He speaks the truth. That is for sure. But I think the people that continue to promulgate these programs don’t really care about the people they are supposed to be helping. It’s all about power and “virtue”; making more victim means that you can present yourself as someone who helps victims.
President Johnson started the program by giving more welfare to mothers of fatherless children. It still goes on. I would elaborate, because as a radio reporter I saw it first hand in Chicago and Milwaukee, but I don’t know who else is reading this and I don’t want to potentially start an argument with strangers.
BLM and CRT are the just the latest scams foisted on all other “communities” along with the Obama/Sharpton creation and deployment of “structural racism”
Providing public financial benefits to single mothers started out as a typical act of left-wing compassion, a big-state solution to individual circumstances. Like many big state solutions, the immediate thunderous applause for solving the symptoms masks the downstream effects of the government’s artificial incentives. When the government incentivizes behavior, society gets more of it. The compassion->just do something->incentivize vice cycle is an ugly pattern resulting from too much focus on symptoms divorced from a fundamental vision of truth and virtue.
The following statement may help you to understand why the dems inflict so much evil onto society: If it accomplishes a means to a political end, democrats, i.e., party operatives, have a high tolerance for other people's suffering.
In other words, ideology is far more important than human suffering--no matter how great the affliction.
Great commentary. I was fortunate to grow up in a two parent household. And while both my parents had to work to support my sister and I, I cannot imagine my life without both parents.
Our government has negatively impacted countries as well as our own people in it’s naïve approaches to solving problems. Let’s hope we are learning how to reverse some of the policies for future generations.
I don't mean to contradict you, but I think it is a mistake to think that their actions are the result of naiveté.
How much easier would it be to control a group of people by creating a problem/crisis and then present yourself as the one (Democrat Party) having the solution to what ails them?
Some theorize that creating or inflaming a culture of dependence is a standard procedure from the Marxist/Leftist Utopian playbook...i.e. part of a carefully constructed plan to melt down our culture. Maybe so. But it might also be just a product of opportunists wanting the perks of political office while shirking the hard work of rehabilitating people and communities. For a smart people like Clintons and the Obamas, I think it may be the former, but for many of their accolytes I think it is the latter. A good man or woman is hard to find.
Dr. Coles is prescribing the difficult solutions, which take work, sacrifice and persistence over a lifetime. I can understand that children don't want to hear this, probably none of us likes to hear it. Hard facts are never popular. But I can't understand policy makers who benefitted from these principles in their own lives, declaring them unfit and oppressive for minority communities which have languished for generations. How does a rational mind arrive at this conclusion? I suppose that dissecting this mentality is the heart of your work, Eli.
President Johnson made the Democrat's objectives very clear, saying, "We'll have the N*****s votes for the next 200 years". Fortunately, after less than 60 years, many are seeing the light and turning away from the Democrats and their harmful policies that have kept so many on the "Democrat Plantation" for so long. Hopefully, the rest will come along soon.
Yes, a friend of mine from Poland tells me it was a Marxist idea and after its inception, the theory spread through the Eastern Bloc and soon found its way to Columbia University, in the 1970’s.
Thanks Eli, yes I started at CBS KNX1070 in Los Angeles and worked every format across the country. I often ate lunch alone, because I would dig deeper and report the truth from different angles, rather than just go along to get along.
It’s nice to see that clip of Coles, which has to date back to the 60s. His observation is interesting too, likely with more than its kernel of truth. To my eye, it sounds as if Eli is a man with a message and definite political point of view. Politically, though, Coles was, I think, strongly affiliated with liberal causes and points of view—regarding the civil rights movement especially. My thought is the commentator would like to reduce Coles to a singular perspective to use for his own purposes, whereas Coles tended always to represent more of a socially conscious, even spiritualualized, set of perspectives. “Only in the chorus,” Kafka once wrote in his notebook, “do we find a certain truth.”
He speaks the truth. That is for sure. But I think the people that continue to promulgate these programs don’t really care about the people they are supposed to be helping. It’s all about power and “virtue”; making more victim means that you can present yourself as someone who helps victims.
Yes Eli,
President Johnson started the program by giving more welfare to mothers of fatherless children. It still goes on. I would elaborate, because as a radio reporter I saw it first hand in Chicago and Milwaukee, but I don’t know who else is reading this and I don’t want to potentially start an argument with strangers.
