One of my favorite radio commentators is Larry Elder. As a black conservative he is able to share views that I can’t, and speak with an authority on Black America that I can’t. If you’re still deciding who you want to support, listen to the values Larry Elder talks about. When he talks about things like personal responsibility, that is what makes me a conservative. When he mentions Barack Obama’s plan to fix everything via government programs, that is why I am not a liberal.

First let me say that this has been a very hard post to write. It’s taken me several days of putting my thoughts in order and looking up data, but hopefully you will find it interesting. This is a post that could have gone on forever with statistics and examples, but I’ve tried to pick the biggest points I can. If you look at some of the links you might have to scroll down to find the data I’m citing.

Barack Obama has made it the central theme of his campaign that he will bring the “change” that this country needs. Currently one of the most talked about problems with our country is our “economic woes.” I thought I’d visit Barack Obama’s website to see what he had to say about poverty in America. The first thing that caught my attention was that the list went on and on. By my quick count, I see 10 programs that Obama wants to either start or expand that would require government money, not to mention several that would hurt businesses like higher minimum wage and mandatory paid sick leave. Even for mom and pop stores that’s going to cut into their bottom line.

But all the above aside, it’s one of the first things on Obama’s list that I want to focus on in this post. On his page he says:

“Poverty Rising: There are nearly 37 million poor Americans. Most Americans living in poverty work, but still cannot afford to make ends meet.”

That must go hand in hand with the economic doldrums I keep hearing about in the media and from people on the left. Nearly 37 million are poor? That sounds like a lot of people, and Barack Obama isn’t making the number up, in fact he got it from the US Census Bureau. But how is poor being defined, and is there really more the government can do to make it better?

When Obama says 37 million people are poor, that means 37 million are below the poverty line, but does that mean these people are homeless and destitute? Not in the least. Here’s a great article detailing just what it means to be “poor” in America. You can read the whole article, but here are some of my favorites:

• Eighty-nine percent of poor families say they have enough food to eat, and only two percent say they “often” don’t have enough to eat.
• Eighty percent have air conditioning (even my parents don’t have AC).
• Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV (we don’t!).

When Obama laments about the situation of 37 million Americans, is that really a genuine problem? Of course there are people in need, but is this the defining issue of our time? Is there really more that the government can do to fix this problem?

Since the War on Poverty began under Lyndon B. Johnson back in the 1960′s, what has happened to the poverty rate? According to the above article, we currently spend $600 billion a year on the poor, and with those kinds of expenditures the poverty rate must be declining rapidly, shouldn’t it? If you look at the census data though, the poverty rate (percentage of people below the poverty line) has remained essentially unchanged since the 1960′s! Despite all the money spent over last 40 years the government has been unable to reduce poverty, but I’m supposed to believe that the only thing we need is more government? Of course not.

Not only are the “poor” not that poor, and the government ineffective in helping them, why do so many people think our country is headed in the wrong direction and needs “change”? In fact, 87% of people think the economic condition of our country is getting worse. That’s an overwhelmingly negative outlook and it makes sense that a lot of people agree with Obama’s sentiments. But when people are asked about their own lives they give a very different response. When asked about their own personal financial situation, 76% say they are doing better or the same, and only 24% say it’s getting worse. Why the huge disconnect? For the most part people recognize their own life is OK, but then they turn around and think the country is in shambles.

All of this begs the question: Do we really need the “change” that Obama wants to bring? Are government programs and less personal responsibility the answer to a problem that isn’t near as bad as people think?

Personally I believe Obama is peddling the same failed liberal policies of the past. There is nothing new or revolutionary about his ideas. Increased governmental influence in our lives is not the key to making America better. I found this quote from President Franklin Roosevelt which I think makes for a great close to this post.

“The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit….”

The proponents of social justice are throwing a party tonight. Why you may ask? Because UCLA will have more black students next year! Woo Hoo!

You might remember that last year I brought up this very important issue right here on The Blarg. I’m glad to report that my efforts have been successful, and UCLA is more black this year. You might think intelligence or academics would be a more important basis for evaluating a person than their skin color, but you’re wrong! The color of a person’s skin far outways anything like personal responsibility or hardwork.

Unfortunately our job is not done. It is my goal to make sure that by 2015 every single student at UCLA will be black. There are some who might cry foul at such a suggestion, but those people are evil and mean (and probably asian and white). No black person would ever want to be judged by the content of their character, but only by the color of their skin. This was of course Martin Luther King Jr.’s motto.

Please join me in this uphill battle of making sure that everyone at UCLA is black, and that the discrimination of considering things like talent and skill are done away with. No person should have to be judged because of who they are as a person, but solely by the color of their skin. Together, we can make a difference.

