Modern Pimp

It's amazing what passes for Black intelligentsia these days, or African-American scholarly thought as some say it is. These same scholars, purchased by conservative foundations and institutes, eagerly accepted the term African-American rather than the term Black American born in the riots and water hoses of the 1960s. The scholars gladly accepted the new label because they're either dumb enough, Tom enough, or paid enough. Which sounds more forceful Black Power or African-American Power? Try "Say it loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud" to "Say it loud, I'm African-American and I'm proud." Black has strength, African-American sounds like the doublespeak it is. These same Black scholars, or I suppose I should use their preferred term, African-Americans, are founded, funded, and provided careers by rightwing tanks such as the Bradley Foundation, Olin Foundation, Hoover, and Heritage. They're "elitists" accepting conservative money to whine about liberal elitists. These scholars do still use "Black" when associated to teen pregancy, crime, welfare, etc. Black Panthers replaced with African-American Pussies. Money see, money do.

Yesterday Walter Williams latest column in Townhall caught my eye. entitled "The Productive vs. the Unproductive", I couldn't help but scoff. I like that word, scoff, it has all the spit and contempt some deserve. Williams is sometime substitute host for and guest on Rushjunkie Limbaugh radio. His columns appear regularly in Townhall and Jewish World Review. Williams uses the phrase "my colleague" more often than LaTwana gets her hair pressed and wrapped, and drops in the name Thomas Sowell or Milton Friedman, etc., his homeboys. Williams deserves the "slap up side the back of the head" award.

As nearly all high profile "African-American" conservative scholars today, Williams' career began with degrees thanks to affirmative action. A teaching stent in a community college, juvenile delinquent counselor for Los Angeles County Probation Department. Williams, was one of the African-Americans picked up in the 1970s for grooming as future conservative/republicans. His articles address the evil liberals meddling and controlling of campuses, the media, the "free market," the government. He bashes gun laws (which is good as I have several), reparations, "liberal elitists", affirmative action, welfare, minimum wage hikes; whatever is the latest flavor on the republican kill agenda. For a man with a doctorate in Economics he writes like a high school student copying his material from the encyclopedia, dumbing down the big words and repeating himself to pad the lines.

His column yesterday : "The productive people who made this progress possible are often painted as villains. I'm talking about the innovators and the risk-takers, in a word -- entrepreneurs. Today's heroes are often seen as the people who attack entrepreneurs -- among them lawyers, politicians, media people, leftist organizations, college professors and others who often contribute little or nothing to human progress. My colleague, Thomas Sowell, calls the entrepreneurs, scientists and inventors the "doers" and their attackers the "talkers." The attack on the pharmaceutical industry is particularly vicious, led by lawyers looking to make a financial killing like their colleagues who sued the tobacco industry and Microsoft. One target of today's talkers is Merck drug company, the maker of Vioxx, because for some individuals it poses an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. But for other individuals, it is safe and effective for pain relief from arthritis. The operational question for any drug is whether its benefits exceed its costs -- not whether some people are harmed. Moreover, some patients would willingly accept the risk of heart attack and stroke to obtain relief from painful, crippling arthritis. Why should the FDA or the plaintiff's bar prevent them from doing so. If we developed the practice of removing products from the market because some people are harmed by them, we might starve to death. Anaphylaxis is a sudden, severe, potentially fatal reaction that some people have to foods such as milk, wheat, soy, peanuts, fish, shellfish and eggs. Each year, food-induced anaphylaxis sends about 30,000 people to hospital emergency rooms and about 200 of them die. Since many people are harmed by these food items, should they be removed from our supermarket shelves? If not, why not? The next time we hear a talker attacking a doer, we just might ask: What have you done to further human progress? "

Walter, can the pharmablow job be any more obvious? This article is the lamest, dumbest thing I've read this week. Not even comparable to the eloquent logic heard in Willie's Bar & Grill, here in the heartland where locals hold no doctorates but some older folks still say it loud, Black and proud.