Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

What you have to believe to be Pro-Slavery Abortion

Posted: January 22, 2014 by datechguy in abortion, catholic, culture
Tags: , ,

Abortion is the third pillar of the three great American evils that the democratic party has supported. The first was Slavery, the second was Jim Crow and the third is Abortion (Ironically all three target blacks and/or minorities). The day will come when people shake their heads wondering what folks were thinking for abortion in the same way they do on the others.

DaTechGuy We’re Fighting the Bloody Lot 1/20/2011

On this day of the annual Right to life march I hit a nerve with one of my liberal friends on twitter.

I was hitting Wendy Davis on her false narrative and pointed out that her claim to fame is supporting late-term abortion.  Once I tweeted that the entire thread became about abortion where I was fighting a lone pro-life battle (perhaps all my friends are in DC marching).

During the debate a woman scoffed at my dismissal of “choice” saying I would never have to make that “choice” when I answered

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.jsThat struck a nerve and brought an instant reaction from a regular liberal member of my Magnificent Panel Maxine Baptise:

Maxine’s offense not withstanding I’ve been equating Abortion & Slavery for a long time. So for the sake of those who do not understand the argument let me make it as plain as possible. In order to morally justify slavery it is necessary to do one or more of the following:

1. Deny the Humanity of the slave:

Marshal: They’re mutants! Mutts! They’re diseased! To be wiped off the face of the planet!

Doctor Who The Mutants 1972

If a Slave is not human then you are not enslaving a human being so it doesn’t matter if you own a slave or how you treat one.

1a. Admit the humanity of the slave but maintain it is inferior.

Col Montgomery:  Look around. You really think anybody’s gonna put these boys into real combat? Do you? They’re little children, for God’s sake. They’re little monkey children.

Glory 1989

If you can’t deny the actual humanity of a slave you can instead insist that the slave is a lower form of life, Alexander Stephens (D-GA) famously made that case in the what has been called the cornerstone speech:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

Hey slavery is OK these people are an inferior race.

2. Emphasize the slave as property not as a person.

Calvin Candie:Seeing as you won’t pay a penny for this pickaninny here, you won’t mind me handling this nigger here any way I see fit? Django:He’s your nigger.

Django unchained 2012

If you can’t manage to deny the humanity of the slave the next step is to emphasize the slave as property. After all the slave is owned by someone else and you have no business telling someone what to do with their own property.

3.  Insist that the alternative is worse:

Captain Kirk: If we win, the Enterprise and its crew leaves here in safety. Further more, all the thralls on the planet must be freed.
Provider Two: Anarchy. They would starve.

Star Trek The Gamesters of Triskelion 1968

Haggis: I hear they’re deserting ten at a time.
Col Shaw: Oh, you’re misinformed. We haven’t had a single incident.
Kendrick: I figure the nigs never had it so good. Three square a day, a root over their heads.

Glory 1989

If you can’t make the humanity or the property argument then you can make the “they’re better off” under slavery after all how do you expect these people to feed themselves or clothe themselves, in fact you’re doing a public service by providing for those poor innocent soles.  Much better to leave them where they were. And if all else fails and you can’t find a moral justification for slavery you can find one to ignore it…

4.  Maintain it’s none of our business:

Cetshayo:  Do I go to the country of the white man and tell him to change his laws and customs?

Zulu Dawn 1979

I remember (although I can’t for the life of me find the quote) reading of a contemporary Englishman during the time of the civil war not understanding why Americans would bother to fight a war because one side wants to hire their servants by the other while the other chooses to hire them for life.  What business is it if the Barbary Pirates, or the Romans, or the British or the Spanish or the Americans or anyone else choose to hold slaves?  Live and let live you mind your business and I’ll mind mine if we do that we’ll all get along better.  It’s not out business.