- Mike Coleman
Monterey
Had no idea about your past. Very interesting
Thanks! On the air 25 years.
Started at AM1070
(CBS) Los Angeles
BLM and CRT are the just the latest scams foisted on all other “communities” along with the Obama/Sharpton creation and deployment of “structural racism”
now being used to destroy America.
BLM is a con from day one. Watch the documentary by Candace Owens.
Oh BTW Robert, CRT was a communist construct that began in the U.S.S.R, decades ago.
Very interesting.
Wow. Could it be any more clear?
What unnecessary suffering that callous, illogical policy foisted on millions of people.
It sure did.
Providing public financial benefits to single mothers started out as a typical act of left-wing compassion, a big-state solution to individual circumstances. Like many big state solutions, the immediate thunderous applause for solving the symptoms masks the downstream effects of the government’s artificial incentives. When the government incentivizes behavior, society gets more of it. The compassion->just do something->incentivize vice cycle is an ugly pattern resulting from too much focus on symptoms divorced from a fundamental vision of truth and virtue.
That’s very well said.
The following statement may help you to understand why the dems inflict so much evil onto society: If it accomplishes a means to a political end, democrats, i.e., party operatives, have a high tolerance for other people's suffering.
In other words, ideology is far more important than human suffering--no matter how great the affliction.
Great commentary. I was fortunate to grow up in a two parent household. And while both my parents had to work to support my sister and I, I cannot imagine my life without both parents.
Our government has negatively impacted countries as well as our own people in it’s naïve approaches to solving problems. Let’s hope we are learning how to reverse some of the policies for future generations.
I don't mean to contradict you, but I think it is a mistake to think that their actions are the result of naiveté.
How much easier would it be to control a group of people by creating a problem/crisis and then present yourself as the one (Democrat Party) having the solution to what ails them?
Some theorize that creating or inflaming a culture of dependence is a standard procedure from the Marxist/Leftist Utopian playbook...i.e. part of a carefully constructed plan to melt down our culture. Maybe so. But it might also be just a product of opportunists wanting the perks of political office while shirking the hard work of rehabilitating people and communities. For a smart people like Clintons and the Obamas, I think it may be the former, but for many of their accolytes I think it is the latter. A good man or woman is hard to find.
Dr. Coles is prescribing the difficult solutions, which take work, sacrifice and persistence over a lifetime. I can understand that children don't want to hear this, probably none of us likes to hear it. Hard facts are never popular. But I can't understand policy makers who benefitted from these principles in their own lives, declaring them unfit and oppressive for minority communities which have languished for generations. How does a rational mind arrive at this conclusion? I suppose that dissecting this mentality is the heart of your work, Eli.
President Johnson made the Democrat's objectives very clear, saying, "We'll have the N*****s votes for the next 200 years". Fortunately, after less than 60 years, many are seeing the light and turning away from the Democrats and their harmful policies that have kept so many on the "Democrat Plantation" for so long. Hopefully, the rest will come along soon.
The truth of what you say cannot be denied by any reasonable and intelligent person.
Thomas Sowell has asserted the same truths for years.
I believe that if we funneled money that is earmarked for programs that assist problematic adults and teens into programs that allow/help
Moms if any race to stay home for 1-2 years with their little kids we could vastly change the dynamic of dissociated youth in this country.
Right now most low income parents outsource the raising for theirs kids to the schools and streets
Yes, a friend of mine from Poland tells me it was a Marxist idea and after its inception, the theory spread through the Eastern Bloc and soon found its way to Columbia University, in the 1970’s.
Thanks Eli, yes I started at CBS KNX1070 in Los Angeles and worked every format across the country. I often ate lunch alone, because I would dig deeper and report the truth from different angles, rather than just go along to get along.
It’s nice to see that clip of Coles, which has to date back to the 60s. His observation is interesting too, likely with more than its kernel of truth. To my eye, it sounds as if Eli is a man with a message and definite political point of view. Politically, though, Coles was, I think, strongly affiliated with liberal causes and points of view—regarding the civil rights movement especially. My thought is the commentator would like to reduce Coles to a singular perspective to use for his own purposes, whereas Coles tended always to represent more of a socially conscious, even spiritualualized, set of perspectives. “Only in the chorus,” Kafka once wrote in his notebook, “do we find a certain truth.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/alexanderscipio/p/whats-next-in-the-race-games?r=ownpk&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post