update, 02.09.2011. continental op, i stand corrected. (readers, see comment from continental op, below.) it appears i have inflated the percentage of black workers in federal employ. i looked to a number of places, and the figures appear to be around 17 to 18%, as you have suggested.
i must have erroneously got my figure from somewhere. the following illustrates the problem, however, and does confirm that black employment in the federal government overall is very disproportionate to the percentage of blacks in the work force:
because not only are african-americans disproportionately the beneficiaries of federal programs, from the aarned income tax credit to aid for education and student loans, they are even more over-represented in the federal workforce than they are on state payrolls.
though 10 percent of the u.s. civilian labor force, african-americans are 18 percent of u.s. government workers. they are 25 percent of the employees at treasury and veterans affairs, 31 percent of the state department, 37 percent of department of education employees and 38 percent of housing and urban development. they are 42 percent of the equal employment opportunity commission and pension benefit guaranty corp., 55 percent of the employees at the government printing office and 82 percent at the court services and offender supervision agency.
when the obama administration suggested shutting down fannie mae and freddie mac, the mortgage giants whose losses of $150 billion have had to be made up by taxpayers, the washington post warned, in a story headlined, “Winding Down Fannie and Freddie Could Put Minority Careers at Risk,” that 44 percent of fannie employees and 50 percent of freddie’s were persons of color.
In washington, d.c., we have also seen the result of government cuts on african-american leaders who had to approve those cuts.
when mayor adrian fenty stood behind schools chancellor michelle rhee, who fired hundreds of teachers, most of them african-american, the wards east of the anacostia cut him dead. in 2010, fenty was thrown out by many of the black voters who elected him.
not only are african-americans over-represented among government employees, these jobs are the backbone of the black middle class. for federal pay and benefits have in recent years far outstripped those of the private sector.
from 2000 to 2010, the number of federal employees earning over $150,000 increased tenfold. that number doubled in the first two years alone of the obama administration. the average pay of federal civil servants in 2009, after benefits were factored in, was $123,000, twice the average pay and benefits of $61,000 in the private sector.
indeed, because of the salaries and benefits that district of columbia and federal employees receive, washington is first among all metropolitan areas in per-capita income. and the three congressional districts north and west of the city in maryland and virginia are among the top 10 in the nation in average income.
the half-century since the great society was launched in the mid-1960s have been the salad days of the government sector. no segment of the population has benefited more than black america.
but with the u.s. government running its third deficit of 10 percent of gross domestic product, and obama talking of cutting $4 trillion from future spending, those days are over. and as black america benefited immensely from the great society, so it is likely to hurt most as the cuts come.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/2011/07/11/black-america-vs-obama/ .
so, i apologize for the factual inaccuracy in some sense in my statement, but, i apologize not in the least for the general tenor of my remarks in considering this issue, and i most certainly do not back away from my analysis nor my conclusions.
it is quite obvious that american blacks have hitched their wagons to the star of the federal government, and that the percentage of their employment is very much disproportionate to the percentage of blacks in the overall population, and in the work force. end update.
whether communists, social democrat, centrist, neo-conservative or devotee of genghis khan and the mongol hordes, we have all become such materialists that we have lost sight of what causes social dyspepsia amongst those who might otherwise be considered fellows, even to the extent of causing them to engage in civil affray, as it was so charmingly put in the enlightenment.
everybody wants to look to issues of wealth, and the disparity among citizens in the extent of the same, or to look to perceived societal inequities in the "distribution" of the same.
the proponents of this view look to corruption, or the abuse of station, and say that it creates unease in the society. to which i say, poppycock.
the downtrodden masses, from which i rose and back into which i sink, couldn't care less about such matters, insofar as a financial balance sheet is concerned. we have seen corruption, and abuse of privilege amongst our betters since time immemorial, and have simply viewed it as the way things are amongst those who bathe more frequently, or, who used to.