5.  Insist It’s settled law

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

US Constitution Article 4 Section 2 (cancelled by 13 Amendment)

The US constitution specifically allowed slavery and the importation of slaves until 1808. State Constitutions allowed it and it’s been the law of the land since those states were colonies. It’s one thing to forbid slavery in areas where it didn’t exist before but this is settled law and we’ve better off letting it be.

6.  And finally maintain we can’t really do anything about it anyways

Stephen: You can’t destroy Candieland! we’ve been here. There’s always going to be a Candieland!

Django Unchained 2012

Even if you don’t like slavery w hat do you expect us to do?   Raise millions of troops and fight a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars of property to end it? Even people who had no interest in slavery would fight against us?

Early in the conflict, he used to say, a squad of Union soldiers closed in on a ragged Johnny Reb. Figuring that he did not own slaves, nor had much interest in the constitutional question of secession, they asked him: “What are you fighting for, anyhow?” The Confederate replied: “I’m fighting because you’re down here.”

The Guardian June 5th 2005 Obit for Shelby Foote

Fight a way to end slavery, that’s just crazy religious extremist talk!

*********************************************************************************

If those arguments seems familiar that’s because you have been hearing then for 40+ years on the subject of Abortion.

1.  Abortion doesn’t kill a person

“The fetus is biologically human only in the sense that any part of a human body is human: every cell carries the full genetic code. A severed hand is genetically human as well but we don’t call it a person.” Virginia Ramey Mollenkott

1a. The Unborn are humans but not “people”

  2.  My Body my choice

  3.  Do you want more poor children in the world?

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js4.  Don’t want an abortion?  Don’t have one.


5 & 6  Roe v wade is settled law and it’s a waste of time and resources to fight abortion.

**********************************

I want to close with one more tweet from today…

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I suspect this tweet from the Pope will not get a whole lot of play today from the media that has lionized him.

…and a thought from 2009

 slavery was accepted as a fact of life for ten thousand years until a British Christian Named William Wilberforce pushed a government tirelessly. And this was in a society that harbored contempt and ridicule and stigmatization for religious enthusiasm. The elites or “polite society” considered it a transgression to believe and practice

Slavery has existed as long as human history.  I suspect no person alive today can fail to find a slave in their ancestry if they go back far enough.  It took the might of the Royal Navy to end the slave trade in the 1800’s and while slavery still exists in the world, particularly and ironically in Africa the reason why it is a hidden trade rather than an open one was due to the efforts of Christians like Wilberforce who withstood the same barbs that Christians who oppose abortion do today.

Update: Just heard on EWTN Everyone who was for Slavery was free, everyone who is for abortion is alive.

The real question: South Africa under the ANC

Posted: December 11, 2013 by datechguy in culture, News/opinion
Tags: ,

People who say, “I vote for the man, not the party” are therefore fools, blown around by the wind and prone to believe whatever they see on TV, because when you vote for the man, you get the party

RS McCain: Pulling at the other end of the Rope

Now that the Mandela memorial service is over and his funeral service a day away it’s time to look at the state of South Africa since his initial election.

Electorally it’s no surprise to anyone that since 1994 Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress has dominated the electoral landscape.  Mandela own election was practically a foregone conclusion.  He won the election in 1994 with over 62% of the vote and his African national congress won 252 seats in the 400 seat parliament.

It’s fair to say that problems of transitioning out of white minority rule was the primary duty of Mandela and by any standard that was admirably done.  His decision to not seek re-election and give up power that he could have kept was key to ensure democratic rule.

But the nation didn’t just get Mandela in power, it got the ANC in power and while Mandela didn’t run in 1999 the ANC did

In 1999 ANC did even better than in 1994 electing Thabo Mbeki with 66.35% and winning 266 seats in parlament.  In 2005 the trend continued as Mbeki was reelected with 69.69% of the vote and the ANC parliamentary majorly went to 279 seats.

