#QOTD: What's the most spontaneous/impulsive thing you've done in your life?

tweet us your response with the hashtag "QOTD" or tell us on Facebook

Showing posts with label affirmative reaction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affirmative reaction. Show all posts

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: THE REAL ARGUMENT OVER GAY MARRIAGE...

... is not about love, equality or Civil Rights.

It is really all about gays being able to take advantages of all the benefits of married life without having to adhere to the conventional standards of marriage. After all, that’s what being gay is all about: flouting conventional standards.


I say this because it has been my experience, with the literally dozens of homosexuals that I personally know, that the vast majority of gays simply have a variety of axes to grind with society. They feel that they have been rejected by the greater community somewhere along the line, and in response, they reject the greater community's tenets, and if gays can annoy, pester, thumb their noses or poke you in the eye while they do it, the more they like it.

I’m not here to say whether gays should be allowed to marry or not. Frankly, I think the question is a pointless one for a very obvious reason; the purpose of marriage, strictly speaking, is to erect (oops, did I just say erect in a post about homosexuals?) a series of psychological, legal and religious barriers to wandering penises and vaginas. Ill explain, and try to do so without bringing all sorts of emotional gobbledegook into the equation.

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: CUBA GOODING IS NOW MY MORTAL ENEMY

It’s that time of year, again, my friends. The time when Corporate America feels compelled to trot out the Potemkin displays of racial harmony, subject us White Boys to 4th-grade-reading-level lectures on the importance of Diversity, send us to the re-education camps where we can be exposed to the ranting and the raving of the truly unhinged as they get their opportunity – as they do every year – to be openly rude and racist, while I must bite my tongue, nod my head in mock sympathy, and pretend as if we really give a crap.

Yes, this is the dance we must do every year in Corporate America, all for the sake of saving a few bucks on frivolous lawsuits. Don’t think for a second that anyone in the boardroom takes the idea of Black History Month seriously. It’s simply another cost of doing business.


Never mind what people like me -- Middle Managers whose only concern is to put in a day’s work for a day’s pay, avoiding the ulcers, without having to deal with someone else’s mental diarrhea – really think about the swirling stupidity surrounding Black History Month (BHM). We don’t count; we’re just the strainers, and we get it from both sides, Labor and Management. That’s our job.

But what I really object to is the new, corporate trend to combine BHM with the concentrated bullshit that is Diversity Training, which only serves to make something that was once only slightly annoying into a sheer living hell. In case you have never been in a Diversity training session, I’ll describe it for you this way:

It’s a program of deliberate psychological torture. It’s aim is to break down any sense of individuality that you might have, and erase any personal feelings you possess, and replace them with a collective mindset and some other emotion. Irrational guilt, if you’re white, unfettered anger, if you’re not. It’s all done within a setting which most shallow-mouth-breathing non-thinkers would think of as "therapeutic", and the main goal is to give "the Other" the impression that someone is taking their concerns and complaints seriously.

It has been my experience (this will now have been the fifth such fake Diversity Training week I’ve attended against my will) that "The Other’s" concerns and complaints are largely bullshit. They are the natural flow of crap one would expect from people given the opportunity to speak their minds free of consequence, and the resulting stupidity is not all that surprising. Mostly, the day is taken up with petty complainants emboldened by the fact that they have been encouraged to say literally anything, reciting a litany of "Why don’t I get…?" on everything from raises to promotions to special privileges.

If there's ever three minutes of true Kumbayah in the entire exercise, it's a lot.

In all the time I have been involved in these little Diversity Projects, I have yet to see anyone make a case that they truly care about Diversity. It’s always "What’s in it for me?". I guess that’s just human nature.

As if I, Middle Manager Dude, have the power to defy time and space, and wave a magic wand and fix your personal pet peeves? Like I’m even motivated to do so? It’s only more personal trouble than its typically worth, and I have my own paycheck to worry about. In case no one ever told you, I will: "I only work here, tell someone who a) cares, and b) can do something about it…."


Of course, to be "innovative" and "cutting edge" in my present-employer’s Commitment to Diversity this year, the Powers That Be decided to treat everyone to a movie, and to make a "fun" event out of it. So, off 130 employees went to the local movie theatre, to be feted with a private screening of the new Cuba Gooding, Jr. excretion "Red Tails".

Some consultant probably got paid a shitload of money for this turd of an idea.

We’ve all heard this story before, because it’s the same story all the time. I remember when it was called "Glory" and had Morgan Freeman and Denzel in it (is there anything that doesn’t have Morgan Freeman and Denzel in it?). I remember seeing it the other eleven times some docu-drama was made about the Tuskegee Airmen, the most memorable one starring Benjamin O. Davis, Lawrence Fishbourne, and Theo Huxtable. It was on the History Channel some fifteen years ago.

Anyway, one gets the impression that unless there’s a bad movie in which Cuba Gooding gets called the n-word and then puts in a piss-poor performance, then it didn’t really happen (see: Men of Honor). After the movie there were drinks and finger foods made available back at the office conference room, and the Black Folks gravitated to one side of the room, the Whites to the other, and there was a palpable hostility in the room. Great team-building exercise, Guys!
Talk about patronizing and divisive? The entire regime is patronizing and divisive. I think I probably feel less sympathy and less connection with my staff after these sorts of events than I did before they occurred, and find myself wishing against all hope that someone will finally get it and stop wasting time and money on this crap.

Instead of bringing people together and fostering understanding, it only serves to keep picking at the (mental) scabs left by a history of racial injustice. And it’s racist, in it’s own way, too.

Those of you who have read my blog or my rantings here know that I am a history buff. I love anything historical, warts and all, and devour history the way most people will tear into a T-bone with all the fixings. I would rather spend most days engrossed in something historical than in getting laid. History, to me, is a like a fascinating story with a ton of subplots that never comes to an end.

