P Diddy's son: Liberal racism on display

In case you missed it Sean "P Diddy" Combs son Justin is a highly recruited high school football player. Justin plays for a prep school in New York and has a 3.75 GPA. When he accepted a football scholarship to UCLA the websphere blew up with loud criticisms that P Diddy should give back the money to UCLA so that some needy kid could have the scholarship. Here is an example: At the NBC News opinion website TheGrio.com, blogger Jay Anderson asked whether paying for his son's education should be the obligation of the elder Combs."By taking a scholarship that he earned, but could likely afford on his own, (Justin) Combs is taking a spot away from a player who might elect to go elsewhere ... which in theory would hurt the team as a whole," Anderson wrote. Excuse me? Anderson is a fool. Can that needy kid play corner? Can that needy kid pass the coursework at UCLA. With all the football scholarships out there its hard to imagine that the needy kid could not get a scholarship somewhere. So I was stunned by the avalanche of criticisms but frankly not surprised. What we have here is a textbook example of liberal racism. I bet that all these criticisms come from those on the left. Where were the criticisms of Archie Manning letting his three boys accept football scholarships? Or Joe Montana? Or Mike Golic? Or any wealthy high profile white person whose son (or daughter) excelled in a sport? However, it is also interesting that certain blacks get spared from being criticized. An icon like Michael Jordan is spared when his son is on a basketball scholarship at Central Florida. Louis Farrakhan and Ralph David Albernathy's grandsons are on Division I football scholarships. However, it is the up from poverty, work in black culture self-made mogul who doesn't need the government father who gets criticized. This is a merit based scholarship and this is one time that the son can say that he earned it through his own initiative and hard work. His father was not on the field, or in the weight room. I bet Sean is proud of his son and ashamed for all the fools out there who obviously do not have a life.

I'll have two medium sized big gulps please

I am confused. The fuddy duddy mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg is at it again. In his personal war on obesity in which transfats have been banned from restaurant food and calories have been posted on all menus, he tried to have a tax imposed on sugary drinks. Now he has proposed banning the sale of soft drinks of over 16 ounces in restaurants, fast food eateries, delis and theatres. Of course, there has been the usual reaction from the usual suspects. Those on the left have praised the move as vital to health, those in the industry have criticized it, those on the right have railed against the intrusion into ones personal space. Here are some comments from the news stories. "I appreciate what he is doing in taking steps to alleviate a problem that is bigger than New York," Queens resident Melissa Friedman, 28, said of the proposed ban. "I think it's good." Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington D.C.-based consumer group, called Bloomberg's measure a "pioneering proposal" and "a very important step." "It promises to be the most effective way to reduce consumption of a product that causes obesity," he said. "I think Bloomberg and the New York City Department of Health are acting in the public's best interest, even though some may view it as inappropriate and an invasion of personal choice," said Joy Bauer, a registered dietitian in New York City and nutrition expert for NBC's Today show. Bonnie Taub-Dix, a registered dietitian in New York City, says, "No one needs a soft drink the size of a small swimming pool. I'd like to shake our mayor's hand by taking this bold move. If people continue to supersize — they won't fit into their favorite size." Without the temptation of large drink, people will have to opt for the smaller portion, said Hershkowitz, a Florida State University student who is interning at US Weekly magazine. What was missing from everything I read were two obvious questions. The first is does this mean the banning of free refills and two, what prevents the patron from ordering two 16 ounce drinks?

The Big 50

My high school class celebrated its 50th reunion. (Booker T. Washington, Atlanta, GA). It was a blast. I had not seen any of them since graduation and had to walk around looking at name tags. Only two I recognized just from their faces. However, each was introduced and a video screen had the senior photo of that person displayed. I recognized all the old photos. I guess I evoked a similar reaction. Since I left Atlanta for college and never again socialized with any of my classmates, I was different from the vast majority of them who stayed in Atlanta. Only one other person came from out of town (Washington, DC). My close friends either had moved away from Atlanta or were dead. It was sobering to note that of the 354 who were in the class, 94 were now dead and almost a third of the dead males died in Viet Nam. What was also interesting was that none of the organizers of the reunion were from the two college prep homerooms. I wonder if there were any lingering resentments amongst them. When you looked at the graduation program and the list of “best of” and honor diplomas all were from the college prep homerooms, only two of us attended. Moreover, just one person on the high honors list was still residing in Atlanta (I did an internet search). Interestingly enough, the college prep designation was apt in that all those I located were doctors, lawyers, professors and one was CEO of a venture capital firm (I wonder if he will vote for Obama). Remarkably everyone looked great. There was not a single person who was overweight. Very few looked their age. All looked prosperous. One woman was the subject of a crush. I told her “you know I had the biggest crush on you”. She said that she knew but didn’t give me the time of day. That was not unexpected since I was a full two years younger than anyone in the class. I remember her as being much taller then – the only male in the class shorter than me was a midget. That was why I may have been the only person in the history of American high schools who never had a date. I was the same age as those two classes behind me, and generally shorter than even the girls. As a senior I wasn’t about to date eighth or ninth graders (we had 5 year high schools). I socialized with a group of super smart boys and girls. What happened to them? One of the girls is now an anesthesiologist in Alabama. I tracked her down when I learned of the death of her father and called her office. She called back to thank me but had no interest in any further contact – she never even inquired about me or my family. One of the girls was a teacher in DC who married the older brother of one of the boys in the group. We saw each other in DC a few times but it was apparent that we had drifted apart. Another girl was now dead. The last is married to a professor ironically at Ohio State and did not respond to my email (sent to her husband). The three guys are all dead (one in Viet Nam, one from a heart attack, one from AIDS).

