i hear you donjim. private education is all well and good if you can obtain it, but the original "argument" that we became so heated over was the home schooling issue. but i do agree with you about allowing children to attend a school of their parents choice, regardless of income. private education should not be a privledge reserved for the wealthy. i attended south bronx high, a very rough school in new york city and i made it through ok, but i am sure that my mother would have opted to send me to a better school, had she had the means necessary to do so.

By Donjm (205.188.200.148) on Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 10:52 pm:

I am in favor of private education. Give everyone a voucher and let them send their children wherever the parents want to

By Roberto (205.188.198.171) on Friday, June 8, 2001 - 06:29 pm:

You ladies are not only compassionate,(to compensate for the aggressiveness of us men), but you are too smart (our better half). That is why "a woman" is the best friend (if you can find the right one) a man can ever have. ~ Roberto

By Melirosa (208.48.12.181) on Friday, June 8, 2001 - 03:04 pm:

kansascity-
now you are showing your compassionate side? your previous post was anything but. you must have done some soul searching.

By Kansascity (209.242.125.126) on Friday, June 8, 2001 - 02:02 pm:

Anon: Women are a great gift to men from God. If so many abusive men these days do not appreciate what they have...they lose...is it learned behavior? I believe so. (gay lifestyle is also a learned behavior the majority of the time...true homesexuals are fewer in number than people think).
One thing I have noticed about women who have been abused, they have little to none compassion or empathy for one another. Maybe it is because nobody cared about what was happening to them. Or, maybe women feel like failures because they could not change HIM.
It is almost as though they have lost their ability to care about anyone but themselves.

On the otherhand, I know women who have stayed no matter what their husbands did to them and their children. Their reasons being several...which I won't go into here. (Maybe one reason could be that they would rather stay and deal with it...than go out alone into a world that would beat them down even further). Better to deal with one 'maniac' than many?
Then there are the women who got out...or so they thought...only to see the cycle of abuse repeating itself in their childrens lives.
The feminist movement may have initially started because of the way some men abused their power. Because of these types of men, all men have been hurt by the feminist backlash. However, the feminist ideology today is something much different than what it started out to be. Politics has come into play. Now men and women are pitted against one another in war. This is not God's plan for our lives. What are we going to do to change this tradgedy? Maybe we could study other cultures and times to learn who was the most successful at marriage and raising families and how they did it. In the times we live in now: it seems every man, woman, child is only for SELF. Autonomy is not the answer. We all need each other to survive. Relearn, rethink ways we can (male&female) cooperate and respect ourselves and each other once again...no matter the intrusiveness of those entities who undermine this effort (the anti-marriage folks).
What solutions can there be for young couples today starting out to avoid the pitfalls that wait for them? Go to talk to WISER people who share your good values and want to see your marriages and relationships succeed. Older couples who have been successfull in their marriages and raising families can mentor the younger couples. That is a good start.
As for those of us who have 'been there and done that' ...feeling helpless to prevent the rest of you from following each other off that deep edge...PRAYER and sharing information is a good thing. Take care

By Roberto (152.163.205.83) on Friday, June 8, 2001 - 12:08 am:

Yes, I believe the current public education system needs to be torn down (to save it). It needs to be demolished and rebuilt from scratch to meet the needs of children for the 21st century. Like any system (if you study systematics) it has lost its performance due to deterioration over time (called entropy in the systems science world). The public education system was once the model of the world. That is no longer the case.

You are right about one thing, and that is parents need to be the external overseers of the schools, the teachers of their children, and the content of what their children are being taught. This is largely not the case as it use to be in the past. What is needed is priority to learning and not on how much leisure time the children should have (schools should be year round), and not with nonsense subjects. The best teachers should be recruited and paid commensurate with professionals like doctors and lawyers. Teaching needs to be a respected profession like it is in Asia. Teachers need to be certified to teach in the subjects they are trained. The teachers unions need to be rein in as resistors to innovation and change. The latest new learning tools from the information technology arena and new methods of learning should be incorporated into the 21st century learning environment.

Yes, I believe that home schooling for those who desire it should have the right to teach their own children. I believe that home schooling should supplement charter, magnet or private schools. It can even do the same for public schools. No, this is no "right wing" plot to get women back in the home. It is however,an ideal way to get parents involved in their childrens learning process. It may even be a way to get some of those parents back into learning new skills themselves.

The Japanese model that was mentioned in the decades of the seventies and eighties was a result of total quality management studies from Deming and Juran decades earlier (they however, tried to get their fellow Americans to follow their advice as they helped the Japanese to rebuild their society following the second world war) as it related to the education of the workforce, which started in the schools first. They (Demings and Juran) were laughed out of town (the U.S. did not believe in their methods). See where it got us.

This is a complex subject that I can expand further into politics, sociology, history, racism and demographic changes, economics, etc. I'm tired and do not have the time right now. Besides, I do not want to bore anyone here. This is suppose to be the dating between black men and white women site. But then, what about the children that they may have? ~ Roberto

By Anon2000 (208.187.245.40) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 09:55 pm:

thank you, melirosa! i couldn't have said it better myself! some people....! until a person walks a mile in my shoes, they have NO place to judge; only God has that right.

and fyi, kc...i definitely believe in marriage - i was married twice. i desperately wanted my last marriage to work, but i don't tolerate physical abuse. maybe some folks here think it's better to stay married to an abusive man than single, but i am NOT one of them!

get over yourself, kansascity!

By Sabbadoo32 (12.2.19.162) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 04:14 pm:

Those who wish to tear down the current public education system are as misguided as they are well-intentioned. Back in the 80's we wanted our schools to teach kids like the Japaneese. In the 90's we moved away from the Japanese model (at the same speed we saw the Japanese economy melt) and decided the only way to get a truly quality education for kids is to teach them ourselves. Or teach them in schools that looked modern but were in fact 50's retro. Who knows what will be the main dissatisfaction with education in the 00's?

We will shell out $3-5k/year to educate a son or daughter, but don't want our property taxes going up $100 to help educate the rest of the kids in the neighborhood. And we don't want to substitute property taxes with sales taxes to fund education. It's a chinese trap.

We need to lessen the power teachers unions and the educational bureaucracy has on innovation, while at the same time getting rid of the incoming wave of FEDERAL oversight and mandatory testing. There are enough tests already. We have the ability to measure. We need to learn how to teach kids more than how to regurgitate force-fed facts and figures.

It's funny how the same educational system that gave us Silicon Valley in the 90's is the same education system that was predicted to self-destruct by that time. We do need to increase the quality of children's education. We need to offer better quality technical educational programs. For those kids who come out of horrible schools, we need to strenghten the community college program.

Schools can never replace parents, but let's face it, we need better parents. I have very little patience with parents who don't get involved with what's happening in their kids school. I am for parental involvement, but not parental domination.

I'm from Chicago, where they stood the public education model on its ear and have managed to keep test scores heading upward.

By Ishvara (38.163.112.150) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 11:41 am:

Please, home schooling is so well and good, give me a break, and for all the women who do stay home and depend on the man for income, wise up. One can only hope he doesn't die any time soon or take off, then what skill do you have to make a living? I'm all for an equal partnership in whatever way the couple decides to split the responsibilty based on ability. I have no problem with stay at mothers, mine having been one. Life changes, society changes, this is natural and the only concept that is truly solid, that is the truth, is, things change, they evolve. Hopefully better, never think that change and growth are simple, mistakes, pitfalls, unforseen circumstance, all these aspects influence outcomes, you learn, you adept, you try another tactic. Thinking that there is one plan or one path that is the RIGHT way is pure ignorance. Better a child see a good example of a mentally healthy, well adjusted, happy women as a role model than one who has no identity of her own that isn't tied to family or being someone's wife. What happens when the kids and/or the husband are gone, what then, where does the sense of self come from, all those years defining yourself with something that is now taken away. Be a complete person which you can do along with defining yourself as wife and mother.

I'd like to know what world you live in, in reality? I'm not so sure. Let me tell you all a little something. People my age, grew up different, different concepts, different enviroment, we think different, and we will create a different future. Filled with all types of families, blended, mixed single, traditional. The type doesn't matter it is the quality.

By Melirosa (208.48.12.181) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 10:23 am:

wyatt-
a great intellectual? only if you share the same thoughts may i say.

