Tag Archives: conservatism
This is my two cents on the Google Drama, in the aftermath of them firing James Damore. It’s necessary to know the story before you begin reading my response, so here it is:
It’s amazing how many people have misunderstood & utterly failed to comprehend the long memo written by now former Google employee James Damore. He made a point in his response to being fired, published in the WSJ, which is lost on far too many, and that is the culture that is Google. I’m sorry, but Google can hardly claim to be a mere “employer”. They have a campus with residential dwellings for employees. Meals are free in the cafeteria & rival those of some restaurants I hear. You can bring your beloved pets and/or children to work – they have daycare & petcare for employees. Employees can take a nap if needed – there’s a place for that. They pay well & have stellar benefits which cater to any family type. There are people who’d perform certain favors to work there if they could. Google is a way of life. You can’t fart without someone there to make sure the smell doesn’t disrupt the ambiance of their workspa. Those are just a few benefits.
When you, as an “employer” & business entity, are so deeply entrenched into the lives of your employees (a misnomer too really, but I digress), you don’t get to hide behind the subterfuge of the normal rules of so called discrimination & political etiquette, that “normal” employers adhere to. And Damore didn’t discriminate against anyone. He wrote the 20 page memo in a work environment that allows such free time for innovation & creativity. Google isn’t just a place to work – it’s literally home too, for some. If Google hasn’t cleared the blurred lines between work & home in its policies, there’s a very good case to be made in his defense.
Folks, this is silly and outrageous. You don’t get to have so much room as an employer to involve yourself fully into the lives of your employees then abandon them when outsiders peep in & don’t understand. Google isn’t an employer, they’re not even in loco parentis, heck they ARE the parents. Shame on them for cutting the umbilical cord instead of being as nurturing as they’ve been in every other aspect of their employees lives, work-relatedness notwithstanding.
Until next musing,
Talitha K. McEachin
I wanted to share my thoughts today on what being a constitutionalist means to me, and why that means more to me than party affiliation, or any other political boxes I can check:
Folks, I am a constitutionalist before I am anything else. This allows me, to have political allies from all walks of life, as long as we can agree that the law of the land must be adhered to, as well as the legal blueprint for amending it. This doesn't mean the law is without imperfections, nor are those who created it. The same is true for those whose job it is to defend it. We're all inherently, flawed human beings. We make mistakes, and we must correct them legally as a society at times. History is replete with major and minor instances of this. This is why I consider Americans, who readily accept political legerdemain, used to circumvent legal procedures when it suits their interests, the most unpatriotic citizens there are.
As for me, I've accepted the inevitable reality, that putting my own personal agendas and biases aside, and honoring the constitution, means there will be things I am opposed to, but must allow to legally stand. That is, if my arguments to the contrary are not legally strong enough, to influence a different outcome. I really wish more Americans would follow suit. It's such a relaxing political place to be…
Until next musing,
So recently, I retracted a prior criticism of former POTUS Barack Obama – the whole “food stamp president” nonsense. While this post isn’t a retraction, I want to share my thoughts on another erroneous label affixed to him – the infamous “Obamaphone”. The ironic thing about this, is that it’s origins are rooted back to 1984 when some Americans were still in “Will we ever see a black president?” mode. A “Barack Obama” if you will, was still a dream. 1984? Yep. When Ronald Reagan was president. Some even argue that it goes back as far as Roosevelt, but I digress. That year, the FCC created the Lifeline Assistance program. That’s the actual name of the “Obamaphone” program, technically.
Obviously, cellular phones weren’t ubiquitous as they are now, in 1984, which is why the program provided free landline phone service, mainly to senior citizens. Interestingly enough, after eight years of the Obamaphone misnomer, so many remain ignorant of its history. Am I the only one who’s never heard of an “Reaganphone”? What about a “Bushphone”? “Clintonphone” perhaps? What about a “Trumpphone”? (that sounds like the world’s worst megaphone ever). You haven’t because they were never labeled as such, even though the program existed in every presidency since Reagan. In fact, Safelink Wireless offered the first such cellular (keyword alert!) phone service in Tennessee in 2008, near the end of Bush’s second term. Barack Obama wasn’t elected until November of 2008. The program started three months earlier.
