needs to get off the symbolic crack pipe and acknowledge that the evidence (of racism in America) is overwhelming." -- Princeton professor Cornel West.

"There is this constant minstrelsy aspect that (Cain) keeps bringing up. ... And yet Cain allows the GOP to have this sort of force where it's like: 'Well, we're not racist. We are supporting this black man.'" -- Time.com contributor and author Toure.

Left-wing black journalists (a near redundancy) absolutely hate, hate, hate black conservatives. A few years ago, a black former policy advisor for President George W. Bush resigned after being arrested for stealing from retail stores. Los Angeles Times journalist and contributing editor Erin Aubry Kaplan wrote: "I don't support conservatism in its current iteration, and I support black conservatives even less. ... Here is a man who, like most black conservatives, has had to do an awful lot of personal and political rationalizing to pay dues. ... It's hard to imagine that such compromises and cognitive dissonance don't exact a psychological toll at some point."

Chicago Tribune's John Kass, after the revelation of Jackson's love child, finally acknowledged the double standard and the media-imposed no-fly zone over Jackson: "For years, Jackson has been treated kindly. Here's my explanation. In the media, we're white people, mostly, and mostly suburban born, mostly Democrats, terrified of being called racists, even if the charge comes from a hustler. Black reporters don't want to become targets, either.

"So news organizations skip timidly around Jackson's finances, though we've known his race baiting has carried a price tag. ...

"Through this condescending bargain, this queasy media pact laced with white liberal guilt and white liberal racism, the crafty Jackson has prospered.

"His profile increased, while other black voices, those with legitimate yet differing views, were diminished.

"We didn't want true diversity. We wanted it easy. We used him. And he used us."

Yes, the media do indeed put front-runners -- all of whom willingly enter the political fray -- under an intense microscope. And properly so. But not all microscopes are created equal.



To: MJ who wrote (116809)11/3/2011 2:36:59 PM
From: lorne6 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224720
 

Warning: Obama Ed aims at U.S. takeover
All schools – even parents at home – may be forced to teach gov't agenda
November 02, 2011
By Bob Unruh
wnd.com


An organization that monitors the U.S. government's influence on education, and specifically on parents who choose to school their own children, is warning of a pending move in Washington that would result in "de facto national education standards."

The measure could not only require parents who homeschool their children to teach certain government agenda issues but also effectively remove much of the decision-making authority of local school boards and districts, warns the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The organization focuses on issues affecting homeschool students and their parents in the United States and overseas but also keeps an eye on the larger picture of education policy.

Just exactly what's wrong with Washington? Let Sen. Tom Coburn's "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders into Insiders" explain it.

The concern is about Democrat-driven plans in the U.S. Senate to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a massive federal program last reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act.

"HSLDA's federal relations staff have read this 868-page bill, and we believe that while it does not directly impact homeschool freedom, the bill will 1) increase the federal role in education at the expense of state, local and parental control, and 2) will greatly increase the pressure on states to align their curriculum and standards, resulting in de facto national education standards," said the report compiled by Melanie P. Palazzo, the organization's congressional action program director, and William A. Estrada of the organization's federal relations office.

HSLDA said the Senate Education Commission already has voted to approve the plan, but at the request of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., there will be a hearing Nov. 8. The homeschooling group is urging its constituents to contact committee members and express concern.

The group fears the bill "will greatly increase the federal government's control over education."

HSLDA said that as an organization it remained neutral on the 2001 NCLB update, "because it included strongly written protections for homeschoolers, and prohibitions on federal funding for national teacher certification, national standards, national testing, and national databases."

"A decade later, nearly all education policy makers agree that NCLB is too inflexible. HSLDA believes this illustrates that the federal government should not be in the business of establishing education policy for the nation's schoolchildren," the report said.

Now the reauthorization plan raises concerns over "the failed 'Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all' approach."

One provision of the bill specifically mandates that any state taking federal funds "must put in place 'college and career ready aligned standards.'"

"Mandating that each state have aligned standards with aligned coursework will guarantee the creation of national academic standards, national curriculum, and national testing," this week's report on the controversy said.

"We believe this will result in the eventual requirement that homeschoolers use these national standards, curriculum, and testing," the report said.

While some specifics that could be included in a final bill remain unclear, "the trend of national standards could lead to homeschoolers losing the freedom to choose the curriculum for their children."

An earlier HSLDA report by Estrada pointed out that national standards would remove control from local boards and districts and allow "unelected bureaucrats, not parents" to decide what subjects should be taught.

"National standards are a first step to a national curriculum and national testing," Estrada wrote. "Certain federal education funds to the states would be contingent on the states adopting the standards, which would place incredible pressure on the states to accept these national standards. And if some states resisted efforts to adopt the standards, this could easily lead to calls to make the standards mandatory in the name of being fair to all students. Furthermore, unelected bureaucrats would be able to choose what they believe every school child should be taught."

Just last year, Estrada said that such was the situation with the Washington "Race to the Top" funding for schools.

"If the federal government funds something, the federal government is going to control it. What we have is a de facto set of nationalized education standards being created."




To: MJ who wrote (116809)11/4/2011 11:41:33 AM
From: Hope Praytochange2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224720