My first objection to BHM is the term itself. It implies that there are separate histories within America, one Black and the Other for Everyone Else. This is, of course, patently ridiculous. History does not take place in a vacuum, some hermetically-sealed bubble, that doesn’t touch upon other aspects of life that are adjacent to it. The History of Black America is, therefore, American History. I find this attempt to separate historical events and figures along racial lines rather disturbing in this context.

My second objection is the patronizing swamp that BHM marinates in. It implies that without a special month set aside, African-Americans would not study history. A ridiculous notion when one stops to think about all the African-Americans I’ve seen in libraries and museums, not to mention the scores of people I’ve had actual historical discussions with.

The final objection is the tone in which any discussion of History takes on at this time of year. The same theme underlies every display, television program, and discussion group; some Brother got shafted by The Man, and the racial buggering continues. The examples trotted out to make this point are typically well-worn and threadbare, and in the great tapestry of History, aren’t all that Historical or important, at all. Who cares if Jackie Robinson was the first black man in the Major Leagues? What are his real accomplishments set against those of, say, Otis Boykin, someone who has ushered in the modern world and who often goes totally forgotten?

As an aside, I find it slightly racist that BHM takes place in February, the shortest month of the year. The implication is that African-Americans contributed the least, therefore, the month set aside must reflect this idea. I’m quite certain the guilty White Libtards who helped foster BHM into existence had this in mind when they started the project. After all, Liberals are all about duality and symbolism; fawning paternalism on the one hand, and a back-handed insult on the other. Most Liberal-engineered programs have this oh-so-easy-to-see quality about them.But, I digress….

I guess BHM builds morale and inspires some, but the Underlying Theme of most BHM arrangements – of unrectified injustice and hatred – is one that has far outlived it’s usefulness in all but a political sense. If African-Americans can be kept in a state of just-below-boil, and occasionally thrown a bone, the Libtards believe, then they are that much easier to control and manipulate by the legions of politicians and racial hucksters that prey upon them. BHM and the Diversity Racket accomplishes both of these goals rather handily.

It’s the 21st Century. And while I do not advocate that people forget the past, and that the history of this nation – including it’s sins – should go uncriticized. But maybe it’s about time that a more uplifting, relevant sort of BHM becomes the norm, rather than the exception? For goodness’ sakes, perhaps one that isn’t undertaken in a feeble sham of a commitment to "Diversity" and "Civil Rights" intended to keep the lawyers at bay, and seething hatreds alive?

If we're going to talk history, then let's do so, honestly. If you’re going to use history as a weapon to stir up all sorts of hatreds and disunity, then you’ve committed a mortal sin, in my book. History is sacred; it shouldn’t be political, or used as a dodge to avoid a lawsuit.

Then again, I guess anything that inspires people to expand their horizons is better than nothing at all, and maybe one of these days we’ll work the kinks out of this Black History thing, stop with the purposeful division of people through the Diversity Racket, and we’ll all play nicely together in the sandbox. But I’m not holding my breath, because I’ve got other troubles on the horizon.

Like answering a question about privleges and opportunities raised by the one dude on staff who apparently doesn’t own a watch, and who would be late for his own funeral, badgering me about a promotion he isn’t remotely qualified for. And calling me nasty names in front of a Diversity Instructor and a room full of other people, going totally unrebuked by the very people who are supposed to be committed to diversity, harmony and inclusiveness in the first place! Then again, he’s all hopped upon free booze and a George Lucas disaster which makes a mockery of the real story of some rather brave men who’s accomplishments deserved better treatment.

I remember Eddie Murphy talking about a similar thing happening to Italians after "Rocky" movies. So, I guess this proves that all people at least have an equal capacity for being stupid, doesn’t it?

In any case, I think I'll never see another Cuba Gooding movie as long as I live: the experience is now securely connected to unpleasant memories in all regards; I was 'required" to go see a movie I didn't want to see in the first place, as part of a contrivance which I do not agree with (i.e. Diversity Exercises), verbally abused by a drunk with a fifth-grade vocabulary and a sorry excuse for a work ethic, and ordered to take part in a so-called "togetherness awareness" exercise which left much to be desired on both counts.

In any case, if you're a clear-thinking individual I will say this to you: I wish you a Happy Black History Month, and hope that you are able to partake of the wonders of History, free of prejudices and ulterior motives, as an exercise in self-awareness and self-improvement. We'd all be better off to be more objective and less emotional, I think.

For more mentally-constipated stupidity, please come visit me at The Lunatic's Asylum.

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: THE ANGRY BLACK MAN ROUTINE...

…and why it’s finally time to give it a rest, already.

Warning: Someone is liable to find this post offensive. Ask me if I care? There are truths that need to be spoken, and the disapproval of complete strangers will certainly not deter me from telling them. There’s going to be some sweeping generalizations made here – deal with it – like I’ve had to deal with all the racial invective hurled my way this past weekend -- and spare me the hate e-mail.

One of the consequences of living in Michael Bloomdouche’s New New Yorkistan is that you will always come across all kinds of people. This was always true enough -- New York being a cosmopolitan place, a true melting pot of the sort that Davenport, Iowa or Charlotte, North Carolina tries to pretend they are but never could be, attempting to acquire by association with the whole of America what they don’t have because of certain cultural conditions and traditions. Recently, because of the Mayor's dunder-headed concessions to the Occupy Wall Street Retards, it has become fashionable to be a ragingly obnoxious asshole.

One of the more mundane and stereotypical denizens of New York City is the Angry ______. New Yorkers are often accused of being horrible people; lacking in basic manners and courtesy, heartless demons wandering the streets of a Modern Day Gomorrah, but this is simply untrue; we just have better things to worry about than your sensibilities, Hillbilly, and the conditions and pace of life in these parts is such that we simply don’t suffer fools -- we have no time for them -- and you’re all fools to us; now as to whether this automatic assumption made reflexively by a Native New Yorker is actually true or not is up for argument, and that’s not one I’m going to take up at the moment.