the lower classes have endured hunger, cold winters, pestilence and the flaunting of genital driven excess for just about forever, with these "normative" conditions seldom causing too much renting/rending of the social fabric. these are the storied source of legend, fiction, song, ballad and theatre with scarcely an upset along the way, and, it is almost something which we lower forms take a curious pride in, the perversion of our "betters."
marat d'sade, for instance, is famous precisely because he was a noble, and not a simple randy peasant buggering every poor scupper maid he could get his hands on. no, he was a noble, buggering every poor scupper maid and lady of privilege, he could get his hand on, or his penis into, in one fashion or another.
we expect it of the silly bastards, they having nothing else useful to do with their time.
nope, "the rich get rich, and poor get poorer, and, in the meantime, in between times, ain't we got fun." ("ain't we got fun?", music by r. whiting, lyrics by r. egan & g. khan.)
this wry/"rye inspired" social remark did not spread rebellion during the great depression, but, rather mollified it. if ever the "monetary theory" of social upheaval were to have had application, this would have been the time for it, (as the marxist so disappointed-ly expected), but it did not.
nope, social upheaval is not caused by money.
social upheaval is caused by precisely that, and that is to say, actual social upheaval, or disarray in the order of things. the order of things, ... , you know, ... , the ways things she is supposed to be. and, all that. it is caused when the order of things, the way they are supposed to be and have usually been, get out of whack.
when our community is disintegrates. which is another way of saying, when those who want to determine such things try to unsaddle those who have decided such things before. (as ambrose bierce once remarked of "radicalism, ... , tomorrow's conservatism today." that sort of thing.)
it is as simple, and as complicated at that.
i believe that there are a number of fundamental things that could lead to civil discord in the united states, even to the point of civil war. and, they all derive from upset in the way things they should be, ... , in short, in radical departure from the values that people have accepted and adhered to for years.
they are fundamental.
to the way we really live. and, that is by the spirit, by our morals, and by our choice of affinity.
1.) religious values, morality. abortion. in my view no single issue illustrates the chasm that exists between those who would rule & impose their views upon the rest of us, than the issue of abortion. to me, no matter the expediencies and pragmatism's that are marshaled in favor of aborting children from birth, they simply cannot contend with the basic moral issue involved, and that it is wrong in the extreme, mortally so, to take the lives of infant lives in being.
to my mind, it bespeaks the moral inadequacies of an age, its poverty of spirit, that matters of "practicality" trump the issues of simple human morality. you can gussy the whole damned thing however you want, but, you will not convince me that abortion is not immoral, and that it is not bestial, the same as eating ones young.
gay marriage. for those of you who would impose your values upon the rest of us, and who seek "legitimizing" gay marriage by the legislative process, please take note that your efforts simply are not playing in the hinterlands, nor amongst my fellow unwashed.
we ain't buying it.
that does not mean that we seek to stamp out gays, gay relationship, or even the recognition that gay couples should be afforded certain social prerogatives/benefits because of that relationship.
it is the "marriage" issues that sticks in our craws.
marriage is between a man and a woman, and it is related to the conception of children, their rearing and their shepherding. it is also something that is a fundamental matter between community, and god.
(for what it is worth, see here, http://www.therightscoop.com/atlanta-black-gang-brutally-attacks-a-black-man-because-hes-gay/ . i really don't know how this "cuts" in the analysis of this little piece, but i do know that it is revealing of a very basic tension in our society, and one that is being "glossed over.")
