Letter to the editor: Dec 4, 2013 (1 of 5)
December 4, 2013, major headline: “Does UC need to take remedial class on race? Dean Jackson’s forced resignation brings discomfort out in the open. ”The key to the entire article lies in the statement, “Student complaints appear to be divided into two groups.
One group asserts that Professor Jackson’s departure signals a ‘hostile atmosphere’ for black students, professors and administrators at UC… They say the university forced the professor out after forcing out Police Chief Michael Cureton, also an African-American, each of them was there less than two years…” If you don’t mind, for this discussion, let’s just assume Professor Jackson and Police Chief Cureton had nothing to do with our problem.
“A larger group says the lack of awareness about racial differences is the biggest problem. What’s more common, they say, is differences that no one understands and no one wants to confront.”
For some reason, I’m confused! If we are consistent in attempting to answer the question about “remedial class on race,” and it’s “not a black and white issue,” what is it?
The answer would tend to lie in the admitted student complaints that appear to be divided into the two groups. Let’s see if we can break this down into manageable segments: the first one, “lack of awareness about racial differences is the biggest problem.”
Just as an aside: Fifty years ago Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared one of his dreams with us, “…that one day my children will be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” that “dream” still resonate among us to this day. One of the ways our nation is attempting to make that dream a reality is to provide special incentives to our disadvantaged youth that might free them from the dredges of poverty.
However, before we can solve that one, we need to identify the fact that many of us are attempting to attack poverty without identifying its source. Poverty has nothing to do with material belongings, or skin color. What we as a society attempt to eradicate (which we will never do) is poverty because it, as is wealth, is a mind thing. In other words, both wealth and poverty is in the mind of the individual. That means “racial differences” and character are two different things. One has nothing to do with the other, except in the mind of the individual.
The second issue, the easiest to resolve is, “…differences that no one understands and no one wants to confront.” Well, doggone it, let’s identify it, open it up and confront it. Once we do that we’ll find it’s not a problem at all, all we need to do is follow Professor Ghee’s example.
Kenneth Ghee, an African-American studies professor, has been at the university since 1985: he said “My role is to make sure that while I’m in this environment, people are treated fairly.” That should be the role of every individual on the UC campus, student and/or Faculty.
Incidentally, the fact that only 8.2 percent of UC undergraduate students, might provide a clue to a greater problem. Nevertheless, the Enquirer is absolutely correct: “the problem is “Not a black and white issue.”
Letter to the editor Dec 11, 2013 (2 of 5)
Wednesday December 4, 2013, the president offered a speech regarding income inequality. He said the rich are getting richer, the poor and middle class citizens are getting poorer, his analysis is that this condition threatens the US economy.
The following Monday, some newspapers re-printed articles from progressive/liberal papers such as the Washington post. One such column said, “Listening to the president’s powerful speech on income inequality, it was impossible to be struck – and saddened – by the poignant mismatch between the loftiness of his aims and the skimpiness of his capacity to achieve them.” As a fellow man on the street, I was hoping someone would tell me the truth. I’m not an expert on spending, saving, working, playing, but my instincts cry out when glaring inconsistencies exist. The hallmark of truth is consistency, which means President Barack Obama, the columnists and all others are doing us a disservice, for not highlighting the inconsistency; in other words, they are lying to you and me, the American people.
First of all, more than any other factor, the Obama administration is the cause of the income inequity. The reason I say that is because in August 1971, our nation chose to discontinue the practice of having our dollar backed by something other than the faith and credit (our reputation) of the US economy. Prior to that time the dollar was backed by gold, at that time one ounce was valued at $35.00. Today the price of gold is ten times the value in 1971 and rising.
No one will reveal the fact that the Obama administration is printing about eighty-five Billion dollars a month, the value of which we do not have. What that means is, those who own assets like stocks and bonds are getting richer (yep, the rich are getting materially richer); at the same time, the value of our dollar is dwindling (yep, the rest of us are getting materially poorer). Does the term “hyper inflation” ring a bell to you?
To add insult to injury, the president said, ”The growing gap between rich and poor can be closed by actions ranging from an increase in the minimum wage to better education to following through on my health care plan.” There’s that not-so-secret-formula again: present a truth (better education), followed by spin (increase in minimum wage, and following through on his health care plan), both of which would simply exacerbate the problem.
The president stated, “It is important that we have a serious debate about the issue (of income inequity).” That’s true; however, the ground rule should be that both sides tell the whole truth. The fact is, we, the American people are seeking jobs. Increase in minimum wage laws cause unemployment because it (minimum wages laws) is the inevitable result of forcing wage rates above their free-market level. The “Obamacare” law is an act of economic control more than one of healthcare. To glimpse at the truth of that statement, simply look at your email from “the Mint,” it tells you about your next bill, when it’s due, how much you owe, etc. (there’s much more).