By Melirosa (208.48.12.181) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 10:09 am:

kansascity,
exactly who do you think you are making such a judgemental, ridiculous statement such as the one you just made to anon2000? the more you talk the more i realize just how non-commited you are to the things you post here and supposedly believe in. you are hypocritical and you don't seem to take a firm stand on anything. one minute you are saying one thing and another minute you are saying another. you are full of "well, maybes". how dare you say what you did in the manner in which you chose! how do you know what kind of world she lives in and who the hell are you to look down on her because she is a hardworking single mom, and then to say to her "don't you wish you had one", referring to a husband. your short ignorant post made my blood boil, you sound like a bratty, insensitive teenager rather than the "older woman full of wisdom" that you like to claim that you are. you need to stop, collect your thoughts and then think before you start some of your posts here if you want to try and keep fooling people into thinking you are this intellectul, open minded person you claim to be. i am a woman with children, who at one time was raising my children on my own and i could have never have been able to afford to stay at home and school my children. this does not make me less of a person because my children were in the public school system. this does not mean that i do not care about my childrens education. this does not give people like you the right to look down their nose at people like me who can not home school their children because they are single working moms working their ass off to support their families to give them what they need. you do not know how these single hard working mothers came to be single mothers. some of us did not choose to be single mothers and it just happened that way. for you to be so, let me say, stupid, in making such a harsh remark shows the lack of open mindedness that is you, that you praise yourself so highly for. get a grip woman, you are no better than me or anyone else on this board because you choose homeschooling and you have a husband. you don't deserve big ups or props, and you do not own the words "good mother" to be assuming others are not because our children are not homeschooled or we are single mothers. i only hope your husband doesn't up and leave you high and dry one day, then what would you do? you would have to eat your words and suck it up like a lot of other women, hell, maybe it would show you the light. what kind of world do you live in kansascity? take off your blinders, you are ridiculous!

By Kansascity (209.242.125.27) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 02:33 am:

Anon: Women with Husbands are able to homeschool their children. Don't you wish you had one!
What kind of world do you live in?

By Anon2000 (208.187.245.42) on Thursday, June 7, 2001 - 01:35 am:

well, some people here sure do like to kiss alot of azz...speaking with conviction...ahem

those of you who are so adamant about home schooling...who is ABLE to homeshool their child??? it's certainly not the working single mom. i don't know what kind of world y'all live in, but it's not even close to mine. ELITISTS!

spade, i'm joining you!

By Kansascity (209.242.125.3) on Wednesday, June 6, 2001 - 07:36 pm:

Well Ya'll I have most definitely become a Conservative....as the years roll by. And I think I always have been, but compromised too much when I was younger and just tried to blend into whatever environment was around me. At that time, I could not really let on that I was that conservative at heart (I thought). I had to survive. Now, I don't care who knows.

By Wyatt (207.106.60.186) on Wednesday, June 6, 2001 - 03:04 pm:

Damn, you two are the greatest intellects on this website. Home schooling is an imperative to get our children back and/or a small private school with teacher who are held accountable and parents who are involved and take responsibility for the failure and bad behavior of their kids.

The Bar should be raised as high as we can with being punitive. I really think that liberals teach our kids and then have lowered expectations is one of the major reasons for the death of the negro male child.

Do not leave education, ethics, morals and growth in the hands of the state. The state pimps these children to marketing and to the streets.

Fight the liberal establishment however you can. Whether you are conservative or progressive, do what you can to keep the liberals and the centrists out of sight and mind.

From another old fashioned colored guy and I am only 35 years old!!!

By Roberto (152.163.201.178) on Wednesday, June 6, 2001 - 07:20 am:

Kansascity:

Unlike some white women here on this board, you speak with conviction. You have experienced life and do not hide behind the cloak of "white privilege" (another important subject) as many do and an unawareness that is shielded by artificial bunkers to keep out the stark realities of life.

I too believe in the home school movement. In fact, I'm currently involved in it with my oldest daughter with my grand daughter. The public school system (a government runned school system) need to be made competitive with charter, magnet or private schools or simply be abolished. I too believe that the genders need to be segregated as early as possible and throughout the early learning process.

The problem I have with the black male's education is that he is not challenged to be more than he can ever be. Give him sports and entertainment and that is all he can expect to be and learn. The reason that the black male is systematically seen as "marginal men" unable to hold, maintain and foster lasting relationships with women in general is because its expected of him to be a failure period by politicians who use him as a pawn in their power politics, the black and white feminist women who see him as useless partners to be a part of a family, school administrators who see him as unable to learn, and as they see themselves as having no value or a contributing factor in this fast changing highly technological society. Kanasacity, you are my kind of woman. You are a seasoned fighter and can stand on your own with the knowledge that only you can determine your own destiny. Are you a conservative, moderate or a progressive? ~ Roberto

By Kansascity (209.242.125.159) on Wednesday, June 6, 2001 - 04:06 am:

I see the problem...live with it everyday...feel powerless to set high standard for my family when all around us are very different values or none at all.

I wish they would raise the age of consent. It is 16 years old where I live. And, an 18 year old female is still too young to get tossed out into the world. She/He is not ready!..What happened to 21?

Home schooling would be better for educating young boys, girls, teenagers because in the public school systems they send a message that it is inevitable that they will have sexual relations without BENEFIT of marriage.

If more people could/would home school their kids at least they would not feel such pressure to perform so to speak. They would tend to WAIT LONGER before pursuing a relationship or looking for a 'Lover' or "Father or Mother" for the babies they feel so desperate to have...(someone to love or love them in return?)
The only way to stop this trend is too literally separate the male and female in the educational process the way it was done years ago. Look at all the freedom they have...just enough rope to ...and the social engineers profit from the mistakes, poor decisions and bad choices of young people who go that route. A whole industry is built up around it!
Keep your kids out of the public schools if you cannot protect them from the crap they will be exposed to. Besides parents are treated like idiots or an invisible lot.
Even the better run high schools are sending the wrong message to kids about their maturing process...it is all so contrived and misleading to our young!
KEEP YOUR KIDS HOME TO SCHOOL! They won't be missing out on as much as you think. Also, home schooled kids I have met are outstanding! They also have not been turned against their parents and families.
Such a sad state we are in today.

By Roberto (205.188.192.38) on Tuesday, June 5, 2001 - 07:03 pm:

Brother Wyatt:

I will only address something you said in your second point.

"The biggest problem today is illegitmacy". ~ Wyatt

To me, the black male is at the epicenter of this decline of the traditional family in the black community. Too many black males are born losers for the reason of absolute deplorable performance as fathers, husbands, and brothers. This is the product of "attitude". Sometimes, I wonder what white women or any woman see in a lot of these guys. If you look at the statistics reports from the "National Center for Health Statistics" you will see that the proportion of illgitimate births among black women by black men was slightly down from 1999 from previous years. The unnerving news that is coming out is that 69.1 percent of black babies are born out of wedlock occured during that same year (1999).

"Fatherlessness" is the greatest indicator as to whether a child will end up in poverty or in prison. I was checking recently the median income of a two person family as opposed to a single parent family and I have found that the average two person family made around $52,553 while a single person family is $21,316. For a single woman or mother who was never married, it was $12,064. Now what about the black male?

The phenomenal rate of illegitmate births by black women by black men (sorry guys, I know the truth hurts) is the principle reason why a third of blacks live in poverty, and half the prison population are black males. It has been estimated by the National Urban League that some 70 percent of the long term prison inmates and roughly 70 percent of the juveniles in reform schools were raised in homes without fathers. Brother Wyatt, I see why your job is so hard! Brother you are fighting a neverending war. I ask you brother, is this a legacy from slavery?

When I look at the historical record of an earlier time around 1960, when most of the South was still segregated. The South was only a half century from when slavery ended. Blacks then were only 23 percent born out of wedlock.

Education use to be the path from poverty to prosperity as your own example has proven. But, now the National Assessment of Education Progress reported just last year, mine you that nearly two thirds of black fourth graders could not read. This is a social catastrope that this country will pay a price. The few black leaders who realize this are only prescribing to fix the problem by lowering the standards, or blame it on whites.

John McWhorter, the young black boyish looking professor from the University of California-Berkeley (liberal epicenter) who is in linguistics wrote the riveting book "Losing the Race". He said the following, "blacks are sabotaging themselves through a cult of victimization, a cult of separatism, and a cult of anti-intellectualism. Blacks are unlikely to take advantage of the opportunities available to them, they blame their problems on others, and they condemn working or studying hard as "acting white"

As I said months ago in other posts here as Mr. McWhorter is finding alarming, especially among black males from families of black doctors and lawyers who attend good surburban schools are that they are beginning to cluster at the bottom half of their classes just like the inner city children. The reason is the attitude of acting like white, so they let their grades plummet to get back in the graces of the "black trash" (sorry if I hurt someones feelings) low achievers. Sorry if this is too much for the faint hearts here.