There are some very, obvious motives and suspicious undertones, if I’m polite, associated with slapping this erroneous, derogatory misnomer onto the first black president, and literally none of his predecessors, but for now I’m not gonna go there (Hmm, no pun intended, but, did I just do that?). Now to be fair, the number of participants in the program, did increase significantly under the Obama administration, but that’s to be expected, with the expansion of any government program to assist the destitute in a recession. It’s a domino effect. If you had no problem with the program under Reagan, both Bush’s or Clinton, it’s simply hypocritical to have whined about it for the last eight years under Obama. I’ll be discussing three more things, I, and/or my political “macro tribe” got wrong, or, that were generally misunderstood or wrong when it comes to Obama. Then I’ll balance it by discussing the same number of things I stand by firmly, as far as my criticism of his presidency goes. Stay with me folks, this is about to get really interesting…
I’m back with my latest musing, on why I was wrong about a prior criticism of former president Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package. As a Republican and Conservative libertarian, I have to work harder at objectivity when assessing his successes and failures. My missive here is to share one of his successes, which I erroneously deemed a failure:
After researching certain aspects of Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package, I now see the labeling of him as the “food stamp president” quite differently. I haven’t written about it in a while, but I think a prior criticism I hurled his way was wrong. I didn’t agree with people calling him the “FSP” – I stand by that, but I understood why many called him that. Some attributed it to racism, and I’m sure that’s true for some percentage of his opponents, but certainly not all. I refuse to entertain the notion that all, or most Republicans are racists. It’s a stereotype, and I don’t play those games. In his economic stimulus, he expunged the work requirements, making the SNAP/FS program more accessible to Americans in need. We were in a recession, people were out of work and losing their homes. Many who had never received any government aid, found themselves swallowing their pride to feed their children. Most had at least one job, but simply didn’t make enough to make ends meet. It’s still true today that most SNAP recipients are working.
Barack Obama helped millions defray their cost of living by putting food on their tables. In other words, the criticism was that under his presidency, the highest number of people were food stamp recipients, due to the economic crisis. While there’s some truth to that, it’s a bit misleading for me and others (like Newt Gingrich), to assert, that he was responsible for the economic crisis, therefore forcing people on the SNAP program. That’s a faulty cause and effect. No, he recognized the crisis we were in, cause notwithstanding, and deliberately (key word) expanded the program, so millions could eat. The trade off was that the number of recipients under his watch soared. He deliberately took that hit on his economic report card. You don’t have to be a member of MENSA to understand, that loosening rigid requirements means more qualified applicants. You may not agree with his solution, and that’s your prerogative, but it was his solution, in his best judgment. The ends justified the means to him. That’s the job America hired him to do. If you want me to believe, that a Harvard educated attorney and former Senator couldn’t foresee, that the number of recipients would increase after removing work requirements, you may as well be asking me to believe in five-legged unicorns. Believing that is also an attack on his intelligence, and mine. You’d also have to ignore the trillions in debt, created by Bush before him.
Some will argue that his motive was to increase government dependency – one rung on the ladder of socialism. The problem lies in the fact that it never happened. We aren’t a socialist nation. If I’m wrong and that was his goal, he failed utterly, so it doesn’t matter anyway. There will be criticisms of him that I’ll stand by, but this isn’t one of them. I’m humble enough to retract this view. Of course, there’s a valid counter argument to this reassessment that isn’t lost on me. Once the economy improved and the recession ended (2012), the number of SNAP recipients should have done down. That didn’t happen. The question is why, but that’s a lateral issue, one that’s unrelated to the “food stamp president” label. That’s also another musing. I’m reassessing my view of his presidency, before writing a critical essay on his legacy. In order to fairly assess his presidency, you have to look beyond the numbers. There’s a lot of gray area. You have to dig deeper. Fair is fair, and this is one view that I’m totally comfortable with amending.
Until next musing,
Talitha K. McEachin
I’m going to change the format for my posts as of today, by sharing bullet points from my most popular social media posts. I’m very active on social media as most writers are, so this will help me reserve more time for my fictional writing & longer political pieces, which can be time consuming. Here goes:
Black Community to Trump: Don’t Air our Dirty Laundry:
Some have asked me, why some black Americans are so bent out of shape over Trump’s speech, which included incendiary yet truthful remarks about poverty in black America. Like the sheeple some are, they started giving knee-jerk anecdotal evidence such as “I’m not poor” as if that’s a substitute for analyzing hard data. Anecdotes disprove nothing. Since these blaxperts on MSNBC & the like are going to continue their destructive campaign of lies & economic amnesia at the expense of black America, I’ll tell you the reason for the faux outrage. It’s because black Americans don’t like their dirty laundry aired in front of, or by whites, least of all a right-winger. That’s the bottom line, and some need to get over themselves. This isn’t about individuals/you, it’s about the numbers for us as a whole. There’s no “I” or “U” in team. If you’re going to ignore the way black people have lost so much ground in America over the last 8 years, please get out of the way of those who genuinely care. I’ve got no room in my life for those who’d rather have their cultural egos stroked. Your allegiance to lies & ducking from the truth is just as dangerous as the bullets in a rogue, racist cop’s gun. Stop lying about black community failures & behaving like emotionally wounded children. Put on your big girl panties & grow up.