Let’s start with the truth, Mr. President!
Letter to the editor (3 of 5)
Re: Response to E.J. Dionne 2-24-14 column
Mr. Dionne began his column by say, “Republicans are unhappy that President Obama is invoking his executive powers to govern in the face of a do-nothing-in-2014 House of Representatives. Along with his column appeared a big picture of Ronald Reagan with the caption, “Ronald Reagan issued 213 executive orders in his first term compared to 147 for President Barack Obama.”
He used the same old tried and true technique of progressive/liberals: he used factual numbers to support his spin. What he did not reveal is that President Obama uses executive powers to advance bigger and more powerful government. Compare that to President Reagan: he used executive powers to advance the power of the individual; in other words, to support limited government.
There is a vast difference as revealed by excesses of the IRS, NSA, FCC, etc.; in other words, intrusion in the lives of the man on the street, like you and me. The difference is under President Reagan, the man on the street benefited by having greater control of his life. On the other hand, use of executive powers under President Obama has resulted in a larger, more intrusive, more powerful government. The result is you and I are left holding the bag (of dung)!
Letter to the Editor May 14, 2014 (4 of 5)
Re: “276 Nigerian schoolgirls kidnapped”
Are you kidding me? The USA Today article states, “The Nigerian government said Tuesday it hopes to negotiate with Muslim extremists for the release of 200 kidnapped schoolgirls …” Later, the article states, “The U.S. military is searching for 276 girls who have been missing since April 15.”
More than 200 years ago, our founding document stated, “We hold these truths to be self evident…” in other words, there is no doubt about the validity of the truth that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” Before that Declaration, no one had identified man’s nature in just that way; the fact is, it changed the world.
That Declaration announced the dawn of a new mindset: the essence is stated, “I came, I saw, and I conquered the essence of life (not simply another nation).” When it comes to the civilized mindset and protecting the innocence of life; whether it be 276 innocent schoolgirls, or some other goodness, there must be no compromise because there are no areas that need to be negotiated: it is simply a matter of good versus evil: period.
The director of the government’s information agency said, “it (the Nigerian government) will use whatever kind of action it takes to free the girls. He also warned that a military operation, with foreign help was possible.” He added, “We have many options, (my translation: we are just to trying weasel out of doing the “right thing” without hurting anyone’s feelings).”
Regardless of what we do, if we compromise with evil, we lose. In other words, this is a war of good versus evil, it’s time to stand up and be counted. The nations that call themselves “good” should not pause, should not compromise or negotiate with “evil.” The perpetrators of this evil deed should be given overnight to return every one of the kidnapped schoolgirls or face the consequences of total and immediate annihilation. Period. If other nations refuse to do it, we (the United States) should step up to the plate and make it happen.
To: Letter to the editor Sep 03, 2014 (5 of 5)
Re: Reader Essay (re Article by Tim Lynch titled, “Unions Have Helped Middle Class Grow.”)
In my mind when it comes to the effect of unionism, Professor Lynch has a somewhat different view of reality. I say that, not because I know more than he, but he refers to the passing of the NIRA as the impetus to establish a right. With his apparent intellect I would think he would be aware that a right is unalienable; in other words, in a free society, government cannot give or grant it, it can only take it away or restrict its rightful natural course.
Professor Lynch states, ”By the end of WWII, 35 percent of the non-agricultural work force was unionized. That would be labor’s high tide. From that point to the present, labor would command an ever-smaller portion of the work force.” I wonder why? I’ll tell you why, Professor Lynch; it so happens that most workers are like you and me, we want to give value for value. That is, we want to work hard, produce positive results, and be paid appropriately for our effort. However, we don’t want to be forced into a union relationship simply to maintain employment, nor to “help a class of people grow.”
One of the most widespread delusions propagated by individuals like Professor Lynch is the belief that the American worker owes his high standard of living to unions and to “humanitarian” labor legislation. That belief is contradicted by the most fundamental facts and principles of economics. The facts and principles are evaded by labor unions, legislators, and intellectuals of the big government persuasion, like Professor Lynch.
The bottom line is, a country’s standard of living depends on high productivity of its labor force, which depends on proper utilization of machines and inventions, add to that capital investment by management in anticipation of return on investment. In other words, the value of today’s labor is greater compared to that of a generation earlier. It’s not that today’s workers exert more physical effort than their grandparents; quite the contrary, the physical effort required of today’s worker is far less. The productive value of today’s worker’s effort has been multiplied many times by the tools and machines with which he works. They are crucial in determining the value of his services.
Professor Lynch closed his opinion by stating the exact opposite of fact. The fact is, states that support right-to-work laws (voluntary) produce greater income for its citizens.