The white teachers will set lower intellectual and moral standards for blacks, to do them a favor. I think its an insult. The Jews (no I'm not a racist) can survive centuries of persecution and the Holocaust and have their children be expected to reach for any bar. The chinese can be tortured on the streets and barred from employment anywhere in the world (like in Indonesia and Malaysia), but in laundries, sweatshops and restaurants (check one out) have expected their children to reach for any bar. But pull a well fed black inner city or surburban male (mostly) over for a drug check or subject him to teachers who will not call on him, then he is forever subjected to "lower expectations".

Brother Wyatt, you know what burns the hell out of me (this old fashioned colored guy), Martin Luther King stroved to bring us blacks together to take on the best of what the world would throw at us. Now, many blacks (especially black males) live in a parallel universe where no black male can do wrong, AIDS will not kill them, and anything a white person say to them is a slur (you white ladies need to be aware of this). I guess if this is the world many black men would like to live in, then may God forever rests their souls. ~ Roberto

By Wyatt (207.106.60.23) on Monday, June 4, 2001 - 10:25 am:

Roberto,

sorry for not answering you for so long, but remember that I highly respect you. I too feel like Libertarian is the way to go. I think that these two parties are just out to win elections an take money from corporations bound to take over the minds of our country. Bush is weak, not as weak as the Democrats, but weak and lacking the Principles of Ronald Reagan. I think fighting to the last man shows integrity and strength, not laying prostrate in the court of public opinion. Jeffords fled the Republican party because he was persuaded by the Dems with gifts of positions. He worked under Reagan who is far and away more conservative than Bush, so why did he not defect then? Because he has no integrity and the Bush administration has no teeth. Let him go, I say and stand up and fight for the moral and cultural life of this society.

Answering your other question. I will never change from a Godly man who tries to be strong, supportive, caring, protective, loving, filled with character--to feminize myself. This has been the downfall of the black community and the country as a whole. God teaches us to be kind and giving, caring and friendly, but He also points out that feminine traits and weakness of the spirit is not good for men. We can be masculine in the Godly sense, but some of the masculine in society today is not masculine at all. Violence, cruelty, coldness, anger, bruteness, prideful, this is not masculine this is sin. Strength of character, integrity, bravery, courage, duty to God, country, family, thrift, fugality, honesty, giving these are true masculinty.
The biggest problem in the black community and in this society today is not racism. The biggest problem today is illegitimacy. When a male makes a baby and walks away from his duties, he is not a man he is a loser and a coward. Men can care for child, and they are needed to teach all those things pointed out above and a male who does not is not a man at all.

By Kansascity (209.242.125.20) on Saturday, June 2, 2001 - 12:40 am:

Thank You for prayers Roberto...

Wherever my Uncle is, I hope he can walk again...I have never seen a more beautiful, sacred service than the military salute: the way the flag was carefully folded and given to the family with a crucifix. Then the horn that played that farewell tune without missing a note...
He is buried on "The Hill" the veterans call it. This is a huge National Cemetery which connects to the Veterans Administration Medical Center complex in Leavenworth, Kansas.
Following is a news article written about him when he lived at the VAMC Nursing Center.

FYI

"WWII VET SPENDS TIME IN TWO THEATRES OF ACTION"
by Duane Allen (writer at the VAMC/Leavenworth)


There are men who make things happen, men who watch things happen and men who wonder what happened. In his brief military career, William D. Midboe was all three.
Born January 2, 1923, in St. Paul, MN, Midboe was raised in the small logging town of Rib Lake, WI. Spending his entire childhood there, he went on to work for the Rib Lake lumber mill after graduating high school in 1941.
Drafted into the Army in February 1943, Pvt. Midboe received basic training at Camp Howze, TX. At O'Reilly General Hospital in Springfield, MO, he received medical training and was then deployed to Camp Livingston, LA, a fully qualified medic. At this point he hadn't been in the Army a full year.
Aside from extensive field training in Louisiana, Midboe found himself as the medic on a troop train carrying troops to the east coast for deployment to the European Theatre.
In what seemed to be preparation to be deployed to the Pacific Theatre, Midboe's entire unit was sent to Camp Cook, CA. The tide of the war would change with the Battle of the Bulge, and after the rigors of amphibious assault training, the entire unit was again transferred, this time to Boston Harbor for deployment to the European Theatre.
The Battle of the Bulge was a major turning point in the war in Europe, so when Midboe arrived in Dudville, France, Hitler's troops were on the run and Midboe's unit was soon in the chase.
It is forgotten these days, that the atrocities committed against the Jews were not fully realized until the concentration camps were liberated. As a medic, Midboe attended to the medical needs of the survivors after his unit liberated the Dacau concentration camp.
Still on the chase, Midboe saw VE day in Innsbruck, Austria. A short stay in Mannheim, Germany, and then back to Dudville before his return to the U.S.
Fort Sheridan, OK, is the next and what Midboe assumed would be his last duty station, but it was not to be. Shortly after the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, Midboe and entire unit, a medical battalion of the 86th Infantry, which he had been with since basic training, were sent to Pittsburg, CA, and after what seemed like the scenic route, finally deployed to the Pacific Theatre in the Phillipines as an occupation force.
Returning from the Phillipines, Midobe was discharged from the Army at Camp McCoy, WI. He was 23.
Back in civilian life this most remarkable man would return to the same lumber mill and lead an unassuming blue-collar life.
Complications from diabetes forced Midboe into the Domiciliary in Janurary 1974. Eventually he became an NHCU resident.
"I want to thank the doctors and nurses for the care they give me," he says. "They're the greatest."

By Roberto (64.12.105.168) on Friday, June 1, 2001 - 11:47 pm:

Kansascity:

Please accept my condolence for the loss of your uncle. I'm sorry I have not responded sooner, but, I just arrived back into the U.S. today. Losing someone who you love so much is difficult to endure. I lost a favorite uncle last year (and some good friends). He like your uncle and my father are part of the "Greatest Generation", who are not greatly appreciated by this current generation. We should never forget that they saved the world for you and me. It's hard to lose someone you love. But, Kansascity you must pick up and go on. I'm a stranger to you, but I want you to feel that despite your personal loss your uncle is in heaven, he is at peace. He has done a noble thing in his time for us all. Be thankful that you had the enjoyable experience to live a precious slice of time with him and never forget the memories. He is in my prayers tonight and so are you. Goodbye ~ Roberto

By Sabbadoo32 (12.2.19.162) on Tuesday, May 29, 2001 - 01:19 pm:

Roberto:

I think Bush is trying to mimic Reagan in that he's announcing what he's going to do early on, and then leave others to do the leg work. It worked for Reagan because everyone kind of loved the old catnapping Gipper. It is known that Bush and Reagan spent a lot of time together, and that Bush applied some of Reagan's style.

Bush has no similar reservoir of warm and friendly feelings. He's doesn't have Reagan's charisma. When Reagan finished a complete sentence, we felt good because he delivered lines like a President should. When Bush finishes a complete sentence, we feel good because he managed not to murder the english language. His staff wants us to believe he's quite the leader. But watching how he goes about doing business, Bush is more the head of a committee.

Bush will run afoul of the Democrats. Pride and his staff will keep him for cutting deals he wasn't prepared to make with a Republican majority. He won't much want to deal with prescription drugs, health care bill of rights, expansion of the EITC, or minimum wage issues. If the Democrats can hold their tongues and demeanor, the Republicans will do a fine job of showing the public how to be be nasty and snitty. Hopefully he won't take lessons from Clinton on how to out-position his opponents.

By Kansascity (209.242.125.245) on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 10:26 pm:

Roberto: I have been gone these past days because my uncle, a veteran of WW2 passed away. He is lying in state in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas. I spent the time helping him, I hope. My heart is breaking. He is my favorite uncle...just like a father to me. I hope there really is a heaven. He deserves to be there. Take care...

By Roberto (152.163.213.207) on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 08:51 am:

Kansascity:

I too will be gone for a while. My wife and I are leaving later today for a trip to spend some time at a family reunion and then we will fly out to Miami to spend a day with an old friend there. We will then fly out of Miami to Panama (my wife's home country) to visit her family there. Once there we plan to take a cruise on the Panama Canal, go to Volcan, Costa Rica, and spend some time at the resort Island of Taboga (off the coast of Panama City on the pacific side of the Isthmus of Panama.

Kansascity, let me say I enjoyed the conversations with you, melirosa, Ishvara, Wyatt and others. I started this thread "Voice of a Black Conservative" over a year ago and I'm amazed its still here. I know its was not appropiate for a forum like this, but back then a black woman asked the question "are black conservative men were more likely to marry white women than black liberals". I had to respond then. I'm surprise this thread outlived all the others from the webmaster from May 2000.

