CONSERVATIVES DISH ON CAIN, RACE: My Interview Below
| This is article appeared Sunday, June 13, 2011, in the Philadelphia Tribune and is written by Zack Burgess |
For more than two weeks now, and especially since Herman Cain was hit with allegations of sexual harassment, several talk show hosts have rallied around him, using race and his conservatism as a way to ex:plain why he has encountered some of his recent troubles.
First there was Rush Limbaugh, who recently said on his show: that the article in Politico is part of a process to tear down a Black Republican. Then there was Ann Coulter.
“Liberals detest, detest, detest conservative Blacks,” Coulter said. “…This is now the second time a conservative Black has had outrageous, and what appear to be false, allegations leveled against him.”
The first, in her view, was Clarence Thomas.
She didn’t stop there, inferring that a cadre of women, who were quick to forgive Bill Clinton for his sexual transgressions, was now attacking Herman Cain. “If you are a conservative Black, they will believe the most horrible sexualized fantasies of these uptight white feminists,” she said.
This prompted radio host Sean Hannity to wonder why liberals were, in his words, so “threatened” by Cain. Needless to say, Coulter was blunt in her response.
“Our Blacks are so much better than their Blacks,” she said, speaking of Democrats. “To become a Black Republican, you don’t just roll into it. You’re not going with the flow… and that’s why we have very impressive Blacks in the Republican Party.”
There has been a collective response to the Politico.com report that GOP front-runner Cain had settled two sexual harassment lawsuits when he headed the National Restaurant Association, a lobbying group for the food industry, in the 1990s.
And given that Cain gave inconsistent answers to questions raised by the article and has refused to acknowledge his latest accuser, Sharon Bialek — he has only been his own worst enemy.
“People refer to Herman Cain as a “Black conservative” as if he is some alien species,” said political analyst Mitch Baroody. “While the NAACP means well in protecting civil rights, I find them to be very quick on the trigger in pulling the race card and setting up divides. By talking about whites and Blacks like they are so different, it effectively makes them different. It allows people to use race as an excuse not to perform or an excuse as a defense to criticism.”
Coulter evoked the Thomas parallel when she dredged up the famous phrase from his nomination hearings 20 years ago.
At that time it was Thomas who made the statement that effectively neutralized questions about inappropriate sexual conduct raised by attorney Anita Hill.
Keep in mind, Coulter has called the Rev. Al Sharpton a “fat, race-baiting Black man” and has defended the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens as being unfairly accused of racism.
“The rendering of Black people as the ornaments of diversity, rather than incarnations of it, is one of the essential reasons why Blacks clash with conservatism,” said Political analyst Yvette Carnell.
Cain’s rise to the top of the GOP presidential pool has set off a furor among conservatives who saw Cain and other conservative minorities as victims of the so-called-liberal media. Limbaugh compared Cain’s problems to those of Marco Rubio, the U.S. senator from Florida who frequently told the story of his family fleeing Castro, which turned out to be untrue. Apparently the Rubios left Cuba several years before Castro came to power.
In a 12-minute exposition on the subject, Limbaugh called the reporting on Cain a “hit job.” “Anything good that happens to any Black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. If it happens elsewhere, we’re going to destroy those people a la Clarence Thomas,” he said.
Speaking of Blacks’ place in America, MSNBC contributor, author and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said in his just-released book, “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”: “The European and Christian core of our country is shrinking.”
He says that “Old heroes like Columbus and Robert E. Lee may be replaced on calendars by Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez.” He goes on to write: “The End of White America. Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.”
For 21 consecutive months now, MSNBC has been No. 1 among African-American viewers in prime time. So it’s no surprise that Buchanan, hasn’t appeared on the network since his comments.
The Huffington Post’s reported that Buchanan hasn’t shown up on MSNBC since Oct. 22, while doing the rounds on other stations to promote his new book.
“A Conservative does not change because he is a different color,” Baroody said. “A Liberal does not change his philosophy because of his color either. Color should not be a part of this debate. People should lean on the side of conviction and not outward appearance. But because people have put such an emphasis on color, it allows politicos to make excuses like, ‘the media doesn’t like me because I’m a Black Conservative.’ It’s disgusting that we have let our society come to this after the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968.”
ColorofChange.org, a civil rights group, asked its members to sign a petition urging MSNBC to fire Buchanan, rattling off a series of questionable comments he has made over the years.
The Anti-Defamation League also chimed in, labeling Buchanan a racist and anti-Semite. Calderone even spoke with a station executive, who told him that, “the network is taking the concerns seriously.”
He also stressed that the decision to freeze out Buchanan was made long before the groups started rallying against him.
“To me, it’s disgusting,” Baroody said. “Blacks and whites are equals, only different in appearance. In the progressive age we live in today, Blacks and whites should be sticking up for each other more and calling out those that abuse the ‘race card’ as an excuse. Every time someone refers to a candidate as a ‘Black Conservative’ there should be whites and Blacks protesting this type of language because it sets up divides.”
Zack Burgess is the enterprise writer for The Tribune. He is a freelance writer and editor who covers culture, politics and sports. He can be contacted at zackburgess.com.
Social Media and Technology: Don’t Get Bogged Down, Avoid The Mud
Lately, I find myself analyzing political candidates or the Middle East, making far leftist liberals or Muslims mad with something I say that doesn’t line up with their worldview, or just not writing or speaking at all when it comes to politics. 
Recently, I had a few people come to me and ask me to write about my predictions and thoughts on Social Media and the future of political campaigns. This article will probably not interest most of you, just a forewarning. But if you are a consultant, politician, or someone interested in the subject, read on.
I’d like to start with talking about my first computer. I was in 2nd grade and the only computer I had used was one in my 1st grade computer lab. Then one day, my dad told me to “look out for the cow box from Gateway.” When it arrived, I realized…I got this huge tower computer with awesome games like “Myst” and this awesome program called Encarta Encyclopedia 95. I thought, “ wow, this is as good as it gets or will ever get. I am in heaven being able to type out my homework and play super awesome games that only take 8 minutes to load.” The hard drive was tiny, under 10 Gigabytes and the memory was absolutely pathetic. But at the time, no one could see anything better.
Those that saw the future and invested in companies like DELL and especially Apple in 1995, would have really seen a tremendous pay off now wouldn’t’ they?
So back to social media. Today, politicos, politicians, the media, Jimmy Fallon, and of course, members of the Jersey Shore just love to talk about social media. Twitter, Facebook, Four Square…must I go on?
Political folks think that social media is the way of the future and if you don’t get on social media now, then you are missing out and way behind. The first problem with that is simple…if you get on now, it’s already too late to make an impact. Those that got on social media early, I’m not going to say any names but *cough* Barack *cough* Obama sure did, really reaped the seeds of their harvest. You win Presidencies and you win elections, period, by staying ahead of the trends, not joining them as they are on the decline. The problem with social media and technology, period, is their unkind expiration date.
Most people will call me crazy and think I’ve lost my mind if I say Twitter and Facebook are on the decline…but I have to admit, they are. But all current technology is, so don’t’ think I’m discriminating solely against social networks. For any politician and/or consultant reading this, pushing social media is effective to stay up with the status quo and to build your list of contacts, but getting active in a social network now is not going to give you any advantage at all because you have already missed out on the trend. It’s just like the stock market. Get on in the beginning when it isn’t popular, ride it to the peak, sell, and let others fail miserably as they watch it drop.
Now you are wondering, what does this idiot think political campaigns or politicians of the future should be focusing on if they don’t focus on social media and current technology? Well, the real issue and the ongoing issue since the beginning of political campaigns is this..Getting the candidate in front of the voters as frequently and positively as possible. If you didn’t get on the social network boom when it first started booming, you missed out, not totally, but you missed out.
Just like the computer that I had in 1995, bigger and better things were being made when I opened that cow box from Gateway. My mind was so focused on how good the present was, I forgot ALL about the future and what it could hold. Those caught up on social media can’t believe there would ever be better technological advancements that could make their campaign life better. Did anyone ever think Myspace would be fifth to anything?? It was huge for a while, now look at it? While those of you that I describe above stay stuck in your glaze, others are out there innovating and will beat you in newer, technologically growing future elections. The Obamas of the world tap into new things while the McCains catch on a little too late…yeah, hate to say that, but it’s the truth.
So, using this thought, politicians and political campaigns of the future will have to remember three things in order to succeed in the ever changing technological environment: 1. Look towards the technologies of tomorrow and not the ones of today while maintaining the campaign status quo and staying equal with your opponent’s presence on networks. 2. Spend your resources on new and innovative ways to get face time with voters and/or constituents, not on currently popular but expiring Social Media Networks 3. Don’t be afraid to take a risk on unproven campaign technologies and out the box advertising methods.