2.) race, and majority rule. race, minority rule. we are a society of many races, and many ethnicity's.
we have not yet become a country ruled by a minority of our fellows.
now, i was born of a blacksmith father, who graduated eight grade, and a mother who made it through high school on several bounces. my oldest brother attended oregon state university for 9 days, and came home, to work the labor he had always known and loved. i attended a small liberal arts college in the northwest, and dated the daughters of general motors executives, albeit briefly. (that's another story.) i have remained suitably obscure most of my life, even while a lawyer not really being a member of the club. in this, my history is pretty similar to other friends who came up the hard way in the profession, ... , i even have a mexican lawyer friend who worked the potato sheds with his family in his youth, who married into san francisco wealth, and divorced out of it because he did not like being worthless, in his own eyes. he likes his family, and loves the holidays, where they sit close to each other, laugh, and drink beer. it is no mystery to me.
by contrast, i have a younger brother who has risen to the top, and who sits as an overseer on the board of the college from which he directed, and is on the symphony board of his home town. he is welcome to it.
now, i am not unaware of the fact that i probably never had much reach "into" "skull and bones" or the other elite loci of power in our society. they are tiny havens for very powerful people. "minorities," if you will.
but, they are not minority rule, no matter their reach.
consider this.--
in the last ten years or so, because of "affirmative action" and such, 40% of the employees of the federal government are black. it may come as a surprise to you, but, blacks do not comprise 40% of our population, and, are not even our largest minority racial/ethnic population.
yet, they comprise 40% of the employees of the federal government, and healthy percentages of the employees of government everywhere.
i will remind you, that from time to time government feels that it is its province to tell the rest of us what to do.
it would not be a very healthy situation if the rest of us were told by our overpaid, privileged and fat butted minions in the various forms of government what to do, and we on the receiving end of the chain of command felt either racial animus or racial motivation as the source of such command.
think back but a bit, when blacks had legitimate reason to feel that, when they were on the end of a less enlightened majority rule.
i practiced law 25 years. i well remember a remark attributed to thurgood marshall, justice of the supreme court, who exalted when the decision on "brown vs. board of education" came down, saying "now, it is our turn." very little was shielded in that remark.
it is a source of concern, and something that should be openly discussed, and recognized.
3.) religious strife. islam, & political islam.
the presence of islam in our society is a source of religious and civil strife, at all levels.
look at the failures of multiculturalism in europe and england. look at the middle east.
you figure it out.
4.) race, religion and islam. sharia.
(sharia? you don't know from sharia? look here, and learn a bit: this is just an introduction, by the way. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/02/cpac-2012-islamic-law-in-america-geller-spencer-pantano-muise-adams.html . i also suggest you become a regular reader of atlasshrugs, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/ , proprietor, pamela geller, and read her outstanding coverage of sharia. robert spencer, at jihad watch, http://www.jihadwatch.org/ , is also a leader in the blogs in this area. they speak truth on the matter, and do not shy away from truth. nuff said?)
islam gains traction among the black community, oddly enough, both in prison populations and in places of higher education. this seems simple enough fact.
let us consider all of this from the aspect of a "perfect storm."
let us posit, for point of discussion, that blacks continue to gain influence in government, and in commerce, as a continued impact/result of both affirmative action and merit. let us further posit, that as blacks gain more influence in government islam gains more influence among blacks.
let us assume that the history long antagonism between islam and every other religion on earth does not abate, and that as a result blacks become not only an ethnic minority in our country, but become likewise identified as a minority population comprised of a monolithic religious impulse.
and, that islam through its adherents seeks to impose sharia upon the rest of the population, via it use and exploitation of the governmental structure of the united states.
in that case, if we combine religion, race and minority attempt at rule into one package, then, in my view, civil war is almost inevitable.
