It's Not Us, It's You!: A Response to "Code Switched"

Another article to read and analyze in Contemporary Justice Issues.  Another illogical flurry of misplaced blame.  Quite an interesting article.  Read to find out why. 

 http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/03/05/390723644/why-is-milwaukee-so-bad-for-black-people

This article was one of the most interesting and enlightening articles I have read.  It gave me never before seen insight into the way certain segments of the populous view the causes for plights and the way they connect situations with vast conclusions that have little logical or factual evidence for their good rather than the good of the communities they are supposedly trying to help.  For starters, the article is written by a person who has a clear bias view of the situation.  When one devotes her whole life to finding reasons for achievement gaps and racial disparity, it is far easier to find a straw man, or men, to vilify than to address the actual issues.  Her allegations are specific enough that there is someone to blame but broad enough that the group is incapable of having a defendant.  

To begin, the article somehow associates the largest incarceration rate among blacks in any major city in the country with racism.  It blames more money for police officers and higher policing for more incarcerations as if the police are attempting to hit some sort of racist quota.  Disregarding the fact that most police officers in the city come from minority communities.  Why would police not police more in neighborhoods with higher crime rates?  That creates safer communities, not more dysfunctional ones.  “Facts are stubborn things,” and the fact that 55% of violent crimes are committed by the African-American community is a fact.  This fact is the cause for the increased police presence.   

Then we get to the achievement gaps in schools.  The thought that school choice programs are creating the achievement gaps in schools is maybe the most vapid argument I have ever heard from the liberal left.  The comment in and of itself is a racist one.  If giving parents of African-American students choice as to where to send their child to school, and you blame that program for their child’s inability to read, you are thereby inferring that African-American parents are unable to make adequate choices for their children.  Is that assumption not racist?  This gap also occurs in a city, with some of the most powerful and influential teacher unions in the nation… but somehow that could not be the issue.  

But that outlines the whole truth of the article.  The inferences made and the issues brought up to convince people in the Milwaukee area, and elsewhere, that the cause for their plight is the fault of everyone else.  The resentful white people who moved to the suburbs, the racist police officers, a government indifferent to communities in poverty.  These issues brought up, and the inferred solutions deem government expansion and takeover a necessity in these communities.  This is the reason why liberals gain so much control over city centers.  Minority communities are told: “these are the problems and these are the solutions.”  This not only demeans the communities and treats them as lesser, it keeps politicians in power and a constant yearn for government help.  As if Milwaukee hasn’t been run by a progressive democrat in decades, when in actuality, the opposite is true.  That is why I found this article so interesting.  It gave me a new insight into the way that sycophantic liberals go about making their living.  It is easier to blame racism than to get to the true heart of the issue.  

"On A Plate": Explained

Before reading my extensive response, I encourage you to read the "Brilliant Comic Strip", which will "humble you".  This comic was given to us to analyze during a Contemporary Justice Class at my school.

https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/

This comic strip begs many questions, yet it also uncovers revealing truths about the way those on the far left view success and poverty in America.  As if preaching to a preschool audience, this comic illustrates the overt truth that not all humans have the same income, family structure, neighborhoods and circumstances, as if this was somehow a foreign concept to the people reading this comic.  Articles only have value, if they are either informative, or if they provoke action.  Since it is clear this comic informs no person out of infancy of anything, we must then seek value in a message or call to action.  The world is unequal, point conceded, but what are we to do about it?  

We must start with the infantile assumptions and distorted plot of the comic.  The most glaring of which is the absence of an explanation for the affluence of Richard’s family.  There is no mention of how his family achieved their standard of living.  As the great economist Thomas Sowell notes: “poverty is not a mystery.”  That is to say, since humans started in poverty, there does not need to be explanations for how someone fell into poverty.  Rather there needs to be explanations for how people escaped such poverty.  To put this into context, Richard’s family, at some time, maybe decades or centuries ago, was in the current state of Paula’s family.  It would be a far more beneficial comic to understand how Richard’s family propelled themselves out of poverty.  Sadly, this explanation in the comic is not given.  In our class “Contemporary Justice Issues,” we talk an awful lot about privilege as something neither worked for, nor wished for.  I am afraid that the creation of wealth, the realization of opportunities, the improvement of circumstances for you and your family, etc. are all wished for and all were achieved through work.       