Democrats Milk the Obama Cow Again:
I find the timing of this new movie, “Southside With You”, about Barack & Michelle Obama‘s “first date” & eventual rise to the White House to be a very calculated, emotional distraction, and a perfectly timed release not long after his endorsement of Hillary Clinton. It’s really nauseating, but hey, after almost eight years of blissful symbolism & ignored failures, what’s one more milking of the Obama cow? Whatever…
America In 2016: Dumbed Down & Loving it
You’d think that with as many Americans in this country who are unhappy with the two major party candidates, we’d form a united front in solidarity against them both. Trump nor Clinton are the best persons to run the country, but they both have managed to slither through the primaries in victory. It’s a sad state of affairs, to see a populace so defeated & feeling powerless – so dumbed down. We have so much power and refuse to harness it. Thank God the founding fathers & those who fought centuries later in the struggle for Civil Rights didn’t acquiesce so easily to tyranny. What happened to that type of stamina & perserverance? We’ve all but been reduced to political zombies whose only sign of life is how polarized we’ve become. Even bees know the meaning of sacrifice, giving their lives against human foes with a final sting. It’s hard to believe that insects have more of a fight in them than we do…
Trump & Outreach:
Trump is making the GOP establishment look like fools. He demonstrates that the “We don’t do identity politics” excuse is just that – an excuse. With the way racial demographics is steadily changing in America, a political party that doesn’t do outreach to minorities will absolutely become extinct. It’s survival of the fittest – American political style. Anglo-Saxons are consistently declining as the majority with every census, and inevitably, ethnic minorities will become the majority, as is the case in most of the world already. Republicans lack the foresight & humility to see this writing on the wall, which will lead the GOP to it’s demise if they don’t change. Trump has a point, regardles of what anyone thinks his motive is. He is unafraid of going into the black community, which is a sign of strength, or strategic planning, depending on who you ask.
Until the next post, be blessed!
I’m not going to preface this wonderfully written piece with my thoughts as I normally would. I’ll allow Mr. Okeem’s editorial from Hip Hop Republican to speak for itself:
The leftist assessment of the black conservative is that such a person is angered and frustrated at being born black, which leads to the adoption of conservative views in order to compensate for this perceived “congenital deficiency.” While this is a preposterous accusation to make against all black conservatives, it is intellectually dishonest to pretend as though this characterization of the black right came into existence wholly out of left field. Indubitably, there are some black conservatives whose proclamations and behaviors lend credence to the stereotypical leftist view of black conservatives.
Black conservatives are not intellectually monolithic, and we certainly do not read from the same script of talking points. Essentially, black conservatives can be divided into two groups: solution-oriented black conservatives and fame-oriented black conservatives. Solution-oriented black conservatives prefer to use their platforms to intellectually engage with people and offer serious ways to move black people forward. Inevitably, this encompasses astutely criticizing both the left and the right when criticism is required.
By contrast, fame-oriented black conservatives feign interest in issues regarding black progress, when, in reality, popularity among white conservatives and profit are their fundamental goals. Fame-oriented black conservatives never see an opportunity to bash black people and black liberal leadership that they do not take, but they conveniently manage to turn a blind eye to every shortcoming and malfeasance of white conservatives. Fame-oriented black conservatives are the right-wing versions of the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons. They are people who care more about their bank accounts than bettering the lives of black people.
There is a civil war occurring between the intellectual, solution-driven black conservatives and the fame-oriented, pseudo-intellectuals on the black right. The winners of this war will determine the political future of black America. If the black conservative continues to be identified as a self-hating person who is simply a puppet for white conservatives, black people will never associate with the Republican Party or American conservatism. However, if this war is won by black conservative intellectuals who are truly about black elevation—and not the elevation of their personal bank account balances—black conservatism has a chance of truly permeating the inner cities and changing the voting behaviors of black people.
The most identifiable feature of fame-oriented black conservatives is their absurdist addiction to the inconsequential issue of whether or not blacks choose to identify as African American or just American. They call this the “unhyphenated American” movement. While this issue is unimportant to regular people, it is deeply important to pseudo-intellectual, fame-oriented black conservatives, because it is the key issue that they use to ingratiate themselves with white conservatives.
When “Rev.” Jesse Lee Peterson—a darling of the white right and “unhyphenated American”—argued that blacks being carried on slave ships is equivalent to traveling on coach airplanes, before earnestly thanking white people for slavery and removing his forefathers from Africa, he was not making an argument to reach out to other blacks. Rather, Peterson was talking to a certain white conservative audience that enjoys such rhetoric—particularly coming from a black man. It is no wonder why Sean Hannity comfortably sits on the board of Peterson’s organization dedicated to the supposed “advancement of black men.”
To continue reading, please click HERE.