Mbeki resigned in Sept 2008 over a corruption case involving Jacob Zuma who would win the presidency in 2009 for the ANC with 65.9% of the vote and 264 seats figures better than Mandela’s initial election but the lowest level of support for the ANC since then.

So the ANC, the party of Mandela has ruled the Country for 20 years. with solid overwhelming majorities.  In fact the irony is ANC’s  worst electoral showing was the year Mandela ran.   The question is:  What kind of job have they done for South Africa?

Well one simple measure of how a country is doing is the unemployment rate.  Let’s look at the IMF figures:

In 1990 the year that Nelson Mandela was released South Africa’s unemployment rate was at 18.78% doubling the 1980 rate of 9.24%.  By the first year of free elections (1994) it was up to 22.89%.  There was a sudden drop in the rate in 1995 to 16.71% but by 1997 the rate was back over 20% (20.95%) and since h left office in 1999 through 2010 the rate has averaged 25.76%  from a high of 30.41% in (2002) and a low of 22.23% (2007).

The current rate in the 3rd quarter of 2013 according to government stats is 24.7%

**************************************************

Another excellent measure of a county is life expectancy at the time of Mandela’s election let’s take a look at the trend since 1985

South Africa life expectancy 1985-2010

You would think that the end of incredible repression would increase, not decrease life expectancy.  A lot of this has to do with the AIDS rate:

More than five million people in South Africa are HIV-positive – about 10% of the total population.

Last year more than 260,000 people with Aids died – almost half the figure of all those who died in the country.

and the future is not bright:

At least 28% of South African schoolgirls are HIV positive compared with 4% of boys because “sugar daddies” are exploiting them, Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi has said.

He said 94,000 schoolgirls also fell pregnant in 2011, and 77,000 had abortions at state facilities, The Sowetan newspaper reports.

So under ANC rule South Africa has a quarter of its work force idle.  More than a quarter of schoolgirls HIV positive and  Life expectancy down a full 1/6.

And we haven’t even talked the murder rate at 31.3 per 100,000 (by comparison even with the Cartel violence Mexico’s murder rate is 22 per 100,000)

As the LA times reports

South Africa has some of the world’s highest rates of violent crime, with casualty figures mounting like those in a small war. The country had slowly whittled down its murder rate since 1995, but this year’s marginal increase raised fears that the battle against crime may have stalled.

The Institute for Security Studies, a South African think tank, said the figures were presented in a “vague” manner, making analysis difficult. Only the percentage change was provided, without the raw figures.

In fairness the murder rate the year Mandela was elected it was 64.9 higher than Detroit.  Now they are doing better than Detroit.  Let’s look at where South Africa’s killings are taking place

Residents in low-income areas, the analysis shows, are far more likely to be murdered than their middle and high-income counterparts. Half of South Africa’s murders occur in only 13% or 143 out of 1 127 of police precincts.

A vast majority of the average of 43 murders that take place daily do not make the news. They happen in areas where crime and violence are part of the daily despair of residents who already feel marginalised and forgotten by media and politicians.

Remember the person writing this article is a person trying to downplay the violence in South Africa.

As for Rape:

Interpol says South Africa is the world’s rape capital and less than 1% of rape cases are reported to police. According to a reliable website that compiles rape statistics this has had a detrimental effect on successfully pursuing rape cases in the country.

How bad is it? This bad::

South Africa’s parliament issued a reprimand to police Monday after media outlets reported that police stations across the country were running out of rape kits

Mind you all of this is after two decades of rule by the African National Congress duly elected and regularly re-elected by the free people of South Africa.

Without question the removal of the evil Apartheid laws was a positive good and franchise being extended to all citizens is simple justice.  A People must have the right to govern themselves and a government that doesn’t reflect the consent of the governed is unjust.

What is not axiomatic is that a popularly elected government will govern well.

The people have freely chosen to elect The African National Congress for 20 years by landslide majorities.  That party has failed to stem unemployment,   has seen life expectancy drop by nearly a decade during their rule and been a haven for murder and rape.