In short, there will always be some value to mailers as long as the post office is still running. Campaign signs, while I think they are pretty ineffective, still give name recognition. So, as long as people can read, still do signs for your campaigns. Stay on facebook and twitter because people will still use these networks but they will not be used as much in the future. But the focus of future campaigns and constituent service should be on the newer technology. I divide that up in 2 groups: 1. Literally, the new technology. 2. Out the box advertising that is not commonplace.
What is this new technology you wonder? The technology boom of the next decade, which we are lightly experiencing now, is 3D technology. Most new TVs are being produced with 3D technology now. Computers will have this as a common feature by the end of the decade if not the middle. The ability to watch TV on a cell phone is huge as well. If TVs, portable devices, and computers all have 3D compatibility, a campaign should harness this technology as soon as it is available. This will allow for a more personal experience in the homes of voters. They will see their candidates coming through their tv, portable device, or computer monitor. How personal is this??? Think of the potential.
The other piece of technology that we are not far from having widespread, is holographic technology. This is when the entire structure of political campaigns changes completely. You think I sound crazy like Walt Disney? Catch this: the air force already has it on a light scale and so does CNN. Only the democrats know about that though! Once it gets here for personal use, future campaigns better grab onto it no matter how much it costs. The first presidential candidate that is likeable and presentable enough, that harnesses holographic imagery to reach out to voters, will have a tremendous advantage, no doubt. It’s here, we are just waiting for it to be in the homes of the voters.
Why? Because people want to touch their candidate, understand their candidate, and connect with their candidate. And no, their candidate should not be on e-harmony nor is this an advertisement for THAT social network. Holographic technology eliminates the need for door to door campaigning and the need for mailers. If the voter can put their candidate in their living room any time, why would that candidate need to knock on their door?
Widespread 3D technology and Holographic Technology will eliminate the need for many outreach methods…perhaps even social networks. These are just two ideas.
As for innovative advertising. Well, in the past elections, I witnessed the same, boring, old campaign ads. “Hi I’m blah blah, vote for me because of blah. Thank you and God Bless America” I told a candidate for Governor, when they asked my advice, to think out the box and quit putting up boring policy ads.
See, no one wants to hear that crap. I’m sorry, I know it’s tempting but stop it, please. If you want to succeed in the future and win an election with an ad, make your ads like the non-political ads on television. THEY WORK! Be creative, be innovative, even add some humor to take attention from the carpel tunnel you have received from putting so much emphasis on the expiring twitter. It’s okay to be funny, it’s okay to be out the box, it’s okay to be different. I wonder what would have happened for this candidate had they listened to me and been different.
The point of my entire article is to say one thing bluntly, STOP GETTING GIDDY OVER EXPIRING SOCIAL MEDIA AND TECHNOLOGY AND START LOOKING TO WHAT THE NEXT BIG THING IS.
Could We Soon See the End of ITAR’s Chokehold on Space Exploration?: My Interview Below
Article Written by Daniel Sims, Columbia University, for Universe Today (NASA Endorsed Publication)
Jeff Foust of The Space Review may have said it best when he claimed that ITAR, a set of trade regulations regarding defense-related trade, was “an acronym that has become figuratively and literally a four-letter word in the industry given the costs, delays, and general uncertainty involved in dealing with those regulations.” No matter where you are on the political spectrum or no matter where you stand on the debate about what’s next in space, you will find people who hate the ITAR’s (
International Trade Arms RegulationsInternational Traffic in Arms Regulations) influence on space commerce. Even in this time of great partisanship, Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA28] along with six Democrats and four Republicans have joined forces to craft a sword that, once given to the president will eliminate ITAR’s influence on space commercial enterprise.The Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 is the name of the bill. Also named HR 3288, the act removes spacecraft and related components from the United States Munitions List which is a list of items which are controlled by ITAR. China, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, and North Korea have restricted access to US spacecraft merchants, easing fears that US technology would fall into the wrong hands.
HR 3288 has created much excitement in the space industry.
“Congress has the opportunity to dramatically improve the competitiveness of the U.S. satellite and space industries and ensure an innovative and thriving U.S. space industrial base,” said Patricia Cooper, the president of the Satellite Industry Association, in a press release. She added that they would be jumping for joy if it weren’t for the “outmoded and overly-restrictive regulation” they say they are under.
