Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Is President Obama right?

I read recently, with dismay, that President Obama has declared that race relations in the country have improved, even as polls show people believe the contrary.  But...after some quiet reflection, I have concluded that there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that he is correct.

Consider that if a person, a group, or a race feel at risk, they will tend to work at "flying under the radar", so to speak, to avoid problems in their lives.  If one can exist peacefully for the most part, even if not possessed of total equality, it is hard to make a decision to put your sustainable life style at risk without a guarantee of improvement.  If this is Mr. Obama's belief, then he could be arguing that the current crop of demonstrations and the ongoing out-cry by black and other minorities is proof of an improved self-image that not only allows, but requires, the demand for further improvement.

It should be noted that there are myriad black and minority families that have succeeded and achieved great position in our country.  I would argue that the vast majority see only occasional challenges that could even be remotely assigned to race...and those could just as easily be written off as individuals just able to get along.  That happens among all groups and has nothing to do with race.

So, on reflection it would seem that if there is any credence to Mr. Obama's assertion, then it only applies to a select group...a minority of a minority, as it were...that now wants to be treated with respect, regardless of their behavior.  Only time will tell if their claims resonate with the vast majority.  And it would help if their claims were clarified and not related to or based on distorted views of events.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Do Sharpton, Holder and Mr. Obama want to return to "separate but equal?"

It is tough to understand just what the most recent class of demonstrators really want.  They shout for "justice" and for "dead policemen."  But then the media says that they don't really want that.  So...when will the demonstrators speak for themselves and say what they truly want?

Are we to accept that the triumvirate of  President Obama, Al Sharpton, and Eric Holder...and their acolyte, Mayor deBlasio...speak for the group as a whole?  I wonder.  None of that group seems truly dedicated to the plight of black neighborhoods except as it fits and advances their own purposes.  So...what, indeed, is the desire of the unhappy resident of a black community.

The one thing I have heard and read that repeats itself is that they want the police force to be "representative."  In Ferguson that meant that almost all the police were white and didn't understand how to police a black neighborhood.  That does sound reasonable.  It certainly made sense to me.  But then the question is raised just how to accomplish that.  Because, if you do get the desired percentage of black officers, you would still have some percent of white officers continuing to police the black neighborhood.

Ah, I hear, but those white police can be trained to understand how to police the black community "properly."  Oh, really?

I have had black acquaintances and friends tell be that it is impossible for any white person to understand the attitude of any black man or women; that without experiencing it, you just cannot know what it is like.  Well, that sounds accurate too.  Although I think we can all try a bit more to understand those who come from different backgrounds.

Consider the facts that underlie the recent minority (make that "black) deaths in conflict with the police:  first, the (white) policeman in Ferguson was undeniably being attacked and the dead (black) teen would undeniably faced felony charges of attacking a police officer if he had survived;  second, in NYC, the supervising police officer of that arrest was black and there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that there was any racially-based "misunderstanding" of the circumstances of the arrest. (And, let it be noted that there was in fact no actual "choke-hold"; that the deceased died because of the combination of being held down and his own respiratory issues.)

So each of these events were fact based...not racially oriented at all, except by those who wished to promote anarchy, violence, looting and burning.  And those people were honored by comments by President Obama, and the additional gift of the presence of both Eric Holder and Al Sharpton, the President's "go-to guy" on racial issues (although, since he himself is black, one wonders why the President should have to have any assistance in understanding the black community and the nuances of their feelings and desires...but perhaps that is a subject for further discussion another day).

The recurring theme is "we want to be policed by black police officers because they will "understand."

That seems to suggest that they want to segregate the police force so that they can have justice.  They will feel less "threatened" if they have black men in blue in their community.

Do any of you have any suspicions as to what the general populace, and the media in particular, might have to say about such a suggestion if it were made by people in a white community suggesting that they only wanted "white" police officers protecting their interests because only "white" officers "understood" them?  Think that one would fly?  Even get off the ground?  Yet...that is what is the base of the desire of Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton (No one quite knows what Mayor deBlasio wants or thinks...and no expects to understand that anytime soon.)  They don't use, of course, the phrase "separate but equal" but they refer to "representational" numbers of minority officers.

For some reason, I have always thought that the laws of this country were not "nuanced" by the culture of those who broke a law; that if you were rich or poor, it was still wrong to steal, kill and hurt people.  I believe(d) that one spoke civilly to others, obeyed directions given to you by an officer of the law and, if disturbed by it, argue the propriety about the order later...in a court of law.  You didn't talk back to your parents, your boss or a policeman.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not recall any indication that those absolutes were colored ( no pun intended) by the race, nationality, skin pigment, or social position of either the policeman (or other person of authority) of the person being directed to behave in a certain way.  Did I miss that?  I don't think so.

Should be come to accept that black, and other minority communities should be policed by people of their own race, background and gender, it will not be long before those minorities will demand that their teachers by of the same race; that they have bankers of their own race; that all of their political representative be of their own race.

