Sunday, July 10, 2011

They'll say Absolutely Anything To Try And Save Obama

The latest media frenzy surrounding Michelle Bachmann involves a pledge she signed with a prominent family values group in Iowa regarding items like marriage, the family and other social conservative issues. While I might personally have some differences with some elements of the pledge, what caused the ruckus was this item, in the preamble:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

Immediately, the usual suspects morphed this into headlines like these:

It's Like They're Proud of Being Ignorant ( The Atlantic)

Michelle Bachmann Signs Pledge that Says Black Children Better Off During Slavery - (Jack n' Jill Politics)

Michele Bachmann signs anti-gay pact that says times were better for black kids during slavery
- L.A. Times

So, Michelle Bachmann supports slavery? Really?

This is a classic example of sloppy thinking. Jack n' Jill Politics and the others using this to slime Rep. Bachmann and the pledges authors made two assertions - that breaking up families during slavery was 'common' and that rape was 'common' .

While it undoubtedly happened at times, there are no stats in that case to show what 'common' means. Was it 70%, the statistic on out of wedlock black births today? I doubt it, and if it can't be proven, it's not an argument.

What the pledge actually said was that it was sadly more common for a black child in slavery to be born out of wedlock today than it was under slavery. We don't have to go back to the days of slavery to see that its correct.

As economist Walter Williams tells us, in 1940, the black illegitimacy rate was only 19%, and in 1960, it was only 22%. Now, it's 70%, and instead of acknowledging the problem and the need to do something about it - which is all that part of the pledge was talking about - even mentioning it is construed as 'supporting slavery'!?

Those figures, by the way, also tend to re-inforce the idea that rape and the breaking up of families was less 'common' during slavery than the dinosaur media would have us believe. What we know for certainty is that black out of wedlock births are a lot more common since the Democrat -led 'War on Poverty' and the 'Great Society' in the 1960's...along with a lot of other disturbing statistics.

The family values group has since removed that paragraph from its preamble. I think that was a mistake, as any capitulation to stupidity is. But I certainly understand why they did so.

please helps me write more gooder!


Ooops said...

Oooops.... said...

It's the phase "born after the election of the USA's first African-American President" that really makes this pledge hilarious. If you follow their own footnotes, it shows that they're basing this off a study released in 2005. If I remember correctly, Obama was sitting in the Senate chamber that year. Maybe they were hoping that no one would read the fine print.

Rob said...

As usual, we have someone who can't see the forest for the trees.

Black illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed, and the latest rate as of 2010 is between 72-75%, depending on whose figures you go by. So the pledge figures are even more correct than they were in 2005.

From your comment, I take it that as far as you're concerned, pointing this out as a problem by juxtaposing historically huge black illegitimacy rates with our country electing the first black president is 'stupid'. Ho ho.Hee hee.

Such an attitude is simply pitiful.

louielouie said...

i believe what Oooops was not make a comment regarding the subject matter of the thread. i.e., the headlines of the articles.
instead, Oooops changed the subject and made a comment.
a common trait of libtards.
saul alinsky 101.