Perhaps the most (in-)famous of the Angry New Yorkers are the special breed of African-Americans that several generations of deluded democratic (small ‘d’ intentional) party policies have kept like favored house pets and imbued with a sense of entitlement that would hardly be believed if one had not ever seen it with one’s own eyes. And ears; because if anything, this sense of extreme entitlement is usually long heard before its actually felt or otherwise discerned.

New York must have the loudest, angriest, most offensively-minded black folks in all of America, and that’s saying something. African-Americans in New York are known for letting you know exactly what they think (dare I call it thinking?) whining incessantly about everything under the sun, playing the race card faster than you can say Rosa Parks, and for making public nuisances of themselves when defending their supposed entitlement to be complete doofuses, all at someone else’s expense. They believe their owed something, usually for nothing. Constantly. Asking for different nets you a Je$$e Jackson Picket Line, an Al Sharpton Editorial dripping with barely-concealed racism, and a Charles Barron playing his old game of threatening to lead a riot every four minutes if he’s not – personally -- mollified.

New Yorkers typically ignore this sort of thing the same way they ignore everything else. If you gave any more than three seconds of thought to anything one is likely to hear from an Angry Black Man on the Streets of New York (and you will certainly get an earful, I must say) you’d go completely apeshit insane. It’s simply one of the costs of living here that one has to pay, and typically the ones with the biggest mouths are typically the dumbest pansies of all, hardly worth the effort of arguing with.

After all, if you argue with idiots they simply pull you down to their level and then overwhelm you with superior weaponry.

In recent weeks, however, the invective, the attitude, the anger displayed by your typical New York Angry Black Man has rocketed off the scales. It has become sheer hyperbolic invective that goes beyond quaint, old-fashioned notions of the Good Old Days when all we had to hear about was the ‘Inequality in the System’ (yawn!), and the presence of unreformed racism in everything from employment to housing to who gets the free, taxpayer-paid-for flu shots first (heard this song before…). Nowadays the invective is simply vicious; its intent is not so much to express displeasure but to be intentionally menacing. There are now, apparently, Angry Black Men roaming the streets of New York with no direction in life except where irrational, pathological anger manages to take them by sheer chance.

The first example of this new phenomenon was personally witnessed (twice) by me last Friday on the 1 train heading towards South Ferry. An overly-aggressive panhandler entered the car I was sitting in from another car, and announced without much in the way of shame that he had just been released from prison -- where he had done 15 years for rape and attempted murder – and had no job, and he wanted money…right fucking now. He used to ‘play ball’, he tells you, and he’s extremely pissed off and hungry, making an effort to stoop threateningly in front of every seated white woman. Just in case you didn’t get it the first time, he was also happy to supply this little nugget of barely-concealed, double-edged racism:

“There’s nothing more dangerous than a hungry black man…and I don’t give a fuck…”

Naturally, this being New York, no one gave a shit; everyone is suffering tough times, and you’re a piece of shit just released from the can. You want Christian Charity, Asshole, go see the Salvation Army and stop with the threats, already. We’ve lived through 9/11 and about fifty attempted attacks since then, and we don’t scare so easy, anymore. Needless to say, Mr. Threatening Ex-con walked off the train at the next stop, empty handed.

Not two minutes later another Angry Black Man -- another panhandler who doesn't seem to have missed too many meals -- steps into my car and begins making some of the same noises: he’s hungry, homeless, has no job, and suffers from severe mental problems, so fork over some money. When none was forthcoming a vicious stream of racial epithets was hurled at everyone in the car. Naturally, this being New York, no one gave a shit. Unlike the previous panhandler, however, this one actually took a swing at someone – an older gentleman, naturally – and then fled the train as it entered the next station, screaming over his shoulder that America is still a hotbed of racist slavery, and fuck us all.

Now that’s just the garden-variety stupidity that one sees in the streets all the time. In the Good Old Days, when we had actual Mayors and not rich douchebags buying votes so that they can treat the city like their personal kingdom, people like that got locked up. Correct that: first they got beaten within an inch of their useless lives and THEN they got locked up. But we don’t do that in Bloomberg’s New York anymore, witness the Angry Black Fella associated with the Occupy Wall Street stupidity that got front-page attention for threatening to start a campaign of Molotov Cocktail Bombings. So far as I know, he’s still walking the street, despite it being a crime to make a terrorist threat.

It got especially annoying Saturday evening, when my girlfriend and I went out to dinner.
We had called a local car service to pick us up, and when the driver arrived he had another passenger in the front seat. This passenger, a youngish black male, was making a horrific racket about being late for his appointment because the car service had double booked the car. Fair enough, that would piss me off, too. However, he crossed the line of decent behavior when he strung together a long line of F-bombs that got my good lady all bent out of shape. She asked if he would stop using that sort of language (which doesn’t bother me, because mine is far worse).
Apparently this was too much to ask, that a gentleman should refrain from cursing in the presence of a lady, and he began an angry diatribe about “who the fuck do you think you are”, which ended with “If you don’t like it, go somewhere else, Bitch, this is New York Motherfucker…” This got me super-angry.

After telling this young dickhead that if he didn’t observe a reasonable level of acceptable behavior I would be more than happy to rearrange both his facial features and dental work for him, I was subjected to a recitation of his resume, and how he was a respectable media figure in this city, who had to go to a very important function, and double-booking the car was going to make him late, interspersed with f-bombs galore You read that right: He gave me his resume, and this was supposed to prove…just what, I don’t know.

Somehow he’s trying to convince me that he’s in some way justified in making a total, blithering idiot of himself, and picking a fight with a chick…a chick with Muscular Dystrophy, no less ..and that I was being a racist for:

a. Insisting he observe some sort of standard that could be construed as “Acting White” (his words), he’ll act however the fuck he wants to, and there’s nothing I can do or say about it.

b. We had somehow, intentionally, ordered a car at the same time he did, specifically to screw up his timetable and get him fired, because God Forbid A Black Man Should Be Allowed to Have a Responsible Job That Pays Better Than Yours, Cracker (I refrained from saying what I wanted to: which was that I used to be a VP at Citigroup, and could have bought him ten or twelve times over in those days. That would only have evoked a diatribe about Slave Markets and The Middle Passage, I reckon, so I bit my tongue).