Will the occasional white resident in a black community then have the right to demonstrate, damage, hurt and burn down the community while demanding that a white person hear their grievance?

And I finish with the observation that a large portion of responsibility for the ongoing unrest lies with the media.  They have allowed and helped to spread false claims and comments about the triggering events that only serve to artificially support those who make a living in the Race Industry, fomenting unrest and gaining notoriety for themselves.  Even as they claim "with hands up" that they are only reporting the "news" they are remarkably selective in their reporting, so the claim of innocence rings hollow indeed.

If the black demonstrators get what they seem to be asking for, I suspect that in the end they will rue the day that they allowed some people to "lead" them down this path.  They will not be better off for traveling that directions.

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Is "Sony" just the tip of a very dangerous Iceberg?

For a very small, backward, albeit nuclear, country like North Korea to be able to attack the computer capability of a large Corporation in the United States and create enough fear that a scheduled release of a film frowned upon by North Korea was cancelled is, depending on where you stand or work, insulting, inconvenient, threatening, damaging and/or cyber terrorism, vandalism or warfare (chose any combination).

And now we are beginning to see articles touting the cyber-warfare capabilities of the United States that might be used to respond to any attacks on the country.   This is comforting...I think!

But it is also disturbing from another point of view.  The premise seems to be that if some entity attacks the U.S. in cyberspace, we have the capability to attack and destroy the attacker.  Now, as a person who is likely to be one of the citizens whose internet and computer capabilities will be damaged or destroyed, the fact that the entity causing my cyber destruction is being obliterated doesn't really solve my problem or satisfy my dilemma.

I would be much happier to learn that in addition to our country's retributive capability, it could protect me from being harmed in the first place...and our business and utility infrastructure as well.  I don't hear that...not even consideration of the desire to do that.

Not only does that absence of assurance give me pause, but it has been years since I heard anyone mention the need to be capable of defending against EMP devices.  These devices can "fry" electronics, virtually rendering all utilities, communications, and transportation inoperative until the electronic heart of the controls are replaced...an event likely to take many months.  The idea of planes dropping out of the sky, cars losing control, trains stopping, all not to move again for months is not desirable.  The concept of gas, electric and water supplies being rendered inoperative would be dangerous to our health.

Once every great while, I hear some person in government mention that this needs attention, but then the voice fades and I have never seen any report that suggests that we are even working assiduously to protect us from this kind of threat, much less that we are protected now.

Maybe...just maybe...someone ought to make sure that somebody...anybody...works on this stuff?

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Is Government of, for, and by the People ever going to be possible again?

It seems as if Politicians always lie.  Maybe not every single one, and maybe not absolutely every time they talk...but often enough to leave us with the feeling...and even the conviction...that they indeed are dedicated to something other than the truth.

Why is that so?

I suspect that they do this because they either know or strongly suspect that if they told us the truth, we would not elect (or, re-elect) them.  But...at some basic level we all actually know that they are lying...yet we allow them to get away with the lie.  And we do that not just once...but over and over and over.

But that isn't the whole problem.  Ask yourself..."Why is it that what they promise so convincingly a lie?"  Most of what they promise...well, except for the fact that they insist that it won't cost us anything...is good, is desirable and is worth at least trying.  So...why doesn't it happen.

Well, everybody has their own answer; conspiracy believers abound; folks of all ideologies have their pet talking points; and there are even some who deny that any lies are ever told.

But I have my own:  MONEY!

No, I don't have an argument with the Citizens United case.  And if all ideological arguments were represented by equal money there arguably wouldn't be anyone with an unequal advantage.  But that argument would be false.

The problem is that people running for office, and those who wish to be re-elected to office have to raise money for their campaigns or their election bids will fail.  And that means that you have to convince people to contribute.  They don't do that so that other people will get something...they do it because they are going to get something they want.  Remember the show and film, The Producers?
Every politician is making those promises to each and every contributor; every politician tries to write their plea for money in general way so they can claim that whatever they do, it fits into the promise you think they made to you.  Mr. Obama was the best at this: Hope and Change, right?  Well, he gave each of us that, didn't he.  That was at least one time when, technically, he did not lie to anyone.  Those words were brilliantly chosen to allow each and every one of us who wanted something to change in Washington to infer that he was talking about our definitions of those words.  But he is just the most recent practitioner of the art of parsing words and phrases.  Every politician on every side of any aisle that has ever existed has done the very same thing.  Let the buyer beware!

But where we, the electorate, really lose control is when you get very, very rich people getting together and meeting personally with a candidate or office holder and making huge donations that carry very specific conditions...conditions that are NOT made public, that are NOT transparent...although if we knew the people involved, we all could probably figure out just what was bought and paid for.  And we get angry...not because it is done, but largely because WE can't do the same thing...OUR wishes aren't going at the top of the list...it isn't votes, it is money, because the money buys the votes through tv, radio, internet and radio advertising; money buys staffs and re-election offices and the best minds to craft high sounding populist slogans that make people trust the untrustworthy.  THAT is where the problem resides.

So...what could be a solution?  Is there one?  One that doesn't offend the Constitution?  I don't know...truly!  But I do have an idea.

What if any politician running for any Federal Government Office did not need to buy advertising space, time or access?  What if any person running for such office did not have to pay for production costs for advertise, whether print or media?  What if pay for all re-election personnel were covered by a source other than contributions?

Supposing every candidate was guaranteed equal time and equal space and they need not do any fund-raising?  Consider that if we can keep the emphasis on the message each candidate is communicating, we all are better off than if the candidate even before the election (and whether he or she even knows it has happened) has sold out.

Is that worth a try?

Hey...there is no such thing as a free lunch.  It'll cost you...you, the electorate, ... you, the taxpayer.  But you just might once again have control of your so-called Representatives, your Senators, your President.  Shouldn't that be worth something to you?  If not, stop reading and go back to whatever you were doing before you tripped over this column.  Otherwise...let's see how we could actually do this...

First, where would the money come from?  That's easy...the Federal Government.  Where would they get it?  That is easy too...from us.  Not that little box we sometimes notice now on the IRS forms each April, but from use of General Fund moneys appropriated for the purpose.

Who would control this attempt?  Well, one possibility would be the creation of an independent organization outside the government run much as the current Congressional Budget Office which is non-partisan and simply applies numbers; for this it would track advertising space, placement, tv and radio time, internet efforts and insure that all candidates got equal time, equal space and equivalent time slots on a rotating basis.  Each outlet (paper, tv station, radio station, etc.) would indicate the total time that they were willing to alot, and that time would be distributed absolutely equally.  All production costs would likewise be covered by tax funds and those expenses would be controlled so that each candidate would have equal resources to produce their flyers, ads, commercial and the like.

The key here is that no candidate would have to sell his or her votes in the future to fund getting elected...they would have the opportunity and perhaps even the obligation to speak truth to the electorate.  This would cost billions...but we are wasting billions now on silly things.  Wouldn't it be better to buy ourselves honest elections?  Do you have something better that would provide more benefit to you and your family than that?  I have to say that as far as I am concerned, there is nothing of more lasting benefit, not just to me, but to my children and my grandchildren.

Why can't people try to find out how to make this...or something like it...work, rather than throw up their hands and simply write it off as not workable.  If you see something wrong with it, come with a way to fix it or make it better.  Because the way we are going is just encouraging our "representatives" to keep on lying to us and selling us down the river.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Selective Anarchy supported by Government Leaders

So one group of people can disregard the law with impunity, blocking traffic, interfering with normal business activity on private property, attack police and chant that police should be killed.  One group of people can burn down major part of a town without any punishment.  A person can chant, "burn it down" and not face consequences when, in fact, many business building in the area are burned down.  One group of people can ignore the demonstrated facts that show that a young, huge thug attacked a police officer and attempted to take that officer's gun and as a result was shot dead, and take that same thug and hold him up as an innocent martyr...and the main stream media parrots that claim as a fact, endorsing the activity.

The United States of America used to be law abiding.  Now our President, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Mayor of one of our largest cities disrespect and accuse our Police Officers of malfeasance.  And they do this while seeming to endorse minority anger and violence toward Police.

And now we have the assassination of two NYC police officers by a guy messaging, "they got one of ours, let's take two of theirs."  Seems a clear connection to the ongoing demonstrations; and the permissive attitude of our top leaders to the law-breaking actions of demonstrators while criticizing police sure contributed to these killings.  And I note myriad "tweets" and other social media comments that commend these killings.

Too bad the police cannot withdraw from all those communities that seem so angry with the police presence for a period...say a month or two...and that would include all of NYC and include the protection detail for the Mayor.  Clearly he feels that NYC would be the utopia he desires if only the police would either be absent, or simply issue verbal suggestions to law breakers.

Show the proper respect to the uniformed Police Officer and problems are rare.  A policeman  usually had a valid reason for any given command; how much intelligence does it take to simply obey and wait for the matter to be resolved?  When not questioning me, a cop is protecting me, my family, and my property, as well as that of my neighbors and friends...why should I want to give him "attitude?"  But I see some people actually look to provoke anyone, much less police, for entertainment.  These are the same people who disrespect their elders, their neighborhood and, unrecognized, themselves.  Yet they seem to believe that they are "entitled!"  None of us is entitled.  All of us have to earn our respect by showing that we can learn from experiences and schooling, hold a job by being on time and doing what we are hired to do, and respecting those around us...not sitting a corner talking trash at anyone who goes by.  Yet our country's leaders seem to be taking the sides of the trash-talkers and throwing law abiding people and the Police who protect us under the bus.  That is NOT acceptable and it is time the majority of America speaks up and puts a stop to it.

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....