Blackgrass?

Here in Appalachia bluegrass music is indigenous and popular amongst many of the (white) inhabitants. There may be some black aficionados but I don’t know any. Yet, one of the most popular groups is a black one - the Emmy winning Carolina Chocolate Drops. I was introduced to them when they gave a concert benefiting a not for profit on whose board I serve. They say unabashedly that they are bringing back traditional Negro jig music (wow! What would Al Sharpton say about that phase?) Now this is different from blacks in country music like Charlie Pride and Darius Rucker. Bluegrass is much more basic and elemental and is associated with poor white hill people rather than rural whites from the Deep South. So in order to be in this tradition, one would have to have roots in a place where there were very few blacks (no plantations in this part of the world). However, there were blacks sprinkled about Appalachia – many being miners in Kentucky and West Virginia - and their most enduring legacy is the banjo which is derived from an African instrument. Many of the famous blues singers were from that tradition (Josh White, Brownie McGee, Sonny Terry and Blind Boy Fuller). Modern blues singers such as Keb Mo and Eric Bibb incorporate some bluegrass into their work but are not traditionalists like the Chocolate Drops. My longtime girlfriend is kin to the famous Carter Fold whose home is in southwestern Virginia. She tells stories of AP Carter and his friendship with a black musician Lesley Riddle who met in 1927 in Kingsport, TN. AP and Maybelle Carter opened up their home to Riddle and learned not only his gospel, blues and railroad songs but also his slide and finger picking techniques that were the standard of black musicians of the time. AP toured with Riddle throughout the region and adapted his tunes and techniques to his own style and recorded them. My girlfriend often refers to herself and her family as “Melungeons”. The Melungeons are an interesting story since until recently no one knew their origins. They were dark skinned with broad noses and were thought by some to be of African descent. But understandably Appalachians denied it saying that they were descended from Portuguese sailors or Turks or Gypsies. Still Melungeons were discriminated against and in several instances were the subject of court cases accusing them of being black. They prevailed in those cases which established them as being not black if not quite white. However, results from a genetic study have just been published in the journal of Genetic Genealogy which will upset many in Appalachia. The evidence supports an African heritage. It is postulated that intermixing occurred between African and white indentured servants in Virginia in the 1600s before the institution of slavery. Is my girlfriend upset? Quite to the contrary. She is delighted. Welcome to the sustah hood. http://www.chron.com/news/article/DNA-study-seeks-origin-of-Appalachia-s-Melungeons-3583475.php

Obama the venture capitalist

Isn’t it interesting that the Obama campaign has decided that its primary strategy is to attack Bain Capital? That Mitt Romney had left the firm to run the Salt Lake City Olympics is beside the point, Obama has decided to tie Romney to what it contends are egregious sins. In so doing it is attacking venture capital and capitalism. Obama has vigorously defended the attack ads and the ranting of surrogates, however it did back away from Jim Clyburn’s (D-SC) liking Bain to a rapist. Clyburn said "This is not an attack on free enterprise," Clyburn, D-S.C., said on MSNBC. "I don't take contributions from payday lenders. I refuse to do that. That's free enterprise. ... And there's something about raping companies and leaving them in debt and setting up Swiss bank accounts and corporate businesses in the Grand Caymans. I have a real serious problem with that." Note that he aligned venture capitalists with payday lenders saying “This is not an attack on free enterprise”! Huh? What Obama is doing is going after Romney because he cannot tout his record. What Romney has to do is stay on message and just brush off the attacks. Romney needs to point out that capitalism has made this country great and that the great experiment wandering away from capitalism has resulted in the slowest recovery on record. Obama wants to contrast his goals: changing the basic economic tenets of American capitalism and economic “justice” with what he claims characterizes Romney: getting rich on the backs of working class Americans. As Clyburn contends Romney and Bain Capital destroyed jobs, bought businesses, saddled them with debt and drove them into bankruptcy. However, I have yet to hear anyone point out that Obama has done something similar with the automobile bailouts. Thousands of jobs were destroyed, dealerships were closed, plants were closed and GM still owes the government $14 billion and Chrysler owes it $1.3 billion. The only difference is that Obama did it with someone else’s money while Bain Capital risked their own.