Kansascity, if we do not communicate again, please keep that informative stream of information coming from your reliable sources. Take care. ~ Roberto

By Kansascity (209.242.125.203) on Saturday, May 26, 2001 - 07:11 am:

Been gone few days..just checking in to see what is being discussed on the board..

By Roberto (152.163.213.56) on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 09:04 pm:

Sabbadoo32:

Very astute political observations. I must say I agree with you for the most part. Bush will be blamed for the Repubican Senate's lost of the balance of power by the hard right wing of the party. They will say he was never his own man to stand on his own feet. Trent Lott will be tossed. I predict Don Nickles will be nominated as Minority Leader of the Senate.

You are so right, Bush is in trouble with a Democratic majority determined to prevent him from achieving any legislative success. Bush must depend heavily on moderate and conservative democrats for coalition against the more liberal members of the democratic party in the Senate, if he is to have any success for the remainder of his term. He must stand on his own and not use Vice president Cheny as a crutch. He needs to make his own voice on the critical issues known. He must be tough like Ronald Reagan to put the democrats on the defensive. Remember, the democrats had majorities in the Congress and Senate when Reagan was president, but he still outmanuevered them.

Bush's success will be to keep it simple. He needs to get the few issues he promised like tax reduction and reform, social security reform, sensible health care reform, tort reform, and a viable missile defense system in place. If he can do all these things, then he will be the greatest president ever. To do this he need to use "realpolitic" like the prussian leader Otto Von Bismark to outsmart his opposition. ~ Roberto

By Sabbadoo32 (12.2.19.162) on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 11:39 am:

Ahh, a topic I can sink my teeth into!

Bush will get the blame, but I imagine it more rightly lies in the laps of Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, and Don Nickles. Jeffords dealt with these guys more than they did Bush. Jeffords is in the better position to discern the rhetoric from the reality. Bush and the congressional Republican leaders talk from the middle, but try to rule from the right. It has been good that Bush will deal away anything to take credit for the bill, as in the early concession on school vouchers. This may be his only saving grace.

Had Bush and Lott dealt with Jeffords concerns instead of demeaning and punishing him, then Bush would have his majority. Strom Thurmond is going to retire before 2004, and the soon to be day Jesse Helms retires will become a minor national holiday.

Bush will run into trouble if Daschle and the Senate Democrats can control the legislative agenda, putting Bush in reaction mode. Although Clinton lost both houses, he set the agenda and kept the Republicans reacting to his initiatives. And these arrogant Republicans played into it just like Keystone Kops. Try as they did, they kept coming off as manipulative and shrill. Thank God Gingrich didn't listen when advisors told him to tone down his rhetoric.

Remember when the Republicans tried to attach a tax cut to a South Dakota flood disaster relief bill? Clinton came along and blew them out of the water for trying to play politics with disaster victims. I expect more shenanigans along this line.

A one-vote majority means having to address the needs of all members of that majority. Not every Republican is as right wing (and just plain goofy) as Phil Gramm. I hope someone manages to use his "special education is not a Republican issue" quote against him. What was he thinking? Does he really believee that? Does he have kids?

As you can tell, I'm not that conservative. I would be more easily defined as a conservative democrat. I respect a lot of moderate republicans (McCain, Fitzgerald (IL), Jack Kemp, Bob Dole (before he had to run for president), Snowe, Specter, and even Denny Hastert. But the voice of the moderate republican is getting lost in the need to pay off the religous right, big business, and especially the NRA.

Looking forward to the 2002 elections.

By Roberto (152.163.204.178) on Friday, May 25, 2001 - 10:21 am:

To Wyatt:

What in the hell is wrong with President Bush. How did he and his minions around him allow one of their own (a Republican) to defect as an independent? Also, I hear that Bush is proposing another failed social program to give pregnant single mothers $5,000 to marry the father of their child (we know who will benefit from this one),plus a $1,000 a year, for five years after they are married to seal the union. Wyatt, I think I will join the Libertarian Party. At least they have principles. I'm deeply disappointed with the Republican Party. They are just like the Democrats, liberal big spenders. Hell, they cannot even fight dirty like the Democrats. They do not deserve power. ~ Roberto

By Roberto (152.163.201.83) on Saturday, March 24, 2001 - 10:56 am:

They have been attacked for marrying interracially (white women), they have had been called sellouts and niggers on nationally broadcast radio, they have had called their children called all kinds of derogatory names (zebras, mongoloids) and they have been threaten with death. Who I'am I talking about, Ken Hamblin (out of Denver Colorado) and Larry Elders (out of Los Angeles, California). These two well respected, hightly educated, experienced black men, who are conservative in their views and who are known throughtout America are attacked not by racist whites, but from their own, blacks. They are attacked, because they say the things that many do not want to hear, and have a lifestyle that many are envious of, because they decided to take white women for mates.

Yesterday, on Ken Hamblin's show that was broadcasted to millions, a black man called in to the show and lambasted ken as a "sellout nigger". He relished the word "nigger", because I counted seven times that he used the word. He said that people like ken should be removed from this country and life. When he (the black man) left the show he called Ken "you nigger" in a tone that would have made the Ku Klux Klan proud. Ken did not censured the call, he let it play out on national radio. The response from the audience was immediate. Most of Ken's defenders were white men and women, especially white women. Not one black man or woman called in to express their indignation. Ken is a tough man and been around (he is 60 years old and a former civil rights fighter and was once chased by the KKK in the South), but I could tell he was hurt. If Ken was liberal, and the man was white, perhaps it would have been a different story in a response from blacks.

When I see Ken Hamblin, (he will visit Virginia on May 10, 2000 at the Chesapeake Convention Center for "TalkFest 2001" along with another conservative Niel Boortz who is white from Atlanta, Georgia), I hope to get the chance to shake his hand, get his autograph and establish a friendship with a man I greatly admire.

P.S. Ken's website is www.hamblin.com and Larry Elder's site is www.larryelder.com ~ Roberto

By Kansascity (209.242.125.134) on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 01:17 am:

What ever side your on....having morals, values, and decency is paramount in any relationship. KC :-)

By Roberto (63.48.140.130) on Saturday, March 17, 2001 - 09:45 am:

Wyatt:

Can you confirm something for me. You as a black conservative I assume take a lot of fire as I do as being a sellouts to the black cause and community. I even assume you are attacked for your masculinity as a black man and choice of mate(s) from black females who in most cases are liberal and tend to see black conservative males as the first line to delink from a black woman and run into the arms of a white woman, hence they attack us relentlessly. Tell me this, do you see an attempt to extinguish any trace of the strong masculine black male in favor of a weak, and dependent black male? I notice the group that is the most vocal in the black community are feminist black women who want to establish their own black feminist goals. This gets little coverage from the national media. Other black conservatives have hinted to this like conservatives talk show hosts Armstrong Williams and Ken Hamblin, Dr. Walter Williams, Economics professor out of the University of Virginia, and Dr.Thomas Sowell (my intellectual idol). What do you think?

On another subject of male masculinity. I notice the venomous attacks against Vice President Cheney by liberals that he is trying to be "macho", because he return to work right after his recent illness. The vocal resonance has become ridiculous. What is wrong with the image of a strong man in this society? Is this the reason we see many young men trying to find themselves today from being forced to be not as males, but for lack of a better word as "she-males" as some of our critics from other countries are calling men in this country.

Years ago on Troy Donahue's show in one of his segments he ripped into Chuck Norris and other men who exhibit the strong male image to placate the "sensitive man". I have nothing against the "sensitive man" or being such. I think we (men)can be both sensitive, strong and masculine. I do not go for the thinking of subjecting the males in this country to the "gayish indoctrination" to extinguish the "manly man" in favor of the "girlie man" for lack of better words.

I do see an image that has emerge in respect to the two political parties. The Democrats are seen as sensitive, and compassionate,and individualistic, female traits and characteristics, and the Republicans are seen as stern, disciplined, and traditionalists, male traits and characteristics. Wyatt, what do you think? Oh yes, the hell with the critics. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (63.169.132.219) on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 09:00 pm:

Mark my word if the Bush Administration is in power for 8 years inequality will increase dramatically. I won't bring out the statistics again about how inequality increased to a unprecedented levels due to the policies of the Regan Administration, or how the American class system has a distribution more like that found in pre-WWII Britain. (Compare the Anglo-American mentality to the French or German or even Scandinavian) There would be no point here, and they can be found at the commerce department and in scholarly journals.

