The Eisenhower Foundation released a poverty study to show how well the anti-poverty policies of the Johnson administration worked. According to TEF, we still have a lot of work to do to eliminate poverty, inequality, racial justice, and crime.
I think that most people would agree with this. I think that most Americans believe that this country still has too many people living in poverty, and that minorities make up a higher percentage of people living in poverty.
But The Heritage Foundation, putting their two cents in found that blaming the victim explains inequality:
Robert Rector, senior research fellow on poverty and family issues at the Heritage Foundation, says the Eisenhower Foundation may claim to be nonpartisan, but in fact comprises a small group of "extreme left-wingers."
According to Rector, the report completely ignores the three major causes of poverty. "One is that 69 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and those children are raised without a father in the home," he says. "The second is lower levels of work and more welfare receipt; if you're on welfare, [it] doesn't pay enough for you to get out of poverty. The third is low levels of actual educational attainment -- real math and verbal skills."I'll translate: The Heritage Foundation thinks that black people are poor because they all just sleep around and are too busy sucking off of welfare to get a real job or education.
Bob repeated this word for word, without even reading the study!
Let's take a look at The Heritage Foundation:
The Heritage Foundation was created by racist beer baron Joseph Coors. The Coors family has an extensive history of racism, as can be documented here. Joseph Coors hired Roger Pearson to be co-editor of The Hertiage Foundaton's Policy Review. Pearson wrote a number of racist works, including the book "Race and Civilization." The racism of THF is evidenced in their reports on racism, in which everyone of them seeks to claim that racism doesn't exist, or isn't a problem. The real problem, according to them, is that black people are lazy and dumb. Here's a quote from one of their articles:
"So blaming racism for our lack of achievement is, at best, a misplaced focus and is, at worst, what I call social insanity. Now, let me tell you what I mean by social insanity. If you believe that racism prevents you from achieving any particular goal, then inherent in that belief is the granting of the power to succeed to the partisans of racism."In other words, pretend racism doesn't exist and it'll simply go away!
But back to Bob.
Bob has knowingly quoted a racist organization that seeks to make black people look lazy and stupid. And he did it with a quote that is designed to do just that. By giving credibility to the organization through quoting such rubbish, Bob has decided to put into the minds of his white listeners that:
1) Racism isn't a problem in America.
2) Black people are in poverty because they're lazy, slutty, and dumb.
Remember this the next time Bob wants to bring up the racism of people he seeks to demonize.
7 comments:
Listening to him often I think he has no idea that he's racist. In my experience a clear sign of a racist is one who says "I have black friends" some how this allows and validates all racist comments and beliefs you have. Let's see he attacks Barak Obama, Oprah, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton hmmm I think I see a pattern!
I stopped listening to Dutko a few years ago when I realized that he was hateful, racist, pompous, and as unlike Christ as the most vitriolic klansman. Bob tries to hide his sheet under "sheep's clothing," but he isn't fooling anyone, including himself. He does know that he is racist--he just will never admit it. I am a born again Christian and called to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, but I believe that I am compelled to Christ-likeness--not just knowing more facts than the next person.
You guys are a little weird. I don't read any of that into anything he says. Seems to me like you are hateful towards conservative/Christian/Republican folks for whatever reason. You have the assumption that they are hateful before you even listen to a word they say. You just simply wait for them to speak and then you interpret, or translate it as you say, out of your own prejudices. I am sure you are thinking hateful thoughts about me right now, because I don't agree with you. Yet I feel no compulsion to hate you.
I know that others feel differently than I do, yet I don't feel the need to be hateful towards them. If I say that the system has not been kind to blacks and has kept them down by creating a welfare state that punishes marriage and independance, I am not insulting blacks, I am insulting liberal beaurocracy.
Also, to llbjdmom, he also has Jesse Lee Peterson on the show all the time and does not "attack" folks like Clarance Thomas, Condi Rice, etc. I see a pattern here too. He also "attacks" people like Al Gore, the Clintons and other liberals. Hmmm. The pattern seems to be that he attacks liberals, or more accurately liberal policies. Take a closer look and you might see that pattern too. Unless you think that Jesse Jackson is a conserative and Condi Rice is a liberal. You do sound a bit confused.
So if I say I prefer white bread, am I racist? Well, actually I do prefer wheat bread. Oh, I guess pointing that out makes me racist too. I guess I just can't win.
mom2eight:
You guys are a little weird. ... Seems to me like you are hateful towards conservative/Christian/Republican folks for whatever reason. ... I am sure you are thinking hateful thoughts about me right now, because I don't agree with you.
Starting a conversation with insults, e.g., "weird" and "hateful", probably isn't the best way to achieve a rational discourse. But perhaps you're not interested in a rational discourse...
Yet I feel no compulsion to hate you. I know that others feel differently than I do, yet I don't feel the need to be hateful towards them.
OK. We're hateful and you're not. We're bad and you're good. Your heart is pure and ours are black as coal. Fine.
If I say that the system has not been kind to blacks and has kept them down by creating a welfare state that punishes marriage and independance (sic), I am not insulting blacks, I am insulting liberal beaurocracy (sic).
Well, now we've reached the "meat" of your argument I suppose. I would compare it to the thesis presented by Charles Murray in Losing Ground which I read as a college student. The premise, IIRC, was that (1) marriage was the best way for people to get out of poverty since one person could work while the other takes care of the kids and (2) that government welfare programs (such as ADC/AFDC) encouraged single mothers not to be married because benefits would be reduced and not to work because it was less profitable than the government dole. In fact, this premise led the Republican-led Congress to pass a big welfare reform act in 1996 which required work from the adult recipients and limited the amount of time that benefits could be obtained.
Of course, one problem with Murray's premise (and yours, I believe) is that it's based on the belief that living solely on welfare payments is a somehow desirable situation. From what I understand, living on these payments alone typically wouldn't even get the recipient above the poverty line.
But, as I mentioned, many of Murray's concerns were addressed by the 1996 law. So what I'm wondering is, what precisely are your concerns with the current "welfare state"? What changes would you make that would make life better for the poor?
You really should go and take a quick gander at the Eisenhower Foundation study that DJ mentions in the original post. One finding is that "[t]he American child poverty rate is about 4 times the average poverty rate for Western European countries." I assume you believe that Western European countries have more liberal welfare policies than the U.S. So, if that's true, how do you explain the apparent success of those countries in addressing the issue of child poverty?
So if I say I prefer white bread, am I racist? Well, actually I do prefer wheat bread. Oh, I guess pointing that out makes me racist too. I guess I just can't win.
I really have no idea what you're talking about here. Racism has nothing to do with carbohydrate preferences. But if you're admitting that you're a racist, I'll have to take you on your word.
You think Bob Dutko is demonizing, so you post about it on your demonizing Bob Dutko blog site.
Quite ironic.
Mom2Eight, conservative doesn't mean Christian, no matter what Bob tells you.
Steve, I'll gladly demonize racists.
I believe that Bob is a racist and I am no longer supporting his show. On Martin Luther King Jr. day 2011 his first topic of choice was not focusing on the good works that Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. did, but the fact that 72% of black women are single mothers. The first three callers were white. One woman said she believed that black women had alot of babies so that they could get a bigger welfare check. As the conversation continued ...at some point Bob stated that he agreed with EVERYTHING she was saying. A black woman called in and said that she believed that the problem started with slavery. She pointed out that when you snatch fathers out of homes for hundreds of years and dehumanize a race it plays a role. She also stated that she felt there is a spiritual stronghold going on that needs to be broken. He then asked her: "What does something that happened 150 years ago have to do with now?" wow. He just doesn't care. I will never listen to his show again.
Post a Comment