Our perplexing Fed

I am perplexed. I have great respect for the Federal Reserve and think that its framers were brilliant. Rather than leaving the central bank in the hands of politicians who would debase the currency as soon as they could, the Fed instead is independent and should be apolitical. Of course it isn’t, but in the main it has worked pretty well producing among the lowest rates of inflation in the world. The question is then why has this Fed been so irresponsible? The Fed is made up of really smart people and perhaps the least smart ones are sitting on the Board of Governors. I have known many of the Fed economists and many of its presidents, I cannot point to a single economist who was not very capable and only to one president that I was not certain about. This is not true for the governors but generally speaking all were fairly bright people. All at the Fed understand their mission and any of their websites will point it out. This is from the San Francisco Fed/s website: “What are the goals of U.S. monetary policy? Monetary policy has two basic goals: to promote "maximum" sustainable output and employment and to promote "stable" prices. These goals are prescribed in a 1977 amendment to the Federal Reserve Act.” The narrative goes on to say that the Fed can only pursue the goals of output and employment in the short run and to try to do it in the long run will not work. “Persistent attempts to expand the economy beyond its long-run growth path will press capacity constraints and lead to higher and higher inflation, without producing lower unemployment or higher output in the long run. In other words, not only are there no long-term gains from persistently pursuing expansionary policies, but there's also a price—higher inflation.” So the question is why has the Fed pursued a monetary policy that has debased the currency, exploded the monetary base and has laid the foundation for inflation? Also it has done this by keeping the Fed funds rate near zero in a no-growth economy. Doesn’t it know the consequences of its actions? The answer is yes it knows but it thinks that it can sop up the excess reserves when the economy starts to heat up. It created those excess reserves by purchasing asset backed securities from distressed markets and Treasurys directly from the Treasury. Again I have no trouble in the Fed buying securities from anyone other than the Treasury. But purchases from the Treasury are inflationary and are the source of the increased government spending. Why the Fed didn’t tell the administration to take a hike is beyond me. What I need someone to explain to me is why the Fed has done this in the first place. Surely, a collapsing dollar, hyperinflation and world wide inflationary recession cannot be the legacy that Bernanke has chosen. But that is the path he has put us on.

Random Thoughts

One area in which there is a clear case of racial superiority is “How do all those white guys get their women to mow the grass?” Have you ever seen a black woman cutting grass? Me neither. Obama’s poll numbers among women are falling. I wonder what would happen to those numbers if Michelle became pregnant? We now hear the clamor for republican dominance. Now only the presidency and the house but also for 60 seats in the senate. The defeat of Coburn’s bill to eliminate duplication made It is clear that the democrats will never vote to slow down government spending and lower the national debt. So in order to get the senate to go along with deficit reduction, you need 60 votes. However, the government stunk it up when the republicans were solidly in charge and when the democrats had all three. Personally I think that we are better off when we have gridlock. Speaking of dominance, does anyone think that if the feds got really serious, adopted Simpson-Bowles, lowered the amount of government spending – rather than the rate of increase, by bringing entitlements under control, that there would not be serious political repercussions, with the likely result that the democrats be voted back into power? Look at France as an example. One of the ideas of bringing social security under control is to roll back benefits by instituting a means test. This is an absolute nonstarter. Those of us who have contributed the max to social security for all these years know we have been ripped off. As I have said, I have maxed out payments for 30 years and get $2,500 a month (less than a 1 percent return) while my mother never earned over $24,000 a year and her state pension is $2,000 a month more. So now you want to rip me off even more? Forget it. Its my money and I want it back. Did you know that only 20 percent of American workers contribute an IRA? As I pointed out before, the amount of government spending on entitlements takes up all the tax revenues so absolute spending reductions must occur in entitlements. Of course the way to go is to not affect spending on current recipients of social security and medicare. Rather by raising the full benefit age to 70 and indexing it to life expectancy will minimize public dissent.