Ralph Nader said to the effect of, the difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party is the Democrats do nothing about injustice or follow the conservative "drift" of society. The Republicans actively create injustice. Cornell West said that Al Gore is dangerous, GWB is very dangerous and they both should be opposed by those who call themselves real liberals/progressives. I would have to agree with them.

GWB (or shall I say his administration, Bush is not really a functioning executive, but perhaps only slightly more that Ronald Reagan, who didn't know where he was half the time) was put into power by certain sections of the American elite to wage top-down class warfare on the bottom 80 and to aggressively further American Imperial interests. (Just wait for US backed atrocities in Latin America to resume to their Reagan levels.) Clinton was a moderate Republican, but I think I would prefer a moderate Republican to a far right one.

Politics seem to be a distraction for the black community now. The real problem is that blacks cannot seem to come together and pool their money in an effective way so as to develop institutions that would protect it whatever comes. This is changing, but ever so slowly.

Wyatt the biggest shoe-shine men have been Clarence Thomas and Ward Connerly. Ward Connerly seems to even get the distinction of being Pete Wilson’s pet Negro.

This is all I will say about the liberal/conservative debate.

By Wyatt (207.8.207.96) on Thursday, March 8, 2001 - 10:07 am:

How? After all this time things haven't changed all that much. In Philly, the whites and the blacks are more divided than they were pre-civil rights. Racism is just as rampant there as it is in the old confederacy and sometimes more. It is not hard to believe that people like Hollings, Byrd, Thurmond and Helms, to name a few, still get elected. I was born in the great state of South Carolina, and let me tell ya, "Ole times dere are not forgottin'". Neither are they in liberal Boston, D.C. or New York. And blacks continue to elect Democrats, thinking that they give a crap about inner city blight, violence, drugs, etc. The media only covers stories of suburban school shootings, when in the inner city it happens, the nightly news is nowhere to be found. We haven't changed that much and liberals and democrats haven't either. They still talk with forked tongue, telling minorities what they want to hear to get their vote. But when issues like this or ones like, for example, the Census and recognizing children of Interracial parents comes up, the democrats and liberals are the biggest opposition. The liberals are just as afraid to have a black son in law as the conservative, believe me. It is the libertarians, progressives and actually a few conservatives who are fighting to change these arcane and regressive views.

Go to: www.multiracial.com and here the voices of not the liberals and democrats, but real progressive people.

By Ishvara (4.54.118.178) on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 08:22 pm:

I don't think so, seems very peculiar to me. Somebody needs to demand an answer, you said he was in the kkk and he's still in office?!?!!? How, please somebody tell me how, after all this time...

By Roberto (152.163.201.63) on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 07:03 pm:

Wyatt and Ishvara:

I have a high degree of intolerance for racism and bigotry. When it comes from a learned man like Senator Byrd I'm dismayed. I'm hearing reports that are coming out that Senator Byrd a former member of the KKK once filibustered in the senate, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, tried to filibuster Thurgood Marshall's appointment to the Supreme Court and tried to do the same with Clarence Thomas. I'm surprised why all these years the black leadership across this country never made an issue of him. Is it because, he is a Democrat? I understand if it was not for the Republicans in 1964, the Civil Rights Act would not have passed, because of the intense opposition from Southern Democrats (DixiCrats or bluedogs)like Friz Hollings, and Strom Thurmound who was once a Democrat(who are still there). Hollings rose the Confederate flag atop the Georgia state capital in opposition to giving Civil Rights to blacks. Something stinks to high heaven here or is it just me making a mountain out of a molehill? ~ Roberto

By Ishvara (4.54.118.111) on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 05:46 pm:

Just read some of the Bushisms, is that for real!?!? Just reinforces my complete disgust for the political system's puppets. I'm not one for politics, many will disagree with this choice but I don't participate, no faith with the present structure nor do I see it improving in the near future.

By Wyatt (207.106.60.9) on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 - 10:01 am:

Roberto,

I am using the Webster's Dictionary as well, and I see a difference between the word "Niggardly" meaning stingy and "Nigger" meaning an offensive term for blacks or Negroes.

I have a problem with this Senator using the word in any context, except maybe an historical one. I find it amusing that so many people attacked John Ashcroft for his speaking at Bob Jones Univ. and in that pro-Southern cultural paper, but liberals are silent on Mr. Byrd. What a hypocritical double standard. There are no Niggers, white or black. It is derrogatory and is wrong. Using alternative terms like Nigga is also wrong, whether it is popular culture or not. I wonder if John Ashcroft used Nigga, would it be ok, or perhaps George W. using the word nigger?

By Hectorvelasquez (63.169.132.219) on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 10:53 pm:

I do live in California. Let's just say that some people who are part of the ACLU are not fond of him. I have heard that he is a control freak. I didn't like Pete Wilson and I don't care for Davis either, although he is better than Pete "beats his meat" Wilson. I remember hearing that Davis is beholden to the prision guards union and is not going to go against them or law enforcement agencies on issues like racial profiling and the explosion of the prison population. Rep. Murry caved in with Davis on the issue of racial profling. Murry had been stopped while driving in Beverly Hills. (As an aside, I drive through BH reguraly but I have never been stopped by BHPD. I have also talked to a few white males who are "class" profiled, but they seem completely resigned to it. Nobody talks about white men with long hair and tattered clothing being stoped by the police frequently. This is something that needs to be researched more.) Democrats are "better" than Republicans, but they don't do a damn about trying to change anything. Davis is a centerist whose only center is what the opinion polls tell him.

Basically I'm pissed off because he is beholden to the prison gaurds union, who have a de facto interest in seeing more black men locked up, and Davis could care less about racial profiling issues. Prisons have been one of the biggest growth industries in California for some time.

By Anon2000 (207.218.73.35) on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 09:57 pm:

hector, you don't live in cali, do you? if you did, you would know that davis is VERY popular here. i wouldn't be surprised if he is elected president one day, he'll surely run. state workers KNOW he is a vast change from the last 2 administrations!! i heard he has quite a temper tho...

i haven't really been affected by the power crisis...yet.

By Roberto (205.188.197.48) on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 - 08:33 am:

I understand the context in which Senator Byrd used the words "White Niggers", to illustrate the point that there are all kinds of niggers, not just black niggers, which the word "nigger" is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "a person who is a miser or stingy person". He also wanted to make the point that we as a nation need to move beyond race and stop talking so much about it. If you remember the Mayor of Washington D.C. had one of his staff members used the word "niggardly" to describe the city's "stingy" financial budget. He was overheard using the word by several black council members who went into a fury and caused a national debate. It turned out they did not understand what the word "Niggardly" meant and nor the context it was used. They thought the council man meant "Niggardly" on a racial basis.

My main point for bringing this up is the double standard again displayed. If blacks say the "N" word no problem, if Democrats use the "N" word no problem (President Johnson was once quoted in using the "N" word and his daughter who made the remark "Where is my nigger" in reference to her valet). But, if those hated Republicans say the "N" word no matter in what context all hell will break loose and a demand for a resignation would be in order, and the liberal news media would still be in a frenzy. It's the hypocrisy and selective thinking that gets to me. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (63.169.132.219) on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 10:38 pm:

What was the context of this speach about "white niggers?"

Anon I don't like the "centrist" Davis Administraion in California at all. Yes I heard about what the lt. governor said. I guess you are in the thick of the power crisis.

By Anon2000 (207.218.73.27) on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 10:18 pm:

hector, it can't be much worse than our california latino lt. governor saying the n word..."oh, but it was just a slip of the tongue!" he NEVER uses that word...when elected official become emboldened to use it, it makes you do some hard thinking. kinda brings to mind that movie, bullworth.

By Roberto (205.188.197.47) on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 08:45 pm:

Hector:

I think the man who should be attacked right now is Senator Robert Byrd, who said the "White Niggers" comment on FOX News Sunday with Tony Snow. I saw it and heard it. I could not believe what was coming out of the mouth of this distinguished Senator (former member of the KKK) and a Democrat. Funny, its hot topic on Niel Boortz, Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage and Micheal Reagan. I do not heard one word from Kwesi Mifume, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Julian Bond. Is it because, a Democrat said it. What if a white Republican Senator said this slur? ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (63.169.132.219) on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 10:43 am:

By Roberto (64.12.104.56) on Tuesday, February 27, 2001 - 10:53 pm:

Hector:

Check out the following sites for social security privatization under the Cato Institute, especially on african americans:

www.catoinstitute.com

www.socialsecurity.org/africanamericans.html

www.socialsecurity.org

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.136.214) on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 02:24 am:

I will respond later.