The Driver then makes this situation worse by dropping my girl and me off first, as we’re on the way to Angry Black Asshole’s appointment. This completely unhinges him. He’s now shouting that my girl should spend more time performing oral sex acts upon me, so that I woun’t be so uptight, and then offers to stand in for me. I politely invited him to exit the car and take care of this minor disagreement like gentlemen, but of course, he declined, the big pussy. The cab then drove off, with Asswipe hanging out the open window -- rapping at me (no kidding!) -- as he sped away.

Later that evening, the same driver picked us up from the restaurant, and told us that his self-professed VIP passenger was dropped off at the Park Hill Houses (a notorious housing project best known for crack and illegal gunplay), and refused to pay his fare, complaining that the double-booking made him late. Which is what all the fuss was in the first place: Angry Black Man was playing a game, setting the driver up with an elaborate excuse not to pay him for the ride. If I ever see that bastard again, he’s dead meat. Mark my words:

“There’s nothing more dangerous than a pissed-off Sicilian. People just disappear when we're angry…”

What strikes me as odd -- even enraging -- about these incidents is the brazenness of it all, and not only that, but the sheer hypocrisy and self-serving stupidity on display.

On the one hand, African-Americans decry the use of stereotypes to demean and belittle them, but resort to them often enough when it suits their purposes; in this case, the Angry Black Man is to be given his way before he resorts to violence or creates a condition which is intended to frighten others into giving them something he hasn't otherwise earned or paid for, whether this is money or a free cab ride, under the mistaken impression that the majority of White Devils will simply buckle under rather than fight. They might be excused this assumption, I guess, based on the fact that 40+ years of the American Welfare state has taught them that violence, or the mere threat of it, pays dividends. After all, what is the Welfare State if not outright bribery; we’ll give you stuff you don’t deserve and haven't earned, just so you won’t riot?

On the other hand, some African-Americans will routinely complain about the evils of racism and the legacy of Slavery, but have no issues with engaging in the basest racism of their own, and feel wholly justified in doing so. There should be no double standards regarding race and proper behavior when it’s a Black Dude on the receiving end, but not the other way around. I can’t use the word Nigger (not that I want to), even in it’s proper context, but I can be called Cracker, Devil, Pilgrim (that was a new one on me. Anyone know what exactly that meant?), and worse, and should just be expected to deal with it as my just rewards.

And as for Slavery: I’m Sicilian. My ancestral island is the most-conquered in the history of Earth, with the Greeks, Romans, Carthaginians, Byzantines, Vandals, Lombards, Vikings, Moors, Mamelukes, French, Spanish, Germans, and Italians having all – at least once – possessed and enslaved the population. If it were possible to trace my family tree back 4,000 years there’s probably more slaves there than in your background, so shut it already; I’m playing the World’s Smallest Violin for you, you Crybaby. My people came here 50 years after slavery was abolished, too.

I’ve seen this dialectic at work before; after 20+ years on Wall Street as a manager, my office became a smaller version of Grand Central Station, with a constant flow of Black employees routinely complaining about not getting promotions or bonuses based upon the flimsiest of pretexts. Whenever you shot holes in the self-generated theory of just why someone didn’t get something, it must always became a matter of...all together now -- the consequences of racism…you fucking cracker-ass motherfucker. Been there, heard it all before.

Point out that other black employees did get promotions and bonuses and it made no difference to sees-racism-everywhere type; the fortunate ones must have gottenthem because they ‘kissed your white, motherfucking ass’, according to the worst of the entitlement-minded complainers. Apparently the concepts of merit, professionalism, and a work ethic haven’t reached some parts of Black America. Black folks know how to make unfounded accusations of racism, call lawyers and file bullshit discrimination suits, but not how to get to work on time? But, I digress…

There’s always been an anger, and it’s usually been an irrational one, but nowadays this is beginning to boil over into aspects of New York Life that it didn’t previously, and it’s becoming ever-more vicious and gratuitous. Perhaps African-Americans believed that Barack Obama was going to reintroduce Reconstruction and prise the Reparations out of the Slave-owning Class only to be bitterly disappointed when it becomes clear that even in America with a (half-) black man in the Oval Office, you’re still expected to work for a living, and you’re still expected to observe some social conventions whether you like them or not.

I guess the acceptable response to being denied something they don’t deserve – whether this is money or respect -- amongst the new generation of Angry Black Men is to take to the streets inciting or threatening violence, but we’re way past the point where “Burn, Baby, Burn!” actually works anymore. And this is perhaps even more maddening to them, as a simple convention that has worked to shower the majority of African-Americans with everything from free health care to racial preferences in Law School Admissions for decades finally collapses under the weight of both reality and a bad economy.

And because a once irrationally-guilty White Population that felt that it was obligated to comply was all to happy to buy peace. But not anymore: everyone’s broke, so it’s now every man for himself.

It’s all quite sad. Not only that, but it makes you all less sympathetic to the cause when there is a real injustice to worry about. Do something more useful with your life, for Christ’s Sake!

In the meantime, I’m thinking it might be prudent to be buying me some Prison-Related Stocks (is there such a thing?) because it appears as if there’s going to be a steady supply of Black Men in New York engaged in letting loose with their deranged anger entering the local jails for some time to come. Maybe the jokers who use the fake-outrage-Crazy-Black-Man routine to panhandle a couple of bucks on the Subway, or to scam a cab driver out of $6, will learn a lesson when they’re on the receiving end of some unwanted romantic overtures from a 300-pound AIDS-infected cellmate named Bubba.

Which is a crying shame, because if some of you put the same effort and energy into doing something constructive as you do with scamming The System and crying about what you don't get instead of what you do have, there'd be a whole lot less of this bullshit to deal with.

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: DEMOCRATIC PARTY - THE NEW PLANTATION?

A few days ago, my good friend Mr. Chap scribed this piece of conventional wisdom in which he suggests that African-American loyalty to the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party is based upon that party's perceived commitment to the cause of Civil Rights.

Before I take Chap apart at the rhetorical joints (just kidding!) it is necessary to put this relatively simplistic explanation into it's proper, historical context, one that goes beyond the assertion of an affinity based upon single-issue advocacy.

I don't see a correlation between Civil Rights and overwhelming democratic support so much as I see a perverse kind of Stockholm Syndrome.


It is necessary to point out these three, irrefutable, historical facts regarding the Modern Democratic Party:


1. The Modern Democratic Party is the Bastard Child of Segregation; it is an ancient pig given a new shade of lipstick.

2. The Modern Democratic Party has been invaded and infected by Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists of all kinds who have turned the brand name and party apparatus to their own ends. They call themselves ‘Progressive’, but their ultimate goal is, indeed, anything but. They are not (and have never been) what they have claimed to be, and the proof of this has been in the results of decades of failed policies and programs.

3. The Modern Democratic Party is not concerned with issues of equality or fairness, or in building a better society: it is interested in reordering society in a manner which suits the tastes, opinions, and requirements of the Elite at its top. They are not Politicians as much as they are Managers. They deliberately engage in a a process of division, propaganda, the manipulation of voting blocs and emotions. Matters of race, sex, gender, and so forth, are only important insofar as they can be made to serve the overall cause: re-ordering the planet according the Libtard’s personal preferences and attitudes, making people live the way you want them to, and by establishing/protecting the Collectivist system which makes it all possible.

Now, in Mr. Chap’s piece, he makes reference to Barry Goldwater and his opposition to the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and associates conservative rejection of the Act with the Black Exodus to the Democratic Party. He’s only half-right, however, but doesn't explain why Goldwater conservatives rejected the Act; they believed that it threatened to establish a dual social system dripping with double standards within American Society that would be antithetical to Constitutional Rule and Civil Society…and they were right. Affirmative Action, The War on Poverty, The Great Society, The Welfare State, and the destruction of the African-American nuclear family, all can be argued to have sprung from The Civil Rights Act of 1965. What Goldwater wanted, but couldn't’ get added to that law was, basically, the addition of a simple sentence (paraphrased), and even this is a gross simplification:

“…And this applies to everyone, equally….”

Barring that concession the Law wouldn’t get any Conservative support, and thus was born the myth that Conservatives don’t give a shit about Civil Rights, and voted against the Act out of racism. In fact, more democrats – actual sheet-wearin’ Old Klan dems like Robert Byrd, and old-money Southern patricians like Al Gore, Sr. – voted against it than did Republicans!).

The greatest Lie of Civil Rights legislation, and the Social Welfare system it spawns, is that it's always promulgated as a matter of equality, or undertaken in order to address a grievous historical wrong. This is a trite response to a greater historical question which has never been adequately examined, because doing so would shatter some of the more cherished myths of American History.

The Great Question of the Civil War was not the institution of Slavery, per se. Slavery was most definitely on it's way out as a matter of simple Progress. The issue was what to do with 4.5 million people who would soon be made economically redundant by the Industrial Revolution. The Cotton Gins, Steam Engines, Railroads, Mechanical Planters and Reapers, were making the keeping of slaves an archaic and expensive proposition that could no longer be economically justified, moral issues aside.

What to do with all those people, mostly uneducated, bereft of property, with few skills beyond the farm, and possessed of legitimate axes to grind? The stated causes of the Civil War (an argument over the expansion of Slavery into the West, Abolition, or even some notion of a United Nation) are mostly superficial. The issue was the potential effect of releasing all those otherwise-under-control people without any safeguard against violent revolution or revenge. They couldn’t be exterminated (that ran counter to Christian ideals, but slavery didn’t? Go figure), and they couldn’t be deported or repatriated to Africa (the American experiment with Liberia proved both very expensive and problematic) and no one wanted to pay for the deportation, anyway.

Reconstruction after the Civil War only managed to re-establish much of the pre-War status quo under Yankee guns, ironically instituting the main war aims of the Southern Secessionists (the Separation of the Races by law and force, protection of Southern Whites), and then creating animosity that went beyond mere questions of occupation. What the Confederacy couldn’t accomplish by War, its Enemy achieved in the name of civil peace and reconciliation.

Reconstruction, therefore, actually begat Jim Crow and laid one of the foundation blocks for the future welfare state which would trap many African-Americans in a cycle of government-provided subsistence-poverty and dependence, and future electoral manipulation. The Confederacy may have lost the War, but won the most important Battle.


Dixiecrats of the 19th and 20th centuries were more than happy to keep Jim Crow alive, then, but over time found themselves obligated to occasionally sweeten the pot in order to maintain this artificially-maintained peace. These overtures were either mostly symbolic (a slew of Civil Rights legislation which has probably done more to discourage equality), economic symbolism (a growing array of benefits-with-strings-attached programs, set-asides, and quota systems marinated in graft), or strictly-political skullduggery (engaging in class or racial warfare whenever necessary).

The process was intensified by the 1960 Presidential election, when John F. Kennedy barely squeaked out a win over Richard Nixon with as few as 20,000 popular votes. JFK would soon prove to be a rather weak President and his electoral prospects in 1964 seemed bleak. Kennedy would need more votes to widen any potential margin of victory, and so avoid a repeat of 1960. There was but one place to get those extra votes; amongst those racial minorities that previous democratic candidates had ignored or sought to keep down. Thus was born the union of the democratic party to the Civil Rights movement, and the genesis of the JFK/RFK mythology.

