What About Minority Groups?

[MODU]

I need to find that article I read last week.  It stated that there are a record number of black republicans running for office this election, party due to the disenfranchisement from the democratic party as well as the growing number of successful black businessmen who no longer feel as repressed as the democratic rhetoric makes them out to be.  It was a good (but awfully long) read.  

[MODU]

This isn't the article that I was referencing, but it does touch on the points I was making:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-06-14-gop-south-blacks_x.htm

[MODU]

In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms."  However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government."  No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive.  This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.  

Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic.  It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs.  Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.  

I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level.  Would it be "fair?"  Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.  

Similar is with "gay rights."  If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.  

So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day.  Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations.  They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others.  Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.  

*I'll throw this little disclaimer in:  I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle.  Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic.  Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*

[MODU]

We should me for lunch.  Possibly turn DC "green" like we have with Maryland and Virginia.  hahaha

[MODU]

hehehe . . . sure, the old "Blame MODU" routine.    

Hey, I have proof that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is going all out for the "gay" vote.  Check out the drudge website:  www.drudgereport.com

"Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees..."

(insert images of Kerry and Edwards hugging and touching during campaign stops)

"CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER"

hahaha . . . just too funny.  

[MODU]

Just to "seal the deal."

[MODU]

AA is outdated.  The opportunity-disparity between "whites" and minorities have narrowed well enough over the last two decades that we can focus on abilities and experience rather than quotas.  AA does more harm than good for both sides of the debate, and in the long run, hurts our nation.

[MODU]

The NAACP would have been a grilling/mocking session if Bush had shown up anyway.  This is why he hasn't attended.  No need to give the media free soundbites of people boo'ing while Bush was talking.

[MODU]

They are out of date, just like AA and unions.

[MODU]

This is the best!!!  Kerry/Edwards really working it up before the Amendment vote in Congress this week:

http://www.noedesign.com/dev/KerryEdwards/index.html

[MODU]

Urban League - YES
NAACP - NO

The NAACP has again shown how radical they have become over the past decade with their hostile attacks towards the President.  In response, Bush, Bartlett, McClellan, and Paige have all denounced the current leadership of the NAACP and agreed to attend the Urban Leagues convention later this month.

Paige (a black member of Bush's cabinet) went a step further from denouncing the rhetoric from the NAACP to remind them that their group was founded, in part, by white people, and was never meant to be a "black" organization, but rather multicultural.

For those that do not remember, following Bush's 2000 visit to the NAACP, the group ran an attack add directed towards Bush in regards to the death of a black man in Texas who was chained up and dragged behind a pick-up truck, using the deadmans daughter as a voice over condemning Bush for being to easy on the guilty gentlemen's sentancing.

[MODU]

One of my co-workers here who is a member of Rolling Thunder said he cancelled his membership and support of the NAACP in 2000 after the Bush attack ad was aired on tv.  Talked to him this morning about Kerry's speech there and the NAACPs comments, and he said that he feels this could only hurt Kerry in the black community rather than help.  Many in the NAACP aren't as radical as the leadership.  He also doesn't believe he'd rejoin once the current leadership of that organization is replaced, as well as he's expecting their membership figures to decline over the next few years.