Why so much joy? Mitchell Baroody, law student, political analyst, advocate, speaker and told Universe Today that “while ITAR may have some positive effects on National Security, the detrimental effects of these ‘red tape-laced’ regulations cannot be ignored.”
For instance, according to The Space Review in 2006, U.S. Satellite Manufacturers have estimated losses from ‘$2.5 and $6.0 billion since 1999 due primarily to ITAR regulations.’
“When industries become over-regulated, this is what happens,” Baroody said. “As a result of ITAR, even…‘friendly’ foreign countries are weary of dealing with the U.S.”
This makes it difficult for our allies because spacecraft are listed after deadly toxicological agents and before destructive nuclear weapons with all three under the same trade rules. Despite this hilarious position, spacecraft’s removal is still, according to Space Politics, “an uphill battle, as Congress awaits the administration’s export control reform proposals as well as delivery of a final version of a report looking at the national security implications of moving satellite export control reform.”
This uphill struggle against protectionism might not be so bad because over the overwhelming need to create jobs. Baroody acknowledged that there are “many who are advocating protectionist ideals, like Donald Trump advocating increased trade tariffs of 25% with China in April of 2011.”
However, Baroody said, there are many more who know that in the present American economy, people are looking for any feasible solution to export control that has economic benefits. “Unfortunately, becoming more protectionist could have some very negative economic implications for the American consumer,” he said.
Baroody does not foresee this bill being stopped by the protectionist movement. “HR 3288 does not, in any way, benefit the one country who has been treating us unfairly, China,” he said. “This bill should not face an obstacle, in reference to protectionism.”
To Baroody, the thought “that idealists tendencies, which are not accurate, can dominate and win over more jobs, more freedom for American business, and more money in the pockets of Americans is…sickening.”
Some could counter-claim saying national security is at risk, but Baroody thinks the US government has gone too far.
“Before the satellite industry was given such a devastating blow in 1999, it is fair to say there was not enough oversight. However, putting satellites on the munitions list went way too far,” he said. “Now, American Manufacturers are winning with HR 3288 and American security is being preserved because the malevolent nations are excluded from being sold these satellites and components.”
Drilling down to the mechanics of the law, this is the only route Congress can take to export reform as Baroody explains: “Title 22 USC § 2778 (The ITAR) gives Congress oversight in munitions list removal. The President has to present any removals to Congress and cannot remove anything until 30 days have passed upon notification of the Speaker and specific committees. They specifically authorized the President to have discretion in removal. In HR 3288, Congress authorizes the President to remove the satellites and related components only if this does not cause a threat to National security.” In other words, congress can’t remove the spacecraft from the munitions list themselves.”
The Safeguarding United States Satellite Leadership and Security Act of 2011 is not perfect. “The bill includes risk-mitigating licensing controls, procedures, and safeguards,” Baroody said. “Red-tape and regulations are always going to get in the way of commerce, regardless of whether it involves space or some other category of commerce. If you put aside the risk mitigating licensing controls, procedures, and safeguards and look at America’s tax system, the answer is obvious.”
“The red-tape a company has to go through to get a product to market, like a satellite, can also be just as bad as paying more for it,” Baroody continued. “Having to paddle through the exorbitant amount of regulations to ensure you are legally allowed to sell your product and your buyer is allowed to keep it, is detrimental to every business. We should have regulations, but they should be within reason and should make sense. Government should not babysit our industries but they should keep an eye on them to make sure no one is getting hurt and the American people are being reasonably protected”.
This bill even has international implications. In an interview for The Space Review Dennis Burnett, vice president of trade and export controls for EADS North America expressed that “You cannot build a big sophisticated satellite without US parts and components, you just cannot do it…Those components might comprise no more than five percent of the satellite, but still, it’s a very important five percent.”
Because of this international impact, the bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee on November 1st. This so called ‘Congress of specialists’ will, if they give the bill their time, study the bill then report on it. If the committee doesn’t give the bill their time, it will die there. Only after the committee’s review will there be a vote on the elimination of the ITAR.
11/28/2011 | Categories: Political Thought | Tags: GOP, SCGOP, Mitchell Baroody, Baroody Conservative, Space, HR-3288, Universe Today, Munitions List Bill, U.S. Munitions, China Trade, Trade Tariffs, ITAR, U.S. Space Agency, Space Review, Conservative Commentary, South Carolina Republican, Gingrich Nominee | Leave A Comment »