5.) plausibility.
you may or may not remember major nidal hasan, an army major who shot and killed 13 of his fellow soldiers at ft. hood, texas.
prior to that shooting hasan compiled a book on the religious justification for his actions as an adherent to islam, and lectured his fellow doctors at rounds on his convictions. the morning of the shooting he handed out koran's, and during the shooting shouted islamic battle cries.
the u.s. army has ruled that his actions were not religiously motivated, but were "work place" violence, denying his fellow soldiers who were wounded and killed by his actions appropriate military privilege and recognition.
whodda thunk it. maybe you best get to thunking.
john jay @ 02.06.2011
p.s. i had a wonderful history professor in college, a great bear of a man, fred breit. he was a graduate of the university of chicago, when that meant that he received one of the finest conservative educations available, anywhere.
he had a great pot belly, and his pants would slip down over it, so about twice every class period he would have to hitch his pants up over his belly, adjust his belt, and then adjust his great thick glasses which had got akimbo from the effort of minding his pants.
he taught russian history.
he was fond of the following story.--
the russian court (as it ascended to empire) spoke french, and most russian aristocrats and courtiers and intelligentsia spoke french, and no russian at all. catherine the great, for instance, corresponded vigorously with the french philosopher voltaire, even while the peasants slaved in the hot fields and shivered in their straw beds in winter. while she, no doubt, reposed in ermine, or some such other finery.
her "association" with voltaire was incongruous, at best, and ridiculous on its face.
well, the courtiers & aristocrats felt an impulse to democracy.
so, they determined to dress as the peasants, and to go amongst them and speak russian. and, so they had costumes made up for this, and determined to speak their native tongue, which, for most of them, was a novel experience, and an absolutely unintelligible one for the russians with whom they would rub shoulders.
they frightened the russians to death. the russians thought they had been conquered by hordes from the east, yet again.
this was evidence of the discord and disconnect between a people and those who ruled them. in point of fact, the russian nobility was not russian, and had not one thing in common with the people of the country they ruled. by force, in point of actual fact.
there was the nobility, who "interfaced" with the population via a vast, incompetent and corrupt bureaucracy.
who toadied to be "part" of the aristocracy. but, never could.
they shared absolutely nothing in common with the russian people. the aristocracy, the nobility, the bureaucracy, were not russians.
they were occupiers.
this, my friends, is precisely where we are tending. and, fast. we are rapidly heading to a situation where politically, culturally and spiritually, we are to be led by strangers, who do not believe as we do, who do not hold to any of the same values we do, and who hold our values in scorn and will use force to suppress them.
they are occupiers. who reject our very notions of the sanctity of life, and who will adopt and impose a foreign rule upon us, perhaps by a minority racial segment of our population. keep in mind, that this minority has ancient and legitimate grievances against us.
it is not a good situation.
mongol hordes, indeed.
p.s.s. "occupy wall street."
your stock market portfolio is looted by those who manipulate the market? what in the fuck did you expect?
you expected to go to las vegas and beat the house? no peasant was ever so stupid. as my brother the broker says, "don't play it unless you can afford to loose it." simple enough for you?
You have laid that out well John Jay. It is so clear, quite obvious actually, yet I wonder often why so so many cannot see. Some, I think do see, fawning and drooling at the opportunity to have a hand around our necks. Others just cannot let go of the liberal perspective they have spent their lives perfecting and rationalizing to warrant superiority and relive guilt. But the media is the master of illusion. It is a pervasive and sophisticated propaganda machine now woven into society.
Posted by: sDee | February 07, 2012 at 05:56 AM
sDee:
thanks for the read and the comment.--
much appreciated.
you may wish to take another look, some minor additions to the text, and a link to atlasshrugs and an introductory post there on the topic of "sharia."
john jay
Posted by: john jay | February 07, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Where did you get the 40% figure for black federal employees? The Congressional Budget Office puts the figure at 17%. See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Federal_Personnel.pdf
Posted by: Continental Op | February 09, 2012 at 02:25 PM
continental op:
i apologize for getting the figures wrong. most sources confirm a figure of from 17-18% of the federal work force is black.
please see my "update" in the text above, however, because in some federal agencies, the percentage of blacks employed is well over 40%, and as high as an astounding 80% in some.
i do not back away from my analysis or remarks, but acknowledge the factual error.
thank you for setting me straight.
john jay
Posted by: john jay | February 09, 2012 at 03:46 PM