The Governor last night in the State of the State address made a reference to people that have health insurance coverage and end up paying for the uninsured:

I’m lucky enough to have health insurance? My six years of schooling and hardwork was luck? The Governor is out of his mind. People that save their money and buy private health insurance are not lucky. They work hard and make decisions about how they spend their money. Illegal immigrants that walk into our emergency rooms without health insurance are not unlucky. Gang bangers that get shot up and incur thousands of dollars in ER bills only to be patched up and put back on the street are not unlucky.

Liberal ideals are the single greatest cause of declining personal responsibility in our country.

Time for some controversy!

I get the feeling that the media and institutions of higher education don’t value or perceive the history of "white" people in the same way that they do other cultures. Diversity courses in college are never about people with light skin colors (instead only about how light skin people have harmed dark skin people). It’s almost as if we’ve been here so long that our history doesn’t matter, or even exist.

Not only do I think our past is brushed off as unimportant, but also our culture. Just because we don’t make empanadas, wear headresses, or speak other languages doesn’t mean we lack culture. It only means the media and higher education doesn’t care about our culture.

Before you label me a racist (because after all, saying something positive about "white" people makes you a racist), ask yourself this question: For what purpose are we forced to appreciate "diversity" in schools? Why not put a greater emphasis on the individual and their character traits that really matter. I am much more concerned with work ethic, moral standards, the family unit, and personal responsibility than whether or not you are a minority that eats "ethnic food."

I am not arguing that "white" people are better than anyone else (and if that’s all you’ve gathered so far you’ve missed the point entirely). It’s just as ignorant to lump all white people in a group as it is to lump all brown people in a group. Talk about the hot water you would be in for putting all brown people into the same group and assuming they have the same culture and history!

But you can do that with "white" people. We don’t have a history anyways!

Update: EDSE 435: United States Secondary Schools: Intercultural Education

Update II: A final clarification as my original post might have been a little muddled. I believe there is a double standard. Someone can put "Brown Pride" across their rear window and they are labeled "proud." If I put a "White Pride" sticker up I’m an anti-semite. It’s this sentiment that fueled the original post (much of which was tongue in cheek if you didn’t notice).

I would prefer the whole appreciating and valuing of people based on their skin color STOP completely. A piece on the news the other night was up in arms about the low number of black students at UCLA. Because it was about blacks it means you are "concerned about race relations." If someone complained about the number of white students in any context they’d be labeled a white supremacist (again, a reinforcing that it’s wrong to value "whites’).

Let’s start appreciating qualities that deal with character, something that actually matters.

People in France are protesting yet again. Last time it was angry Muslim youths, and this time it’s all youths. What are they upset about? If you’re under 26, your employer can FIRE YOU! Gasp!

I don’t know the laws of France, but I assume that the opposite is currently true (companies can’t fire their employers or something like that). This is the danger of socialism…people start expecting things. Forget hardwork and personal responsibility, the government should give you everything.

That’s why America is so great. You get what you earn (mostly) and that’s what has made us the country we are now.

Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, made some comments the other day that sum up very well what is wrong with the Democratic Party. I think there are two big things that have got them completely clueless.

1) Bush is Evil – We are in year 6 of Bush’s Presedential history, and still the best that Democrats can come up with is "Bush is Evil."  First it was the election results in Florida, and he was evil for "stealing" it! Then it was the tax cuts for the rich! Then it’s the war in Iraq, and then it’s prescription drug plans not being enough, and on and on. The Democrats number one problem is that the only message they have is that Bush is evil. It has become the party’s mantra: If Bush likes it, we don’t. The only alternative ideas the party can put forward are whatever is opposite the Republican party. They are not completely void of ideas though, which leads me to their second problem.

2) Hand Outs – Personal responsibility is something entirely foreign to Democrats. If you read the mentioned article you would see Harry Reid complaining about health care. "Not everyone has it, so let’s give it to them!" This is where the socialist ideals of the Democratic party come into play. A core belief of the Democratic party is that government exists to take care of people. That is BOGUS! It’s no wonder the national savings rate has gone negative. Democrats love to talk about how we’re going to pay for social security forever, and pay all health care costs. When did it become the government’s job to make sure I’m healthy? I don’t need your stupid social security, I can save my own money! Yet the government just hands out money like there is no tomorrow, and personal responsibility has started to disappear. People pay $2000+ a year in car insurance to drive around their leased Hummer, but they can’t pay $1000 a year for health insurance.

Those are the two main things you hear from the Democratic Party, and that is why Kerry lost in 2004. He had zero vision. Bush was evil, and let’s make more people reliant on government hand outs. George Washington and the rest of our founding fathers are surely vomiting in their grave.