Post by The Peeler
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 04:37:10 -0700, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash) Post by Michael Ejercito Post by The Peeler
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
So he wants to diddle underage girls?
YOU do. Just like your jew hero Jeffrey Epsteen.
HE never gave a hint that he had ANY sexual interest in kiddies. YOU
repeatedly gave your interests away when you complained about pedophilia
being illegal (see sig, pedo)!
YOU would know where you can find the kiddies you like to diddle, pedophilic
serb swine (see sig)!
Indeed he does.
Post by The Peeler
BTW, "cheers"??? Is that what you say when you are about to swallow nazi
jizz, you housebound cocksucking wanker? <BG>
Post by The Peeler
"Why do we still have outdated laws prohibiting paedophilia? Do you
seriously think that a 12-year old who spends 15 hours a day on Facebook
doesn't know what's going on?"
That quote will haunt him for all time.
Now here is Jeff Jacoby writing about several subjects.
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, July 15, 2019
A plan Frederick Douglass would shun
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend,
Ind., last week unveiled a sweeping proposal to devote tens of billions of
dollars and expanded federal powers to, in his words, the “dismantling” of
America’s “racist structures and systems.”
Buttigieg calls his proposal the “Douglass Plan,” in honor of the great
19th-century abolitionist Frederick Douglass. In its vast scope and
ambition, he says, it would be like the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild
Europe after World War II. But the Marshall Plan was a straightforward
economic recovery project compared to the social transformation Buttigieg
has in mind.
Under the “Douglass Plan,” a Buttigieg administration would pour vast sums
of money into black institutions, health programs, and schools. It would
expand racial preferences for government contracting, and spend more money
to “diversify the teaching profession.” It would eliminate “broken windows”
policing, which focuses on curbing low-level crimes to discourage more
serious offenses. It would also abolish the death penalty, cut the prison
population in half, provide student grants and Medicaid benefits to prison
inmates, and make it harder for criminals released on probation to be sent
back for “small violations.” And it would make the promotion of black
history a federal priority.
All of this, says Buttigieg, would be in addition to — not instead of — a
system of reparations for the descendants of slaves. And the “Douglass Plan”
doesn’t stop with issues that are explicitly connected to race. It also
includes elimination of the Electoral College.
And statehood for Washington, D.C.
And a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United.
And public financing of election campaigns.
And an end to political gerrymandering of legislative districts.
And a "Lead Paint Mitigation Fund."
And more money for disaster preparedness and relief.
And a “Community Homestead” program to purchase abandoned urban properties
and turn them over at no cost to “eligible residents” who promise to
And a $15-per-hour federal minimum wage.
In other words, Buttigieg’s “Douglass Plan” comprises not only a massive
program of racial preferences, affirmative action, and public spending on
the basis of color, but also hefty chunks of the progressive wish-list. In
that respect, it is similar to the Green New Deal, which — as Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff has said — should not be thought of as “a
climate thing” but as “a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”
According to opinion polls, Buttigieg has so far failed to gain any traction
with black voters, and has been criticized for his handling of race-related
issues in his home town. Will the “Douglass Plan” change that? I can’t
imagine anyone being inspired by a proposal that describes America as
profoundly racist, while suggesting that the cure lies in focusing even more
obsessively on people’s race. But then, I’m not a Democratic Party primary
voter, so Buttigieg’s pitch isn’t targeted at me.
Apparently it also isn’t targeted at anyone who knows anything about the man
for whom it is named.
Frederick Douglass would have been appalled by the “Douglass Plan.” A
passionate and active abolitionist before the Civil War, he was no less
ardent in defending the rights of black freedmen after slavery was
abolished. He never wavered in demanding the liberty and equal rights to
which black Americans were entitled, and he spoke angrily and loudly against
those who schemed to prevent the former slaves from improving their economic
Frederick Douglass, born into slavery, became a renowned abolitionist,
orator, journalist, and public official
But he was always contemptuous of the idea that blacks lacked the
intellectual or moral capacity to stand on their own two feet. Secure their
right to vote, to legal equality, to work without being swindled, and
African Americans would thrive, he maintained. “What I ask for the Negro is
not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice ,” Douglass
said. Blacks did not need to be patronized or condescended to. The best
thing government could do was ensure that they were not discriminated
against; but no one should imagine that they could not succeed unless the
government discriminated in their favor.
“I utterly deny that we are originally, or naturally, or practically, or in
any way, or in any important sense, inferior to anybody on this globe,”
declared Douglass in Boston on January 26, 1865, in a speech to the
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society.
Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the
abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer
from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already
played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not
remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the
core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not
for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan,
and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot
stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to
stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school,
let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table
at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him
alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let
him alone – your interference is doing him a positive injury. . . . Let him
fall if he cannot stand alone!
Douglass was speaking as the Thirteenth Amendment was on the cusp of
adoption by Congress, and it would be another 11 months before the language
abolishing slavery was ratified and added to the Constitution. But Douglass
had no doubts about the innate aptitude of the black American. “If you will
only untie his hands, and give him a chance,” the great man insisted, “I
think he will live.”
He never stopped thinking so. In one of his most popular speeches,
“Self-Made Men,” Douglass years later asserted his faith in the power of
diligence and hard work to raise up even men and women who had previously
been trapped in slavery.
“Personal independence is a virtue and it is the soul out of which comes the
sturdiest manhood,” he declared as a general principle. “But there can be no
independence without a large share of self-dependence, and this virtue
cannot be bestowed. It must be developed from within.”
That applied to black men and women no less than any others:
I have been asked “How will this theory affect the Negro?” and “What shall
be done in his case?” My general answer is “Give the Negro fair play and let
him alone. If he lives, well. If he dies, equally well. If he cannot stand
up, let him fall down.”
Douglass acknowledged the seeming unfairness of expecting former slaves, who
had started out “from nothing and with nothing,” to be held to the same
rules as those who had “start[ed] with the advantage of a thousand years
behind them.” But he refused to budge on the point: Give the freedmen an
equal chance to compete, and they would succeed.
The nearest approach to justice to the Negro for the past is to do him
justice in the present . Throw open to him the doors of the schools, the
factories, the workshops, and of all mechanical industries. For his own
welfare, give him a chance to do whatever he can do well. If he fails then,
let him fail! I can, however, assure you that he will not fail. Already has
he proven it. As a soldier he proved it. He has since proved it by industry
and sobriety and by the acquisition of knowledge and property. . . . In a
thousand instances has he verified my theory of self-made men. He well
performed the task of making bricks without straw: now give him straw. Give
him all the facilities for honest and successful livelihood, and in all
honorable avocations receive him as a man among men.
Whatever black Americans may have to contend with today, it pales in
comparison with the cruelty, betrayal, and repression that followed the
collapse of Reconstruction and the resegregation of the South. If there was
wisdom in Douglass’s words 150 years ago — “Do nothing with us!” — how much
more so is there wisdom in them today, when African Americans are
incomparably better-equipped for success than they were in the 1860s and
1870s. Affirmative action, racial preferences, minority set-asides, benefits
for prison inmates, reparations for slavery, billions in public funding for
black institutions — Douglass would have wanted nothing to do with such
paternalism, or with the endless insistence that America is incorrigibly and
permanently steeped in anti-black bigotry.
Buttigieg’s “Douglass Plan” makes this claim: “After the accumulated weight
of slavery and Jim Crow, America cannot simply replace centuries of racism
with non-racist policy; it must intentionally mitigate the gaps that those
centuries of policy created.” Perhaps Buttigieg really believes that;
perhaps he is merely saying it for political purposes. Either way, it flies
in the face of what Douglass believed and said.
Buttigieg is free, of course, to reject the judgment and insight of one of
the greatest statesmen, advocates, and thinkers in African American history.
But if he is going to campaign for president on a plan that Frederick
Douglass would have spurned, he should have the decency not to call it the
How to throw New Hampshire out of work
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, but Democrats have been
clamoring for a while to more than double it to $15 per hour. Nearly all the
Democratic presidential candidates have endorsed a $15 minimum wage, and in
several cities (Seattle, Austin, New York), a $15 minimum is already
mandated by law.
When government raises the lowest hourly wage at which a worker may lawfully
be employed, does that help or hurt those at the bottom of the economic
“The issue has been fought over for decades,” I wrote last year.
Reality repeatedly renders the same verdict: Artificially hiking minimum
wages makes it harder to employ unskilled workers. Raising the cost of labor
invariably prices some marginal laborers out of the job market. Advocates of
higher minimums may wish to ensure a “living wage” for the working poor. Yet
the result is that fewer poor people get work.
This really shouldn’t be a liberal-vs.-conservative or
Democrat-vs.-Republican issue. One of the most elementary facts of economics
is that raising prices reduces demand. It’s true of widgets, whiskey, and
washing machines, and it is no less true of workers. The New York Times put
it succinctly in a 1988 editorial headlined “The Minimum Wage Illusion :
The question is whether legislating a higher minimum would improve life for
the working poor.
