Human Rights and the Obama Administration

Today I saw this video on MSNBC, which shows an honor student in South Chicago being beaten to death by local thugs.

Of course, the mother should be charged with child abuse.

What person in their right mind would send a child to education in a Homeland school district? Seriously, considering that simple probability tells us that around 17% of the crowd shown in the video suffer from familial mental retardation, what is an honor student even doing in that environment?

What woman hates her child so much to send him to “school” in a bantustan like south Side Chicago?

Like in apartheid South Africa, zones of many cities in the United States suffer from policies of seperate development. These policies create a segregation of police services, such that youth in ghettos have to form criminal gangs for their mutual protection against others. In the video, the specific criminals, of course, are the thugs that killed the honor student. His mother is of course guilty of child abuse, for allowing her child to grow up in such an environment. More broadly, the government of Chicago and politicians who have benefits from its perks (including Barack Obama) are just as guilty of enabling a racist, evil regime as were men such as P.W. Botha and Mangosuthu Buthelezi.

It is often fashionable to criticize President Hu Jintao of the People’s Republic of China for human rights abuses. Before Americans do this, however, they should consider the role President Barack Obama has (and still) plays in keeping nightmares like South Side Chicago going.

10 thoughts on “Human Rights and the Obama Administration”

  1. Agreed, but its society as a whole, from the race-baiters to the “law and order” types who demand exceedingly lengthy sentences for minor crimes but refuse to support more police and better social services, who are responsible, with the politicians merely being the public face (and private benefactor) of a systemic problem.

    As a conservative mayor in Charlotte, Pat McCrory has done an excellent job reducing crime and winning the respect of minority communities trapped in such “homelands.” He did it by demanding widespread support for the police to be fully funded, for city gov’t to work alongside church and neighborhood leaders and organizations in reducing zones of hopelessness and lawlessness, and doing his utmost to bring investment and businesses into these “homelands.” We need more McCrorys and far fewer Mayor Daleys if we are to stem the tide of this human rights disaster.

    The role we as a society play in allowing this to happen is integral too. Its not happening to kids in mid to high SES situations so its not a big deal. You get an exceptionally horrific story like this (or the five year old girl playing in a sandbox w/ her mom who was gunned down by a stray bullet in Liberty City last year) and those of us who are better off might shed a tear or feel a tinge of sadness. The next day, its back to normal.

  2. Eddie,

    Agreed, but its society as a whole, from the race-baiters to the “law and order” types who demand exceedingly lengthy sentences for minor crimes but refuse to support more police and better social services, who are responsible, with the politicians merely being the public face (and private benefactor) of a systemic problem.

    I hear this a lot — but I don’t think its right. Society does not have agency. Governments do, however. Society is not a person with a will or powers. Government is.

    Mayor Pat McCroy sounds like a model for the country.

    You are right — because this is happening to other people in homelands, and not to “us’ here — there is little political advantage to government for fixing the problem.

    Perhaps if Chicago does not get the Olympics, that will be a needed shock.. but I doubt it.

  3. “Society does not have agency. Governments do, however.”

    From whom, however, do governments get their marching orders? In theory, in this country, it’s from the voters.

    To add to the debate; the computer I’m on at the moment doesn’t have sound, so I haven’t played the clip. Does it say whether the boy’s mother had any alternatives to sending her son to that school?

  4. Michael,

    From whom, however, do governments get their marching orders? In theory, in this country, it’s from the voters.

    True, but the people are non-executive (the do not control policy implementation) and in most places are not legislative (except for the ability to conduct referenda and initiatives).

    The clip is entirely the murder of the young man.

    Doubtless the mother’s very real desire for a community outweighed the signs she would have received throughout her life to get out.

  5. Did she think she could get out of the community? If you’re poor enough to depend on knowing which local stores have the best deals at which times, or which friends or relatives you can mooch from at which times, or which ones have the inside track on jobs . . .

    That sort of survival instinct can make moving difficult, no matter how beneficial it might be for long-term prospects (like good schools).

  6. Greyhound tickets are about $50. Minimum wage jobs pay a greater fraction of one’s cost of living in less urban areas.

    Of course, she would be lonely, as would her son. He might even go from being a star in a Homeland school to be run-of-the-mill in a better school.

  7. “I hear this a lot — but I don’t think its right. Society does not have agency. Governments do, however. Society is not a person with a will or powers. Government is.”

    I can’t respond because I have to think about this for a while. I can see the logic behind it, but don’t know how that fits into what happens. Thank you for responding.

    We will miss Pat McCrory and his many contributions to our state by making Charlotte an excellent city (he’s not running for reelection, even though he’s been there a decade and been phenomonal!). As Governor (he ran last year as the GOP candidate), he could have saved NC from much heartbreak and failure down the road. Instead, we have Bev Perdue, whose approval ratings are now below 25% and who put off hard choices on spending and sustainability with a miniuscule tax hike and slight cuts to state government.

    Of course, what would really help NC and other Eastern States would be if we could get rid of our “horse and buggy” county systems, where states have many, many counties with overlapping, redundant positions that cost each hundreds of millions each year. We could save a lot of money and have better state governments if we could figure out a way to consolidate the number of counties.

  8. Eddie,

    Of course, what would really help NC and other Eastern States would be if we could get rid of our “horse and buggy” county systems, where states have many, many counties with overlapping, redundant positions that cost each hundreds of millions each year. We could save a lot of money and have better state governments if we could figure out a way to consolidate the number of counties.

    The county system that exists in most of the country provides an avenue for political mobilization on local issues that otherwise would be unavailable to rural residents.

    However, you point out real administrative inefficiencies.

    A form of de facto merger, in which counties continue their separate legal existence with many services shared between them, probably would be a good outcome.

  9. Dan,

    I think that will probably be the more viable reform anyway. I am interested in what happens in the next few years with a state (Alabama, Michigan, and Louisiana come to mind) that goes belly-up and requires a federal bailout similar to the harsh terms Ford imposed on NYC that actually created most of the circumstances for its return to prosperity and sanity by the mid-90’s. If Obama (or whoever the president is when it happens) is half the tough bargainer Ford was, we may see some of these reforms actually come to fruition.

  10. Presumably the bail-out for the states will be as ‘hard’ as the UAW bailout, the bank bailouts, etc.

    The Geithner-Bernanke economic philosophy, which owing to Obama’s unconcern and ignorance has become his economic philosophy, is that large stake-holders should not be allowed to suffer losses, or the consequences of those losses.

    Why would they treat states any harsher than car-companies, insurance companies, banks, or unions?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *