Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Is the Ideological Right cannibalistic?

Noticed a new story today that Rand Paul was running an advertisement on the internet criticizing Jeb Bush for running for the office of the Presidency.  Now, ignoring for the moment that Bush has NOT yet decided to run (although it IS likely), how do you feel about one member of the right side of the aisle attacking ( not disagreeing) with another from the same side?

 I don't like this stuff one little bit. Yeah...I am so conservative that I have come to consider myself an anarchist. But that is an ideological point of view, not a physical one...that is, I have no intention of going out an harming anyone or interfering with their lives.
Given that, people on the right side of the aisle have gotten into the bad habit of not being able to compromise with those on our side. We all want the same thing, I think: good fiscal responsible government kept as small as is possible. After that, we spin off into our little favorite niches. And that is fine, too. EXCEPT that we do it publicly. It is like immature brothers fighting in the front yard...out there for everyone to see and it leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Independents and even some of those in our own ideological family. Are we so stupid as to think that one side can totally annihilate the other? Or should? We should by now realize that we need to stop acting stupidly,,,at least in public. I am a member of a local Tea Party. But that doesn't mean that I automatically brand anyone who is fiscally conservative but less so on the social issues as an enemy. I NEED THE BUDGET BALANCED. I NEED THE DEFICIT TO START TO COME DOWN. If that is being worked on, no matter at what speed, I can live with that. I CANNOT live with another Progressive, Socialist, Liberal Democrat in the White House. The whole idological right needs to be made to take a time-out, made to sit in the corner and get their collective heads on straight...or you are going to find yourselves living in a European Socialist type country with absolutely no opportunity to change it. Wake up....Please!

Monday, December 15, 2014

What IS "White Privilege?"

Ask someone...anyone...to define "White Privilege."   What I get every time is an amorphic, rambling commentary that, when deciphered (if that is possible...sometimes it is not) basically says, It's YOUR fault."  The definition of "it" changes with each person, and so does the exact nature of the word, "fault."  But there is no factual or statistical support for any definition or for the conclusion.  And I cannot find the origin of the term.  It sprung out of nowhere, apparently, made of whole cloth and seems designed to emotionally carry the argument without resorting to anything inconvenient...like logic or proof.

Some of the ramblings are quite entertaining and would be humorous, were it not for the totally serious intent of the person attempting to make the argument.  One person said it could be determined simply by the shade of a persons complexion; the lighter the skin pigment, the more acceptable the person regardless of intelligence, ability, education or experience.

They became quite agitated when I inquired as to whether this scale of "whiteness" was absolute, or comparative.  They didn't understand the question.  I explained that I wanted to know if you just put all people next to each other and then oriented them by skin pigment from light to dark...or the reverse, it didn't matter to me...or if each race had its own scale.  If each race than had its own scale, then you would first have to line up all those qualifying as "white" and create a ranking from 1 to 100.  Then do the same for all African-Americans, all Spanish Origin, all Middle Easterners and all Orientals...and perhaps you would need to have sub-groups.  All of these would have a grade of "Whiteness" on an identical 1 to 100 scale.  So...my questions was..."which method of comparison was applicable?"  No answer.

How can one not only understand "White Privilege", much less adjust for it to eliminate its effect, if you cannot define or measure it?

The suspicion starts to develop that the whole concept of "White Privilege" has nothing to do with dealing with and eliminating it so much as using it as a way to avoid responsibility and consequences.  That comes from the lack of definition and the identity and background of those holding high the concept.  And I don't see a lot of occurrences that even come close to being laid at the foot of any loose definition of "White Privilege."  Behavior and attitude seem to be at the base of most of today's disturbing events: insulting law enforcement officers, attacking those who give lawful orders, interfering with others' peaceful enjoyment of public surroundings, business success, political success, just to name a few.

On the basis of skin pigmentation, Mr. Obama should never have been elected President.  Millionaire entrepreneurs are African-Americans that are quite dark in complexion...surely that cannot happen if "White Privilege" is real.  People of "color" routinely break the law and demonstrate in a manner that interferes with other citizens' quiet enjoyment of public areas...but very few are arrested and almost never is one of them actually punished for their law-breaking.  Surely that would not be so if "White Privilege" was real.  People of "color" routinely accuse, without proof, lighter skinned people of being racist and suffer no consequences from such false accusations, yet those of lighter pigment often lose their employment if they accidentally utter words that can be seen as racist only with tortured application of logic;  surely that would not be so if "white privilege" were real.

Meanwhile there are people of various hues walking around with tattoos that insult various segments of humanity, speak derogatorily of themselves and others, dress in cloths that leave ample room for diapers, and strut as if they were trying out for the role of a rooster in a 4th grade play, cannot read, speak, add or subtract without a machine and blame "white privilege" for the fact they cannot get a job...or if they can, that it only pays minimum wage and is part time.  There seems to be a certain failure to communicate here...and I tend to think it is because this group has no interest at all in listening.

Sunday, December 14, 2014

Sports and Domestic Violence

It used to be that when one's transgressions reached the stage of being prosecuted by the authorities, the result of that process was deemed to be the extent of punishment.  Some went to jail, and when they got out, there were a variety of ways for that person to earn his or her way back into the work force and into society at large.

Should the transgression not reach the level of prosecution by authorities...or whatever the disposition by the courts...the matter was deemed over with and done.  For the most part, a transgression did not trigger a doomsday scenario.

Apparently those days are gone forever.  Mind you, I am in favor of the strictest possible punishment and treatment that will deter and prevent violence in any situation.  Domestic violence is abhorrent.  And I would think that random violence in society among and between those who do not know each other is equally abhorrent.  Although one would not know that by current standards.  A person who gets in a bar fight with a stranger, may be fined, or even get probation and go right back to work with little public notice.  The exceptions are Politicians and Athletes...providing they are men.  Women get a pass.  Not sure why...but they do.

In the NFL now, you lose you ability to earn a living in your chosen profession if you are accused of Domestic Violence.   If you are convicted of Domestic Violence, you lose that ability permanently...or for so long as to amount to permanent, given the short productive period for an athlete.  The Legal punishment now is simply a preliminary element.  Is that right?  Should there be a discussion about that.  If there are children and an ongoing family existence, is removing the earning power helpful to the family?  Does that make sense?  Does keeping a person from gainful employment teach anyone anything?  Progressives and Liberals for years have been preaching about the fallacy of revenge, arguing for rehabilitation and counseling...but in this case they now preach of revenge.   Should this switch and the motivation for it be open for discussion?  Because I have heard nothing along that line...and whatever the outcome it would seem appropriate to think and talk it through to understand the logic.  Because the current logic escapes me and I would like to hear it laid out fully.

And...I would suggest that if the logic is there to support this extended punishment and behavioral level for participation in sports, that it be extended to fans also.  It seems only fair...especially given the behavior of some fans at all sorts of sporting events.  Perhaps one should not be able to buy a ticket to a sporting event unless they can show that they are free from DWI or any alcohol related charges or conviction, of any arrests or convictions for any sort of violence (Domestic or otherwise).  And if they are buying multiple tickets, that the same information should be put forth for whoever is going to be sitting in those additional seats.

Fair is fair.  Equal is equal.  What is good for the Goose should certainly be good for the Gander.

Let us have this discussion...

Friday, December 12, 2014

Did "White Privilege" elect Mr. Obama?

It is difficult to get my head around exactly what people mean by the term, "white Privilege."  And worth a separate discussion in depth, but suffice it to say that right now I understand that it means that the lighter your skin...the more "white" you are...the more you are likely to succeed.

President Obama is half "white."  At least that is what I have read and been told.  So...do these people that espouse "white privilege" intend to indicate that it was the white half of Mr. Obama's lineage that got him elected, and not his striving and his accomplishments?  Because general statements that are proven to be true also hold up when brought down to the specific...and that is what we are talking about in this case: did, in fact, "white privilege" predestine that Mr. Obama would win the Presidency.  That seems absurd on the face of it:  his opponent was much lighter complexioned...although with a healthy tan, and in contrast Mr. Obama was darker.  If "White Privilege" is such an element of the failure of African-Americans to make more progress than so far accomplished, why and how is it explained in the face of Mr. Obama's election victories?

I must admit that this thought is NOT original with me; I heard the subject raised last night on "Red Eye Radio" and the concept leapt out into my brain, slept and broke out again this morning, yearning for release.

Another twist on this whole subject: suppose two African Americans are vying for the same position...private industry or public office...are we being told that automatically the lighter skinned one will get the job or be elected?  It seems to me that is what is being argued by those who claim every white person in America benefits improperly from "white privilege."

Also...does tanning count?  I mean, if one person has a deeper tan than another, does that mean that the pale one will win in an election for public office?

And...how does this concept account for the original proclamation that President Clinton was our first "black President?"  Does that mean that President Obama is now left with the historical footnote of being our first Muslim President?  The concept of guilt by skin complexion is murky at best...it would seem that letter grading wouldn't work...that we would have to make it a numerical system based on pigment density.  And...what would be the base line?  Do we need different base lines for different races, since they clearly do not start out equal.

Perhaps we can get the Global Climate Change folks investigating this...providing grant and government funding is available...

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Can Minorities ever be Racist?

For a long time I have noticed that every time any white person says (pretty much ) anything that criticizes someone of any minority race, there is a charge of "Racism."  But...when the situation is reversed, not only does the individual making the comment not get attacked by pretty much anyone...but no one even admits that it could possibly be "Racism."  I don't think that is logical on any level.

I am not a fan of "Racism" or "hate" legislation anyway.  The behavior targeted is almost always already classified as a crime.  If you are convicted, you will suffer.  Having the suffering declared by two different legal entities does not logically increase your punishment.  If someone libels me...I don't much care what the subject of the libel is; if I can prove it, I will get a conviction...or a judgement...or whatever it is that I should get.  What bothers me is that if I should, purposefully or inadvertently, denigrate someone who is a minority...or a protected class...I have a panoply of attackers: local, state, federal, church, media...all jumping up and down to see who can most quickly and greatly destroy my very existence.  OK!  Lets suppose that is just fine.  Here is the question...

Why is it when the reverse happens, I cannot claim the same suffering, and have the same group of attackers come to protect me and destroy the person of minority status who has done exactly what was done to me?  Does that strike anyone as Justice...or even remotely fair?  And not only does that happen...but the media and all our public officials blithely ignore the happening; they will never even acknowledge that the event happened, much less that it was also "Racist" behavior.

So...when did white people become second class citizens, replacing in officials minds those that used to be treated inequitably?  Did I miss the establishment of some sort of secular purgatory?  And why does it never apply to Progressives....

Sunday, November 30, 2014

Why are Black communitys' violence ignored?

Ferguson has become some sort of rallying cry for the Race Industry.  Seems illogical on the facts: a very large, strong person strong-handed and stole from a store, walked down the middle of a street, interfering with traffic, with a friend, was told by a police officer to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk.  That person then hit the police officer, tried to get hold of gun, ignored commands to stop, then ran at the police officer to attack him and ended up being shot and killed by that police officer.  The behavior of that person was foolish at best and inviting just the result that he suffered at worst.  Yet he is seen as a "victim"?  I don't see a victim.  I see a thug and a danger to society at large.

But because this person was Black, and a teenager, and did not carry a "weapon" (although when a person is well over 6 ft. tall and 300 plus pounds I consider such a person a weapon in their own right) the attacked officer is supposed to not shoot?  The person could have been a Buddhist Monk and I would have shot to protect myself.  This is supposed to be a "Race" matter?  How illogical is that?

Perhaps we could more helpfully look at behavior of Black toward other Blacks; maybe we could consider behavior in the Black communities.  Please?