This met with much resistance within the party, and would ultimately destroy the old-line Democratic Party from within: as it spoke of equality and inclusion, fairness and freedom, it found itself obligated to include ever-more radical elements, from both racial minorities and progressive Whites, which would eventually push both the Scoop Jackson and George Wallace-type democrats out of the party. The democratic party of 2011 bears no resemblance to the democratic party of 1950 or 1900. The Civil Rights Act of 1965 had the practical effect of being the Old democratic party’s suicide note.


But this did not automatically spell change for the better.

The 1970’s saw the party transform from the party of Self-Serving-Patrician-Racism, and morph into the Party of You-Poor-Baby-Patronizing-Smiley-Face-Racism, as every conceivable complaint in American Life was spun into a ’movement’ (complete with it’s own mythology, psychiatric justification, sociological underpinnings and revisionist history) which could be directed by Progressive doofuses masquerading as crusaders ‘for the little guy’. Such a political system must, by necessity, devolve into a system in which everyone is regarded as a Victim of ________. People are no longer divided as much by political philosophy as they are by self-categorization; we now divide upon race, gender, sexual orientation, educational level, personal wealth, age, ethnicity and religion, and real political affiliation becomes ever-less important as both parties get further and further away from their stated beliefs.

Each new constituency calls out for government fixers and creates the Voting Blocs (and the money that comes with them) and which politicians will fight to the death over. This gives otherwise talentless hacks (politicians and bureaucrats) the ability to dispose of trillions of taxpayer dollars, affecting the law, people’s living standards, public attitudes, quality of life, and behaviors in the process. This process is hidden behind a confusing web of alphabet-soup agencies, commissions, Blue-Ribbon Panels, cabinet posts, Federal Departments, Sub-committees, etc., to ensure no one will ever discover the true scoundrels or their true motives.

The constituencies and issues are played one against the other, as needed. Progress, where any is made, is mostly incremental, and occurs around the margins of American Life. Racial Animosities continue to fester, but now the Progressive Racists with burnished Civil Rights and Welfare State street cred, are increasingly able to project that animosity upon their political opponents while keeping the con going.

The modern democratic party has turned this tactic into an art form, and in the process have created a system wherein people now expect to be rewarded and paid attention to for simply being alive and able to vote! It justifies and perpetuates this system by telling people what they want to hear, or better yet, what the directing brains WANT them to hear, the better to instill the fear and dependence required to continue to keep anyone from learning the truth.

Problems become intractable. No one’s life changes dramatically. No one’s circumstances are ever improved very much for the exercise. Much energy, money, and time is wasted for no visible result. This is by design, and it is to our detriment as both citizens and human beings. This is both the legacy of the Old Dixiecrats, and modus operandi of the New Progressives.

I would hazard to say that the reason why African-Americans cleave to the democratic party the way they do is because it tells them what they want to hear: that they are victims, entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor, and that this is justice. It requires nothing from them except for reflexive electoral obedience. In return it has encouraged sloth, dishonesty, ignorance, bastardy and crime, and created state-run ghettos-cum-concentration-camps, and calls it compassion. It has destroyed the educational system by pandering to unions and influencing curriculum away from traditional core subjects, ensuring generations of functional illiterates that can be more easily manipulated and frightened. The democratic party defends this sorry and disgusting state of affairs by claiming it's ideological enemies are racist, reactionary, closet-Klansman douchebags who want to see African-Americans hanging from trees, or starving in the streets.


It's no wonder the democratic party should claim to be the defender of the poor and downtrodden: it does such a good job of creating them, and then keeping them that way, after all.
The Modern Democrat does these things because he needs to exert control over people’s lives in the same way their Confederate forebears did, and for much the same reasons; the only difference now is that the New Confederates wear smiley faces, spout boilerplate socialist bullshit, and profess to ‘understand’ everyone and everything. African-Americans were just an easy target of opportunity for these New Democrats; welcome to your New and Improved Plantation.

A common lament I often hear from my Black Friends is that despite what some would agree is visible progress in terms of equality in America, there’s some things which they believe have never changed. Part of this is undoubtedly true – the democratic party requires a near-constant sense of discontent simply to survive, after all – but what truly amazes me is how there seems to be so little ambition (amongst those complaining loudest!) to make an effort to change their own circumstances.

It’s always someone else’s responsibility to ‘pay for…’ something, or to ‘level the playing field’ on their behalf, or ‘give us justice’. which often has little to do with Law and Order. They‘re expecting someone else to do the job for them (and why shouldn’t they? It’s how they’ve been trained by a Patronizing Democratic Party; responsibility is always someone else’s job) and they’re putting their hopes, more often than not, into the same democratic politicians who created this very mess by cynically telling them only what they wished to hear: you’re owed, you’re a victim, it’s not you’re fault, and you shouldn’t have to do A, B or C to get it. Vote for me and just wait for the checks to roll in, don't vote for me and Watch the Bad Guys take it away.

There's Another Way of Doing Things -- the way illustrated by people like Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, or Walter Williams, that is, the route of personal responsibility and success through achievement -- but somehow this becomes unacceptable. I’ve heard this proven program of personal success ridiculed as ‘Acting White’, and derided as ‘Not Authentically Black’, that it’s ‘Culturally insensitive’ and always in ways which are patronizingly disgusting. That this system works doesn’t appear to matter; a concept of personal success divorced from government hand-out or action, sans racial acrimony, or without an element of class or racial envy, becomes a literal impossibility.

Nathan Bedford Forrest would be proud. What he hoped to achieve back in the day has been achieved without the need for Midnight Terrorism in a Bed Sheet and Bad Public Relations. The amazing thing about this state of affairs is that not only will people be extraordinarily unaware of what they’ve done to themselves, but display the most incredible, and reflexive, loyalty to their oppressors in the process. It's almost as if they're saying "Thank you for fucking up my Life...may I please have some more?"