By Wyatt (207.106.60.177) on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 12:14 pm:

Hector,

If the Republicans and Democrats both serve the interest of the top 1%, why are so many blacks working, no slaving to continue to prop the 1% up with their votes? Instead they should be striving to reach this one percent and keep taxes low in order to keep some of the money they 've earned.. But the Democratic plantation systems says to the blacks, "in the fourth quarter, we'll send Gore to Tennessee to finally ask for the black vote". This smells of patronizing and throwing of scraps to the dogs. Wake of black folk, this liberal ne` centrist party continues to take you for grant. Perhaps the conservatives do speakfor you either. Well, if you are citizens in this government, you can vote third parties, which were the only ones to discuss affordable housing, the racist census count(libertarianss and Greens), labor control and the end to rampant globalization.
Hector, either continue to serve the greater of two evils and the 1% they support, or let your voice be heard in the third party. If all blacks, progressives, people of color, poor and working class whites (not the 1%) then third parties would have a viable number. But crying that they can't win and staying with the Massa on di plantation, will get you nowhere.

Roberto,

Amen brother, amen.

By Roberto (152.163.207.82) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 06:54 pm:

Hector:

I'm not a cold, uncaring, rigid conservative as some of my brethren. I too believe that what is needed to get us away from the old models of government dependency that was created in a different time and era in which conditions were vastly different from today is just like what you proposed. We need a massive re-education of the people in this country to the changing nature of work brought on by the computer, telecommunications, bio-sciences and other advances.

Our priorities in this country are mixed up. The high tech companies, for instance are running a game around our Congress to bring in thousands of skilled foreign labor to undercut the cost of labor in this country and we let them get away with it. Our schools are failing to teach the right skills for a high tech economy. Even if we do have the structural changes in place to teach these new skills, will the American students be ready to learn and compete with their competitors from other countries. I do not think so. We have a hell of enough time just getting them into school, getting the parents involved, and getting them to get to work on time. There is no gurantee that once at work they are motivated to do quality work. Not only are structural changes are needed, but social changes are needed as well to complement the new system.

To get rid of government programs is going to mean weaning people off a system that they are accustomed to like a puppy for its mother's breast milk. We have fifty years of conditioning here. We now get cheap labor from Mexico and other countries for jobs that many Americans do not want to do, plus those jobs that many Americans are not ready to take themselves. Yes, education, jobs, and the will to change is what is needed to get us out of this system of dependency. The only people who are profiting from the status quo from special tax sheltered programs, protecting the rights of illegal immigrants, to civil lawsuits are the lawyers. It is they (lawyers) who are destroying this country. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.134.134) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 05:49 pm:

Roberto that is not classical capitalist/free-market theory you know. I wish somebody would from the right, would state this openly instead of giving the impression of the contrary. At least you admit it.

Roberto, both the Republican and Democrat parties, who BOTH primarily serve the interests the top 1%, and BOTH will continue pump money into the economy.

If the public invests in it, should the public also benefit from it? The wealth created by this economic boom have mostly accrued to the top 20%, with vast amounts going to the top 1%, because of structural changes that occurred during the Reagan Administration. A tax cut, won't do much about this.

"What I do have a problem is wasteful spending and unaccountable spending of our money that is used to support pet social programs that that do not work or are inefficient that need to wither on the vine as Next Gingrich use to say so fondly."

None of the talk about the "welfare state" (it is nothing like Europe's welfare state) has much meaning if you can't prove that very nasty things won't happen if it didn't exist. This is purely a question of economics, if there was complete "full employment," (not the economist definition) but if all the "brothas on lock down" suddenly had some type of low wage job, what type of living would the people on the bottom have? It would certainly depress wages at the bottom because of all the more people being employed.

While we are at it, let's get rid of the minimum wage. That will certainly be a favorable climate for business and they will certainly be able to create more "jobs."

If you care, I would not mind if "welfare" was ended provided there was a massive jobs training program to bring "some people up to speed." Businsess would certainly get some form of "fianancial aid from the government" and the would not be ashamed to ask for it if it helped them long term.

By Roberto (152.163.207.74) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 01:27 pm:

Hector:

I know where you are going with this. True, its public money that supports many of these think tanks like the CATO Institute for the Federal Government. Yes, the Internet, supercomputers, human genome, rockets, space station etc., and all new techologies and sciences were initiated with seed (public money) in which private companies are unwilling or do not have the resources to push for advancement. I have no problem with this investment, because that is what they are investment for the future of this country. What I do have a problem is wasteful spending and unaccountable spending of our money that is used to support pet social programs that that do not work or are inefficient that need to wither on the vine as Next Gingrich use to say so fondly. Government need to be runned like a business, and we need an improved 21st century managerial system to run it. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.134.224) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:30 am:

"She sited the CATO Institute study"

Do you know who funds this group?

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.134.224) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 11:29 am:

Roberto do you think that aid to dependent corporaations should be cut off as well, you know things like the internet? Since we are all rugged individualists here.

By Roberto (152.163.201.62) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:51 am:

Wyatt:

I will do some research on this new trend of black women turning away from traditional liberalism to conservatism, and will present some of that result here. I had a black woman tell me why she feels that the current social security system is an unjustifed system for instance, that is protected by the democrats. She sited the CATO Institute study, which shows that black males who who have the lowest life expectancy as a group, who pay into social security all their lives, loses those benefits they worked hard for and those benefits are not passed on to their dependents, but is given to elderly white women who live longer. They (black me) lose an average of $10,000 from social security to elderly white women. But, those same loyal blacks fail to see this inequity and keep on voting for the very people who do not want to reform the system, (democrats) by privatizing it and allow the benefits to be passed to families. Now, this is a black woman thinking this way. I never thought I would see the day. There is a new awakening brother Wyatt. What people like you and me need to do is to be a little smarter in getting the message out. ~ Roberto

By Wyatt (207.8.207.59) on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 - 10:28 am:

Roberto,

I am interested in the number of black women moving toward the right to vote for their interest, socially and economically. I am seeing a trend of middle class, professional women, who are not married or have been raising their families without the aid of a male counterpart, turning to more commonsense politics and leaving the ranks of the liberals.

In the recent elections, we observed black women come out as running mates for ultra-conservatives and a lesser known Republicans for President in the primary process. The two names escapes me, but I do recall them. As we are watching the black male waking up and breaking the chains of limits in the democratic party, we are seeing black women making the change as well. Here in Philly, the local black Republicans have a woman leader, who was chronicled in our papers during the election and convention. Also I feel, Condolezza Rice will be a great role model for young black girls to look up to.

During my college years in the 1980's, I co-founded the first black college Republican chapter in the state of Mississippi, and our group of about 20 members of 600 students was larger and more active than the young democrats and had half the membership of women. this was wonderful to see. The problem is that black conservatives are alienated from others and need to form local clubs and organizations to offer debate, support and an opportunity to impact the communities.

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.135.246) on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:18 pm:

That's funny Roberto I would have said 7 out of 10 in the opposite direction.

By Roberto (205.188.193.32) on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 10:25 pm:

Hector:

I would say my good man, that it was 7 out of 10. My reason, many black women are into their own businesses and tend to be the rising new stars as entrepreneurs, more so than the number of black men. I have to say those ladies saw the wisdom of President GWB's tax cut incentive and how they would profit to keep more of their money to re-invest back into their businesses. ~ Roberto.

By Hectorvelasquez (63.175.43.217) on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 02:58 pm:

Roberto, out of the 7-10% of blacks who voted for GWB would you care to speculate what percentage were black women?

By Roberto (152.163.207.46) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 10:35 pm:

LadyLily:

You are right sweetie, I've been bitten. ~ Roberto

By Ladylily (152.163.207.208) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 08:17 pm:

Roberto, guess you will have to face it, honey...you have the name "Faye" implanted in your mind. ~ Lily

By Roberto (205.188.197.24) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 05:15 pm:

You are correct, my error. Her name is Starr Parker. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (65.160.186.212) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 05:08 pm:

Faye Parker, is this the same woman as Starr Parker?

By Roberto (205.188.197.158) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 03:22 pm:

Hector:

I cannot say for sure that more black conservatives date and marry white women anymore than black liberal men. I do know many black men who are conservative (mainly active and retired military officers and senior enlisted chiefs) who are married interracially to women of other races. Most of them, not all are conservative in thinking. As far as black conservative men meeting conservative black women in my experience is very few. I found that many black men I know tend to be fiscal conservatives and social liberals on some issues, few are hard core conservatives and black women tend to be liberal on all issues. My own family was an example of this where my father was a hard core conservative and my mother was a social and fiscal liberal. There is however, a growing trend among some black women as more of them see such figures as Faye Parker, a conservative black woman, who was a former single mother on welfare, who dramatically turned her life around to be a respected natonal conservative spokeswoman that she has become to many people. Hector, let me expand a little further, when we say a black man is conservative, we say he want to keep more of his money to benefit himself and his family and be able to pass that wealth to the next generation, rather than give his tax money to unproductive people, he want strong communities with the best schools, best places to worship, pride in ownership of a home and business, strong enforcement of crime, strong national defense, and a business atmosphere to create enterprises to create jobs for our people. The liberal agenda is to keep people dependent on government, no incentive to do for themselves, kill any incentive to be self sufficent, and to keep promising that things will get better like they have for forty years, whereas nothing happens.