Yesterday spectacle to the world showing how South Africans  has progressed under the management of the leftist African National congress.  It’s been a great time for the country “except maybe for the people who got killed or raped.”

I’m sure some will think this a rather hard critique, some might even throw an epithet at me for it (remember there are five a’s in raaaaacist).  To those critics of all races, creeds and political beliefs I ask this question:

Would any one of you choose to move to such a country, raise your children in such a country or encourage your sons and daughters to do so?

Update: While the media is busy discussing Angelo-American-Danish relations almost nobody in media seemed to notice or bother covering the booing of the President of South Africa

Hmm @bbcamerica says South Africans may use POSA’s speech to express anger over corruption etc yet they regularly vote ANC 60% #tcot #p2

— Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) December 10, 2013

But apparently the South African president did

Ah, freedom MT @BBCAndrewH: Pres Zuma’s advisor tells me Mandela stadium booing was “humiliating” & those responsible will be “dealt with”

— Jeff Emanuel (@jeffemanuel) December 11, 2013

Perhaps the booing might have something to do with this:

Speaker at #mandela funeral talked of the link between SA & #cuba in development etc. That explains much (24.7% unemployment) #tcot #p2

— Peter Ingemi (@DaTechGuyblog) December 10, 2013

The question is: Will they make the ANC pay at the ballot box?

Why George Washington Matters; Today: Washington the General

Posted: February 28, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags:

The 2nd of a four-part series of why George Washington Matters, Yesterday, Washington the Revolutionary, today Washington the General.

Washington as a leader is often derided for his lack of victories against the British, but his record was much better than one might think.

When Henry Knox suggested bringing the cannon from Ticonderoga Washington signed on and thanks to the successful relocation of this artillery Washington was table to take Boston without a shot being fired. It’s the reason why so many of the historic buildings in Boston are still available to be visited.

There is no denying the New York Campaign was a fiasco Washington was defeated at Brooklyn Heights, White Plains and Fort Washington. But Trenton and Princeton were clear victories

Next year Howe defeated Washington at Brandywine and Germantown and at Monmouth while the batter was pretty much a draw Washington missed an opportunity and Washington doesn’t fight another battle for three years until the final victory at Yorktown.

At first glance this is not impressive, particularly when you consider numbers Washington’s victories come when he has numbers. At Trenton 60%, Yorktown 2-1 and Princeton nearly 4-1. His victory at Trenton is his most modest only a 60% advantage over the British force. In NY he is outnumbered but at Brandywine the numbers are within 7% and at Germantown he has a full 22% advantage as still loses.

While the British had numbers in all the battles of the NY Campaign at Brandywine the British have a mere 6% advantage and at Germantown has a full 22% advantage and still loses.

The numbers however don’t tell the whole story, consider his situation. England is the most powerful nation in the world, with a professional well-trained army and an experienced officer corps. Meanwhile Washington has to turn basically farmers and militia into a force that can stand against them.

Mel Gibson & Popular Lore not withstanding the war was not fought by a bunch of guys playing hit and run and hiding behind rocks. That’s Lexington & Concord and some of the partisan fights in the south but for the most part the American Revolution was a conventional War fought by the conventional tactics of the time.

Washington has to create, train and keep together an army, bring it up to snuff to stand against British Regulars in the face of lack of supplies, poor food and irregular pay.

The wonder isn’t that Washington lost so many battles, the wonder is his army lasted long enough to win any battles at all, let alone the revolution.

George Washington was more than the Colonial commander-in-chief, he was THE general of the American Revolution and perhaps of his time.

Tomorrow Washington the leader.

Why Washington Matters: Today: Washington the Emancipator

Posted: February 22, 2013 by datechguy in culture
Tags: ,

Baldrick: I still can’t believe you’re leaving me behind.
Blackadder: Oh don’t you worry. When we’re established on our plantation in Barbados I’ll send for you. No more sad little London for you Balders. From now on you will stand out in life as an individual.
Baldrick: Will I?
Blackadder: Indeed. All the other slaves will be black.