Throughout this essay I have generalized greatly. I know this, but it was necessary for illustrative purposes. However, one has to only look at the results of the last 40 years of so-called Liberal Progressivist policy -- compare it to the things the Confederates said and did about African-Americans 160 years ago -- and you'd discover that much hasn't really changed. Then honestly consider the results of modern democratic party policy, and you'll probably arrive at the same conclusion that I have: either it’s all just been run by successive generations of complete idiots, or this is all going exactly to plan.

I’m going to say something that's even more unpopular but it’s a future possibility that must be considered. This country is broke. It’s so broke that even if we sold everything of value in all 50 states and then prostituted our daughters to the Red Chinese, we still couldn’t cover our debts. This state of affairs was brought about by poor government policies and a lack of oversight and discipline. We The People are extremely anxious about the future. The rise of the Tea Party is a direct consequence of this anxiety, and it has brought with it a new belief that the established parties no longer serve the will of the governed and therefore must be reformed or replaced. Great social and political change is coming in the very near future. Common conventions about the purpose, power, and activities of the American Government which existed before are all about to change radically.

Government funding for a variety of social programs is going to disappear as funding for the entire apparatus of the Welfare State ceases. The edifice of Affirmative Action will be pulled down. The Double-Standards that have been erected by liberals around matters of race will be erased. We can no longer afford to keep them, and the people who have paid for them up until now wish to be relieved of this unfair financial burden. This is not conjecture; it is going to happen. History says it will. The America that emerges from this process will look quite different than what stands now. Now there's real money at stake.

The democratic party will need to change if it is to survive, and it will probably do so by ejecting its radicals and purging itself of all the old divide-and-conquer political rhetoric of the past. It will jettison its romantic attachment to the Entitlement State. The generation that remembers FDR and the Great Depression will soon be gone (and exiting much faster under Obama Care, I reckon).The democratic party will be moving to the right, and taking a far-more Centrist view of Civil Rights, and become more conservative by necessity. It will begin to resemble the Party of Reagan more than the Party of JFK with each passing day. With the continued funding of the Welfare State at current levels an impossibility, the rationales to keep it, even in much-reduced form, become logically and ethically indefensible; it will all be gone within a decade, maybe 15 years, at most.

Those who wish to remain with the Party of Patronizing You-Poor-Baby-ism, the illogical attitudes, the unrealistic expectations, the backhanded racism disguised as Social Justice, and the deliberately-fucked-up policies designed to keep people fat-dumb-and-happy-but-on-a-leash -nontheless which it represents, are bound to find themselves in extremely dire straits in the very near future.

It's perhaps time for some re-evaluation of old allegiences and re-think some deeply-held positions which have been rendered null and void by deep economic crisis.

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: IS IT RACIST IF...

...a Black Guy says it first, and then a White Guy agrees with it?

I have to ask because it’s getting quite confusing these days. I mean, we already know – having had two-and-a-half-years of experience with this phenomenon – that if you disagree with a (half-)Black Guy, on anything, and for any reason, it is considered an overt manifestation of the most blatant racism in some quarters, and you’re often accused of being the worst sort of Neo-Nazi/Tea Party/Eugenicist/Klansman who wants to see a return to the good ol’ days of Slavery, or a time when Evil White Males could shamelessly use The Law or Social Convention as a weapon against people of color, just because they could.

Or does context matter, so that if a White Guy Agrees With a Black Guy who says something negative – but provably true -- about Black People, it’s still racism, and worse, it’s the sort of racism that originated with a self-hating, Uncle Tom, House Negro who is, despite his appearances, is then called nothing less than a puppet of the GOP, Enron, Big Oil, and the Insurance Companies?


I have to wonder about that, you see, because I happen to agree with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who made the following remarks a few weeks ago:

“You’ve damaged yourself, you’ve damaged another person, you’ve damaged your peers and, quite honestly, you’ve damaged your own race…”


“Take those God darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt. Nobody.”

“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ’cause you look like you’re crazy!”


A little context is necessary here. Mayor Nutter was making a public statement in support of the curfew that the City of Philadelphia has had to impose in response to a rash of Flash Mob incidents. These come on top of a rash of other incidents (mostly) involving black youth, the result of a confluence of modern social media and communications, violence and firearms, and a feeling of frustration within the Black Community -- not to mention rank stupidity – which has manifested itself in anew wave of anti-social behavior in not only within the City of Brotherly Love, but apparently nation-wide.


You can imagine the uproar from certain, but always predictable, precincts over such comments, and I won’t go into them here, if only because it’s a waste of bandwidth, and the outrage engendered mostly manufactured and rote. There are some within the leadership of the Black Community that sees any criticism of African-Americans, justified or not, as simple, reflexive racism, and which is prepared to defend even the most abhorrent and destructive behavior from that point of view. I hardly consider such sources worth listening to anymore because their true intent is not to discuss any issue with honesty, but simply to continue a paradigm in which racial strife remains a constant threat to civil society. It’s how their earn their living, either through donations from like-minded people, or as a means by which to pry taxpayer funds out of local, state and federal government.


There’s a serious issue in the Black Community and there’s a serious issue with Black Culture, in general, and finally someone from a position of leadership within that community has had the cojones to actually speak out -- forcefully and honestly -- about it. And the resulting uproar was entirely predictable and gratuitous, mostly because:


a) Mayor Nutter didn’t use the words ‘racism’, ‘Whitey is responsible’, ‘You are owed’ or ‘the Legacy of Slavery’ in a way which excuses and justifies the worst excesses of the Mob.

b) Despite the fact that actual black people are responsible for both the curfew (as a result of their actions) and the Mayor’s unflattering words, some segments of the black community cannot help but feel that they’re being unfairly singled out, and it stings them so much more when the truth about it all is told by another brother, who has ‘forgotten his place’ (i.e. you were elected to keep the welfare and ’programs’ coming, not engage in social commentary of an inconvenient sort).


c) Truths, especially distasteful and unavoidable ones, cut the deepest of all. And they cut the guilty (in this case the perpetrators of the violence, and their parents) right to the bone.