It definitely would — for those who still had work. But by raising the cost
of labor, a higher minimum would cost other working poor people their jobs.
Two studies in 2017 examined the impact of recent minimum-wage increases in
Seattle and San Francisco. In the Seattle study , economists commissioned by
the city found that the increase caused a decline in the employment of
low-wage workers, just as opponents had predicted. Some workers lost their
jobs, while many who remained employed had to accept a cutback in hours.
When the gain from higher hourly wages was set against the loss of jobs and
hours, the bottom line was stark: “The minimum wage ordinance lowered
low-wage employees' earnings by an average of $125 per month.”
The other 2017 study, conducted by Harvard Business School scholars,
analyzed the effect of minimum wage hikes on San Francisco-area restaurants.
Result: For every $1 increase in the mandatory minimum wage, there was a 14
percent increase in the likelihood that a median-rated restaurant would go
out of business.
All of this is in keeping with basic economic teaching. Minimum-wage laws
can set the lowest rung on the pay ladder, but they can’t ensure that every
employee will be able to reach it. In practice, minimum wage increases tell
low-skilled workers: If you can’t find an employer willing to pay you more
money, you may not work. That isn’t benevolent, it’s spiteful. And it’s why
raising the minimum wage almost always prices some vulnerable workers out of
the labor market.
Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report
analyzing the effects of raising the federal minimum wage. It concluded, as
objective economists always do, that while some workers could expect a
raise, others would lose their jobs.
According to CBO’s median estimate, if the minimum wage were pushed to $15
an hour, 1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be
jobless. As the Concord, N.H.-based Josiah Bartlett Center points out, 1.3
million people is equal to the entire population of New Hampshire. And that’s
the median estimate: Under the CBO’s worst-case scenario, job losses caused
by a $15 minimum would be far higher — 3.7 million people would be thrown
out of work. That’s more than the total population of Connecticut.
Liberal legislators, journalists, and activists commonly avoid the
real-world impact of minimum-wage increases, or they hide it behind
uplifting rhetoric about compassion and social justice. They challenge
anyone who opposes a higher minimum wage to try living for a week on the
existing one. Wouldn’t you find it excruciating, they say to critics, if you
had to make do with $7.25 an hour?
No doubt they would. But having to make do with $0 an hour would be more
excruciating by far — and $0 is the wage earned by people who are unemployed
because a hike in the minimum wage drove their employer to lay them off, or
prevented them from being hired in the first place.
Politicians cannot cure poverty by raising the cost of entry-level
employment any more than they can do so by waving a magic wand. After all,
if aiding the needy were as easy as setting a compulsory minimum wage, why
not set it at $20 an hour — or $120 an hour — and really help them out?
The effects of supply and demand are not optional. They weren't enacted by
lawmakers and lawmakers can’t override them. Bromides about giving a raise
to the working poor may give legislators and advocates a warm glow. But
there is nothing soothing about losing your job because Congress makes you
too expensive to hire.
Subscribe to BostonGlobe.com
My column on Sunday pointed out that toxic partisanship has been a problem
in America for a long time — George Washington warned in his Farewell
Address about the “baneful effects” of loyalty to political parties. But the
problem has grown especially severe in recent years, which helps explain why
tens of millions of American voters refuse to affiliate with either the
Republican or Democratic parties. More than one-fourth of voters register as
independents, and in some states — such as Massachusetts — registered
independents constitute a majority of the electorate. So why aren’t more
independents elected to public office?
I wrote last Wednesday about the endlessly embarrassing Massachusetts
Legislature, which has failed, yet again, to pass a state budget in a timely
manner. The new fiscal year began on July 1, and virtually every other state
has its annual budget in place. But not Massachusetts. “In the real world,
there is a price to be paid for disregarding deadlines,” I wrote. But
politicians on Beacon Hill are never held accountable for their inability to
perform. Legislators are paid a handsome salary, voters reelect them
unthinkingly at every election, and nothing ever changes.
Enjoy reading Arguable? Please tweet the good word to your followers!
The last line
they were delicious
and so cold” — William Carlos Williams, “This Is Just to Say” (1934)
Thank you for reading Arguable. If you liked this newsletter, why not
forward it to a friend? Anyone can subscribe for free by signing up here.
I always welcome your feedback — cheers, jeers, and otherwise. Let me hear
from you: My e-mail address is ***@globe.com (or just reply to this
Look for a new Arguable in your email inbox next Monday. Until then, have a
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.