Since this is black history month, we get the same old mantra. Black conservatives like Robert L. Woodson, who wrote the book "The Triumphs of Joseph", says that what is taught as black history consist of blacks arriving to this country on slave ships, traveled to the plantation, to the ghetto and finally to the welfare rolls. What is missing that the black liberal intelligensia does not expouse is the success of individual blacks in the country's history that made it against the odds in times of intense racism. How did they do it? This is what is not taught, how did they endured? How did the black colleges and universities get started and why? This is something they (black intellectuals)think blacks are not ready to think of, like blacks owning slaves in Africa and in our American South, or blacks fighting with the Confederate forces in the South. What is not taught is the success stories like that of "Black Tulsa", The Black Wall Street of the West, in Oklahoma, in which blacks developed a thriving business sector of stores, banks, hotels, theaters, and resturants, which if left to prosper could have changed the course of history in this country, but which all have been destroyed by white mobs. They (blacks) done this in a world in which racism was far more entrenched and brutal than it is today. Or the success of Dunbar High School in Washington D.C. in the 1940's, in which black students performed at or above the national average academically. Dunbar students were outscoring two of D.C.'s white schools even as far back as 1899, a few decades from slavery and at a time when when lynching was a national sport.

All of these examples and many more was before the era of the "Welfare State". This is what black conservatives are saying about us being creative and self- sufficient at a time when we were segregated. We are not saying we advocate going back to segregation, we are saying that blacks have now been sysematically brainwashed into believing they are incapable of standing on their own two feet economically.

To give you an idea of the stuggle between the black right and black left, black economist and scholar Thomas Sowell has chronicled the Dunbar High School successes and that of another similar school in New York City, only to be accused of advocating the resegregation of schools (which is happening anyway) by liberal John Baugh, a black linguist, educaton specialist and author of "Beyond Ebonics", (no wonder with people like him we are behind the rest of the nation) and I ask why is it that we are locked in a meaningless ideological battle with no solution to solve problems, regardless where it comes from. As a systems manager and analyst, I fail to see why people want to play politics with issues, rather than improve the lives of other people, unless its to enrich themselves. There you go again Hector, you got me going again. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.133.103) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 01:34 pm:

Are black male conservatives more likely to date white women? Do black male conservatives even encounter many black female conservatives?

By Roberto (205.188.193.56) on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 01:14 pm:

Was at a party a few days ago, and the discussion among my more liberal friends was what Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did by siding with the other more conservative members of the Supreme Court. All of a sudden a black female said the following, "Julianne Malvuiex was right, his white wife should have fed him more food that should have killed him from hypertension, besides they are both ugly anyway". What a mean thing to say of anyone. That reference to Ms. Malvuiex, if I spelled her name correctly, was echoed by that black fiery left wing female journalist a few years ago that caught national attention. My counter which was a tactical one laterally was that, "if it was not for Ms. Anita Hill's charges, which brought into the national lexicon, "public hair on a coke can, and long dong silver", thus, disgracing the reputation and image of black women everywhere as being vindictive, disloyal, mean spirited and media grabbing for their own personal power, whatever any bitterness Mr. Thomas have had since would be justified, since it was a carefully crafted plot by the liberal left to bring him down anyway. A high tech lynching of a black man before the world". Well that set into motion a heated discussion between me and her, since she knew my wife was there and let this comment out to embarress her and me, because she knew my conservative views. If black women are so much against black conservatives and interracial marriages, they need to check their own hidden hypocrisy, since its known she prefers white men anyway. I'm tired of this damned double standard. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (65.160.185.242) on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 02:30 pm:

"I agree with you on the Pope, only if he has the understanding of the potential of new birth control methods to prevent a birth, perhaps he will change in his view."

The Pope is an anachronism. What's even more remarkable is that people listen to him.

By Hectorvelasquez (65.160.185.242) on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 02:27 pm:

If it is what I've heard it is (partial birth abortion), I don't think it should be practiced.

By Hectorvelasquez (65.160.185.242) on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 02:23 pm:

What exactly is a partial birth abortion?


I don't think there is a war against boys. I think there is a war against the bottom 80% of the population. You won't hear any talk about how boys are being harmed amongst upper class men.

By Roberto (152.163.207.62) on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 03:48 pm:

Hector:

I'm writing this to you from my office. I have a lady here with me (co-worker) who is an advocate for adoptions. What she tells me is that so many children who come from drug addicted mothers are handicapped for life. She told me a story of a woman who knowing was taking drugs while pregnant and delivered a child with erratic nevous condition (it shaked uncontrollable). Then within a year she was pregnant again by a different man. Still on drugs. This is the kind of person who is a good candidate for sterilization, if I had the power to decide her fate.

I agree with you on the Pope, only if he has the understanding of the potential of new birth control methods to prevent a birth, perhaps he will change in his view.

Funny, I was listening today on the radio of a lady named Dr. Christina Hoff Summers (WWW.IWF.ORG) who is promoting her book "The War Against Boys", who made the charge that the feminist, have the lock and hold over this issue. She said, " Its the feminist who wish to perpetuate the same kind of genocide that racist once pushed upon blacks to keep their numbers in check. Now they are doing this to the whites, especially at a time in which whites themselves will become a minority in the future". I let you be the judge of that last statement. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (65.160.182.159) on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 03:20 pm:

Roberto you mention abortion and the black community. Yes, education is of the utmost importance, but I have observed that some people "just don't have their s*** together," like mothers and fathers addicted to drugs.
If a woman had any awareness, why should she want to bring an unwanted child into the misery of her own life, a child that she is not going to take adequate care of in the first place?


It doesn't help the Third World though when you have people like the Pope advocating no birth control at all.

I do not support late term abortions or abortions where the fetus has begun to develops some form of nervous system (this is a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand itself). I do not know at when this really starts. If you are going to have an abortion, PLEASE DECIDE QUICKLY.

By Roberto (152.163.194.203) on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 10:29 pm:

Ishvara:

I welcome a female's perspective on this difficult issue, because its the woman who should have a central role in this debate. As you noticed from my post I take a stand against abortion for the reasons of my own past experiences. I admit I'm not schooled in the latest medical theories of life, but I feel a deep obligation toward the unprotected (the fetus).

Iahvara, the thing that troubles me is how callous life is treated today. Its not to say that we have never been callous toward life at all. Just look at what inhuman ways humans treat each other every day. Some would argue why compound the problem by bringing an unwanted child into this already hostile world? I'm torn by this issue. While I understand your points about the need to reduce the world's population rate and the devastating effect its having on the planet. Can we say if the only way to solve this issue is through birth control in which a child is not conceived, but prevented, where there is no fertilization or that its prevented. If this is possible, then I would go along with birth control.

However, if there is fertilization and a human life is born (we will have a debate on this until its proven at what point human life is brought forth), I would oppose taking that life in any method or form. If a woman's egg is not available for fertilization (by use of a birth control method) and the man's sperm is prevented from impregnating the woman's egg, than again I would support a birth control method that prevent an unwanted child, thus making an abortion necessary.

The trick is will it ever be fool proof to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. This is perhaps the greatest challenge and that is also through education (especially in the Third World), where customs and traditions would be monumental to change, and changing the insatiable appetite of men and women for unprotected sex. I support birth control, if you can guarantee that conception can be avoided through a safe method. However, I do not support late term abortions, which is all too common today, where fetuses are thrown away in a ho hum way.

Ishvara, I have a tremendous respect for women and what they have to go through in this male dominated world. But don't you think that late term abortions tears the soul out of a woman who brings life into this world only to have the child's existence terminated without any remorse?