Besides the deus ex machinas, which serves the purpose of keeping Paula in increasingly worse situations, and stereotypes about the expectations set by people of certain socioeconomic classes, the most disingenuous illustration propagated by this literary fecal matter is the omission of two key details.  The first being Richard’s father, Roger.  He is never mentioned to have worked in the comic, when we know he must have or currently is.  In fact, to reach the type of affluence that Roger has achieved for his family, would require him, or a recent ancestor of his, to have worked incredibly hard.  This fact is ignored in favor of the emotional picture of Paula on a couch alone without a parent at home.  The second is that, whether it wanted to or not, the comic illustrated the advantages of capitalism.  Richard seems by the end of the comic to have improved his circumstances in life.  It may have been from the upper middle class to the “one percent,” but nevertheless, still ascension on the economic ladder.   Surprisingly, the same for Paula, both her parents working two jobs so she could attain a college degree, getting into the job market, and earning money.  These are all improvements that must have been met given Paula’s circumstances at the beginning and end of the story.  The only things that held her back were literary devices required by the author to keep her in poverty.  

It starts with the demonization of hard work and the omission of logic, and truth, but it ends with a grizzly call to action.  The comic seeks to give the illusion that those who have social capital do not deserve it, and that those who do not have social capital do not deserve its vacancy.  This comic no doubt realizes that no one with such social capital, is going to envy a lesser life, nor are they likely to give away their capital willingly.  It also realizes that most people in America want such a lifestyle for themselves.  The final question it begs is: who then is going to change this cycle?  If those who have won’t give it away, and those without it cannot have it, what are we to do?  The answer unfortunately lies in the most failed and fatal ideology of our time: Socialism.  The only logical answer that can be yielded from a reading of this comic strip is for the enlightened, those who have read the comic, to dismantle the wealth and achievement of those with the capital.  It starts by demonizing success, dehumanizing hard working men and women, and creating an unattractive view of monetary success.  First tear down their reputations, then literally strip them from their high castles and cast them out on the streets.  

At first, this comic seems informative and somewhat cute, but it is really just another virus crawling its way closer and closer to the heart of the American Dream

Introduction to "The Conservative Intellectual"

Dear Reader,

This blog, like so many of the blogs and youtube videos in today's society, is one of political critique and a review of society.  However, in these areas, there always seems to be a vast difference, not only in the views of either side, but in the types of arguments put forth by either side.  The right is usually known for the unemotional, statistical and independent arguments, while those on the left are known for the charismatic, moral and emotional arguments.  These stereotypes are rooted in the fact that most people on the right live in rural counties, come from more traditional backgrounds and, quite frankly, have more facts than the left and therefore use them.  The liberal left come from academia, pop-culture and their spokespeople use morality and distorted facts to assert their point, while covering their inconsistencies with flowering speech and emotional tirades.   Those of whom I speak are the "intellectuals," the educated, prominent figures of affluent backgrounds.  They congregate in areas where their opinion is validated by nodding heads or book sales.  The fact is, this association between the two political adversaries and their stereotypes seem like an even battle of the wits: statistics vs morality, common good vs individual responsibility, etc. This is in fact not the case.  For conservatism truly wins on all fronts.  There is a beautiful logic to being a conservative and a true morality of it.  That is what this blog seeks to validate.  Many of the posts will be intellectual analysis of common liberal arguments, and analysis and rebuttal of articles showing the fallacies of the left.  I hope that all readers enjoy. 

Sincerely,

Philip Anderson