Black Adder Amy and Amiability 1987

Ben Franklin:  First things first, John … Independence. America. If we don’t secure that, what difference will the rest make?

1776 1972

The final in my series of post on Why Washington Matters don’t miss Part one (Washington the Revolutionary) Part two (Washington the General) and Part three (Washington the leader/president)

If there is any post title that would cause confusion among readers it’s this one.  George Washington the Emancipator?  For most of his life, Washington owned slaves.  When he married his wife, she brought even more slaves to the marriage and at the time of his death the number of slaves he owned was considerable.

In this modern age where slavery exists only in Africa and parts of Arabia where Blacks and Muslims enslave other blacks (to the silence of the media) and the sex trade (where slavery by other names is an international scourge and also pretty much ignored) this concept doesn’t wash, but in the age of Washington Slavery was not only a norm but had been a norm in the world for the history of…the entire world.

And in addition to full slavery, there were indentured servants bound to masters by contract for years and other systems by which men were held by other men.  From Morocco to the Americas slavery and forced servitude was a norm of convenience and profit wherever you went.

To this world Washington was born and raised, in a culture where slavery was a total norm, yet look at the record as commander in chief:

In his General Orders of 30 December 1775, he gave “leave to the recruiting Officers to entertain … Free Negroes [that] are desirous of inlisting” should Congress approve the new policy. Writing to John Hancock the next day he couched his order in terms of military necessity: “free Negroes who have served in this army are very much dissatisfied at being discarded. As it is to be apprehended that they may seek employ in the Ministerial Army, I have … given license for their being enlisted.”

It would have been remarkably easy for Washington the Virginia planter and slaveholder to let this be.

At the Constitutional convention he spoke very little, how easy would it have been for Washington, slaveholder and southern to push for slavery, to argue against the constitutionally mandated end to the slave trade.  How much of a pull on the delegates would his voice have been if he choose to make the case?

As president although he singed a fugitive slave law he also signed a law  he signed a law affirming the ban on slavery in the Northwest territories. How easy would it have been for a unanimously elected Washington to argue against such affirmation? How many of his friends and fellow slave holders, involved in land speculation would have wanted to bring their “property” to those lands?

Then in the final act in his will.  He freed his slaves.

While it was acknowledged even by Confederate leaders such as Alexander Stephens that the founding fathers considered Slavery wrong:

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.

It was he and he ALONE of the slaveholders who would occupy the White House that would free his slaves. After carefully steering the ship of state that was in danger of splitting apart on its maiden voyage he took the act, which has great symbolic meaning at a time when it was least likely to produce an argument against but would shine as his final example at the period when an entire nation would be in mourning for him.

Some in the 21st century might look at this 18th century man’s act as trivial? Why not do this BEFORE death? One might as well condemn Lincoln for not pushing for women’s suffrage. Consider this. Just two years after Washington’s death William Henry Harrison who would later be 9th president was appointed governor of the Indiana Territory. The slaveholding Harrison pushed vigorously for the legalization of slavery there and his allies in congress managed to get article 6 of the Northwest Ordinance/ forbidding slavery suspended for ten years.

Imagine the difference in the close debate if Harrison won, imagine what the country would look like if Harrison’s foes in the debate didn’t have the example of Washington as emancipator to use?

Washington’s act was extraordinary and the proof is that Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler, Polk and Taylor did not copy it. Lincoln among president might have been the great emancipator but Washington was the first emancipator.

In summary for all of these reasons:
Washington the revolutionary
Washington the General
Washington the Leader/President
Washington the Emancipator
I argue President’s day once again be known far and wide as Washington’s birthday.   I further submit and suggest that George Washington is and remains the greatest American who ever lived.

and I don’t think it’s even close.

Older Entries
Newer Entries