My comment on sterilization was meant only for those who feel that bearing a child is not something they will ever want. It would be their choice. It was not meant to mean by force or coercion. Yes, both the man and woman should have this option. I agree with you that the greatest crime is to allow a child to be brought into a life of misery without love, subsistence, and education. That is the greatest crime of all. Again, if birth control can insure that fertilization is prevented to allow that child to be born to a life of deprivation, then I would support it, if not, then I do not support it. ~ Roberto

By Ishvara (4.54.118.215) on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 04:26 pm:

Alright Roberto, I'm free and entering the fray,

When does the soul enter the body? At first breathe, upon the creation of cells destined to be human? From the very act of love making itself? All these are opinions subjected to the moral definitions defined by religions made by men. Do NOT tell me as a man what is correct for my life and body. What are you going to do when the population explosion hits 12 billion. America and Canada export 95% the world's grain. Still even now many men, women and children suffer, slowly die from disease and malnutrition. Even in this country we do not feed are poor and hungry children. In Brazil they have squads who go around and murder the children for sport. A complete lack of regard for born unwanted life. What is going to be done when the population on this planet hits a critical level? This is a question I often ponder and wonder at the answer. Our lifestyle will not sustain us forever or this overtaxed planet. As far as adoption goes, the majority want infants of a certain race. Most people I know adopted or have given away their children are emtionally twisted. There is something to be said for blood ties, you feel a certain genetic bond with the people who comprise your family. Can you really imagine what will happen if women are forced to bear children. What is that!?!? Since the dawn of time women have sought ways to abort unwanted pregnancies. Babies considered weak or unwanted left for exposure, I could go on and on. Point being it is safe now for my sisters, mother daughters, risk is less. There is even the morning after pill which is even less traumatic, do you oppose this as well? Perhaps there are people out there that use abortion as a means of birth control, but if you ever had one or witnessed from beginning to end what it is like, I do not think you would consider it an easy out. As far as making women sterile, did you actually mean that statement? What about the men who got them there you want to give them a vasactomy?!?!? Why should she bear the brunt. People change grow, circumstances change, you would take away the right to birth a child?!! Leave no room for improvement, education, perhaps she would have the next Nobel prize winner, who is anyone to decide the reproductive fate of anyone. Being a women is a very hard place in society to be, let alone all the physical changes a women must endure. Carrying life, giving life is precious and unique to us. Not to be policed by the very ones who throughout history have sought to control and oppress us. Never in history has it been the man's place to raise and ultimately sustain his children in the end more often than not it is the women who through sometimes very extremes measures fights for her offspring. Sure I think men should be more responsible but their not and society does not teach them to be. Until that day I see a man carry, go through all the physical changes as well as emotional, and birth a child, and provide care, nurture and be responsible for that child, I will enter into the arguement that a man can rule my body, my life.

By Roberto (152.163.207.82) on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 03:34 pm:

Hector:

I admit, I'm not the brilliant micro-biologist or genetic engineering thinker that you are. I'm no expert to tell you when actually life is concieved. But the question is, should life, even if it is unrecognizable as a human being be destroyed to suit some woman's fancy who might experiences some measure of inconvenenience in her lifestyle to have that child, hence "it" as the fetus has customarily been described, be "cut out" and thrown away just like a candy wrapper in this throw away society, since it has adopted this as its "moral philiosphy".

You see Hector, thirty years ago we in the black nationalist movement had a word for this and that was "genocide" (the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political and cultural group). Then, I gather you agree with what the chinese are doing in relation to aborting girls in favor of boys (they will pay thr price for this in the future with fewer female ratio to males) as we saw it pushed on black women in particular.

I remember my father use to tell me that back in te 1930's and 40's, abortion was never an issue among the mainstream population as long as those blacks get it to keep them from reproducing too quickly, when that did not work, governments local and federal sponsored statutes (see my post on the Virginia Eugenics Law) that promoted sterilization policies of the undesirables came into being. Now, all of a sudden we have a national concern why? Because abortion has gone mainstream.

The Reverend Jesse L. Peters (not Jesse Jackson) is trying to spearhead a national drive to get black men to open their eyes to the accepted policy of genocide of the blacks that they seem so blind to, just like with the AIDS crises. We will probably never know the uncounted millions of blacks who have been terminated at birth. That is why I say to stop this slaughter of the unborn, black men need to change their role as the "baby breeders" to be the "baby carers". They need to keep their "third leg" in their pants and learn to be fathers and men.

Abortion is wrong and again blacks have been "hoodwinked" into this belief that the only way for a women to not have an unwanted birth is to kill the child. Hell, if this is the way its going to be, do you agree to sterilization of the woman and man to prevent their uncontrolled and reckless behavior from being a cost to us all morally, economically, and spiritually like what was tried before? ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (65.160.183.232) on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 01:13 pm:

Roberto you have presented no clear or "striking" evidence to say that it is necessary to define llfe beginning at the point of conceptions.


If what you say is true then many common forms of birth control are murder, because they prevent a fertalized egg from embedding in utero.

By Roberto (205.188.193.168) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 09:54 pm:

I do not care how abortion is justified,
especially if its forced or man-made, its murder.

If the female human body "naturally" rejects cells, I do not consider this murder. If that is what you are getting at Hector. Just because its done "naturally" does not justifies a purposeful forced removal.
~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.135.105) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 07:49 pm:

The question was, is a mass of undiffereinted cells "zygotes????" any more of a human life the cells on my skin? I don't think anyone has provided any "scientific proof" for this. This has nothing to do with how the woman feel or how the cells embed in the womb. A woman's body will retect a fertalized egg that does not embed properly for whatever reason. Has her body commited murder?

By London (63.93.57.106) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 07:32 pm:

Being a man, I can not begin to comprehend the emotional repercussions that abortion may have on the female contemplating, doing, or who have had an abortion(s). Albeit, for some women, they won't give it a second thought. but for all women?

For me to be in their womb, telling them what they should do, what's right and what's wrong, based on my values-for which the potential mother may not value, when I am not going to assume responsibility for that child( if I am not the father or related ) is wrong in my opinion.

London

By Roberto (64.12.104.188) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 06:01 pm:

In your case no, (as a man you can never understand or feel the birth process), but in a woman's case yes, as one part of the procreation process which germinates into a human fetus for the continuation of the human species. We give off cells everyday. I would not equate this to cutting out a cell essential for the creation of a human being. C'mon Hector, you surprise me. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (204.248.132.139) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 05:28 pm:

So am I committing murder when I prick a pimple on my skin, or when I bang my knee, or when I have surgery, or when I ice skate and fall down, or..........?

By Roberto (205.188.193.162) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 03:12 pm:

Hector:

To answer your questions. For me, cells are living organisms, they are life forms. A human cell is a life form as far as I'm concern, the hell with this undefined interpretation as to what is a miniscule ill defined mass of proto-plasm by the pro-abortion proponents. The sanctity of life (human life) should be adhered to for the moral soul of us all. We talked much here about the insensitivity that people show to others, whether its crime and punishment, or deep seated prejudices, well it we are a society that has been dulled in out senses and moral character of life in general to this issue of abortion. Can we say that this embracing of abortion is nothing more than a quick solution to a problem that some would be willing to seek, rather than addressing the true underlying problems that cause the conditions of unwanted births in the first place? Like for instance, irresponsble fathers, changing roles of women, national policies, and moral decay brought on by our masters in the media.

As far as our own hypocrisy as a nation to tell other nations what they should and should not practice. I think the time is for this nation to put a brake on its moralistic denounciations toward others and spend the capital and resources on its own, to solve our problems first, rather than look like the hypocrites that we are to the world. ~ Roberto

By Hectorvelasquez (63.175.45.166) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 12:10 pm:

Why should the US condem the Third World for something it practices on it's own borders? With all of America's affluence this sounds profoundly arrogant and hipocritical.

By Hectorvelasquez (63.175.44.220) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:57 am:

At what point do you define life? Is a mass of undifferentiated cells a human life?

By Roberto (152.163.197.206) on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:40 am:

Ishvara:

As a compassionate conservative I believe all children in the womb and out deserve a chance to live a fulfilling life. We know that in many situations this is not the case. There are millions of people who are willing to take children who are not wanted. I believe in adoption. I believe that the churches should do more in this area. I believe that extended families should be more willing to do more to help children in distress situations. I do not believe in abortion. However, there are certain situations that may call for it, in rapes, and when a woman's life is threaten in the birth process. Where have we gone wrong as a society to play God in determine when a child should live or die. I think Liberals have taken this issue to the extreme. They would scream for the treatment and abuse of an animal like the organization P.E.T.A. (People for The Treatment of Animals), but cannot see the abuse of abortions in a human life. If a woman does not want a child to be responsible for, then make it possible that she cannot have a child (sterilization if necessary), if she wants to have a child, but needs help to raise that child, then men should be held responsible too in raising that child. I'm tired of seeing situations that only the woman is blamed, but the man walks off free without responsibility. He needs to held responsible too in raising that child. The family structure needs to be re-emphasis. This way abortions and unwanted children would be a moot point and will bring sanity and compassion back to this society.
~ Roberto