Ever been in a Black neighborhood and listen to their conversations?  Even in a mixed neighborhood, when 3 or 4 Black males of any age get together (eliminating the older mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers, here) their conversation is almost hidden in insults and obscenities.  Even their greetings of each other are clearly insulting and...in any other group would constitute "fighting" words.

When will the "leaders" of the Black community...no, not the Race Baiters or the rich members of the Race Industry...put their foot down and demand that Blacks respect Blacks?  The leaders I am talking about are the Grandmothers and older mothers who are the only shot at "parents" that so many young children growing up in those communities will ever have.  When will they demand that their children show respect to THEM as well as to all others, regardless of race.  After all, what is happening now is that members of the Black Community are teaching each other disrespect for each other.  And that invites disrespect for everything outside your community...and that leads to both tragedy and poverty.

When will the majority of Blacks turn away from the racist "Race Industry" leaders, like Sharpton and his ilk, and start to follow the example set by so many church congregations in the Black community...no, not the "do-gooders" from white churches who seek to help the "down-trodden" but those within the community who shed tears over the lost potential within, knowing that their children and residents are so much more able than they give themselves credit for.  When they will inspire a turning away from hand-outs but look for opportunities to achieve, not receive.  To succeed, not survive.  The ability is there...it is within.  And it is time that Blacks give themselves the respect that they already deserve.  THEN some ignorant comment by another black or, heaven forbid, a white person will have no meaning...they will be secure in the knowledge of their own worth and achievements.

I sure would like to see them take their shot.  I think we all would be pleasantly amazed at the accomplishments that would result.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

When did "citizens" get downgraded to second class status?

Way more than a half century ago I studied the Constitution.  It didn't excite me, failing as so many of my homework assignments were want to do, and while I now appreciate the assignment, as it helps me find particular sections more quickly.  When in school, the Constitution seems quite simple and quite clear: three branches of government, each with their separate responsibilities, and a check and balances element to keep the government from becoming the threat to individual liberty that Thomas Jefferson so deeply feared.

And the purpose of the Federal Government was to defend the Citizens and the borders of the United States of America, providing for the common defense and common good.

I spent some time looking through my dog-eared copy of the Constitution the other night, looking for the Amendment that vacated that last purpose.  I couldn't find it.  That still puzzles me, because it surely must have been repealed, or somehow eliminated.  Why?  Well, because the Federal Government is now taking steps to protect non-citizens as a priority over protecting citizens.  Apparently my citizenship now grants me second class status.  I think this is wrong.  I never heard any discussion about a change.  I was never consulted...or given an opportunity to vote on such a change.  So...why is it so.

Do I hear some of you saying "You are wrong; there has been no such change, ... what are you talking about!"?  Well...Consider the following factual points:

First: our borders are "protected" inadequately and those assigned to protect the border actually help and provide aid to people "sneaking" across and into our country;

Second: our federal administrative courts and tribunals release in the general public most of those apprehended with no certainty or, apparently, expectation that they will appear at their next scheduled court appearance and with no way of knowing where they might start looking for these people who are in our country illegally;

Third: while our economy is barely holding steady and we have millions of citizens who cannot find work in their fields or with the sufficient hours that would enable them to support their families, the Federal Government now is going to allow  a minimum of 5 million people who have come into the country illegally to get Social Security accounts and work permits so that they can compete head to head with the law-abiding citizens of this country.  Our President actually is defying Congress in this step to provide greater difficulty for citizens to find work and jobs that they so badly need;

Fourth: the federal government, when presented with State activity to protect their borders, their businesses, their roads, their homes from people present in their states illegally, prohibits and takes to court those states and prevents those states from protecting its citizens.

Fifth: the federal government provides aid...paid for by money paid in taxes by the citizens of this country...to those here without legal permission.

Now, maybe I just don't understand the situation.  However, absent a Constitutional Amendment that makes citizenship a second class existence, I am waiting for anyone in what is presumably MY (and every other citizen's) government to explain why I have been told to stand still while the welfare of non-citizens has been made a priority over my, and my family's, welfare.

Exactly when, and WHY,  did the cart get put in front of the horse?