I do not say ‘White people are better than Black People”, nor do I believe that if given the opportunity that all Black People would like to shoot up a bus, riot at a State Fair, or knock out complete strangers on the street as entertainment. To say these things, or to believe them, is to be guilty of the very racism some say is implied in curfews and shame-on-you speeches.


But unless you live under a rock, and you don’t or wont see what has happened, and you don’t make a connection between the events, the perpetrators, the circumstances under which they live, and the carefully-constructed edifice of psychology and double-standards we’ve erected around questions of race in this country, you’re never going to see it. Let alone understand it all.

I feel sorry for people like you; you’ve sentenced yourself to a fate almost as bad as death – a state of total apathy and inaction. You will continue to be a silent witness to events that affect your life without having the means of recognizing that things are happening (often against your will), or be possessed of the ambition to believe that things could be better. When the day comes when things do get better (one must always be an optimist about these things) you will have had no part in the event, and worse, no realization that anything has changed.


It has been boilerplate amongst the (mostly-) White Libtard apologist set – and the battalions of Civil Rights Activists who are their allies -- to suggest that despite the abolition of Slavery, Constitutional Amendments, enough Civil Rights Law to choke a brontosaurus, A Civil War, Affirmative Action, astronomical ‘investments’ in ‘education’ and social welfare programs, and 150+ years of changing social mores and attitudes, that African-Americas are still little more than ignorant savages, and that the best thing to do is simply appease them and let any bad behavior pass with nary a judgmental word. To do otherwise would be racist and hurt their self-esteem, you see. Or provoke violence.


The violence we do see, the mindless spite on display, is often explained away as ‘the natural result of _______’ or as an expression of fundamental disapproval with American society as it is currently constructed. It is disconnected from all the old standards of personal behavior and responsibility, and absolves the individual from having to think for himself, or make an effort to obey the rules of a civil society. You can throw all the sociological claptrap, all the pap psychology, all the political correctness right out the window; to call this other than what it is – outrageously criminal behavior – is to simply continue to justify it, and an abrogation of our shared responsibility for making our culture and society the best it can be.


It does no one any good to continue to do this anymore, and this very attitude never presents a solution to any problem, and is, in fact, probably why such indecent behavior continues to exist; we don't speak out, and we don't tar the offenders with the epithet criminal. Instead, we call them 'victims', and then wonder why all this stuff happens all over again, and then navel-gaze over the sheer stupidity of it all.


At what point do people – regardless of their color, politics, or creed – begin to take responsibility for the actions of even the few miscreants within their community, and then resolve amongst them to actually do something about it? I say ‘people’ and not ’government’, for a specific reason; government cannot solve these problems. In fact, government has created the majority of them. Government’s only response consists of either punishment or in throwing more money or laws at the issue, and nothing ever gets fixed. The root causes of these things are within the individuals involved, that is, beyond the reach of government.


And these problems are not only to be found within the African-American community: unemployment, broken homes, a poor educational system, political Balkanization, a lack of civility and ethics, a loss of the belief in the principles that once made America great, are to be found within every community, but in no other have they manifested themselves more – and with greater regularity, despair, and cyclical violence – than in the African-American community.


The cure to our social ills is a return to some sort of value system that puts the onus back on the individual in terms of ethics, honesty, a capacity for work, and individual freedoms – not government programs, curfews, welfare checks, or racial bomb-throwers in it for the money and notoriety. The family must be restored. Respect for the law must become the norm, rather than the exception. Ethics and Civics need to be taught in the schools again, rather than proper condom use,or all the wonderful things one can do with a penis. Stigma must again be used as an instrument of engendering good behavior.


Common Sense must return, and it must once again become a tool in the box of every individual, so that they may make the best possible decisions for themselves and their families.

My grandfather used to say “there is no such thing as good or bad luck – only the consequences of good or bad decisions”. And he was right. To do all of these things requires a social revolution which will be quite painful for some, and quite expensive, no doubt, but it must occur all the same. It begins with a bit of intellectual honesty, of the sort displayed by Mayor Nutter: YOU are the problem. YOU have made the wrong choices in life, and that's how you wound up here.


After that, it all requires a genuine effort and tenacity on the part of all the individuals involved. With a unity of purpose and a clearly-delineated goal, there need not be another American city under curfew. There need not be another community which routinely excuses – and tolerates --the inexcusable, making its own life a misery, and content to point fingers elsewhere as a reflex.
There are some who will beat the drum of Poverty as a cause of such reckless behavior, but let’s face it: we have the only class of ’poor’ people on the planet who are paid to stay that way, complete with cell phones, air conditioning, subsidized housing, public education, and Type II diabetes from all that cheap-and-easy-to-obtain food we produce. Material poverty is not the cause; it’s a spiritual deficit, and not just in purely religious terms, either. We have created successive generations of irresponsible and intellectually-lazy people, supported them with cash, and then excused them from having to obey even the simplest laws of a genteel society.


We should not be surprised at the outcome of that little experiment, should we?


The attitude of the irrationally-guilty White Liberal and the Civil Rights Crusader are, then, to some extent, paternalistic, and responsible for much of what we’ve seen recently. They have conspired to infantilize an entire race of people, mostly for their own selfish ends, and done it right under everyone’s noses. What we’ve seen in the streets of Philadelphia is not the result of racism or poverty – it is the result of often-misguided good intentions coupled with political utility and abject neglect.


After all, what does you typical latte-sipping, Brie-eating, Kofka-loving Libtard actually know about life in the African-American community? So far as she (it’s almost always a ‘she’) is concerned, The Government has provided food, shelter and a sub-standard education, and so long as ‘They’ don’t come to her gated community to ‘start trouble’, what’s the big deal? If it becomes a problem, throw some more (of someone else’s)money at the problem, hire more cops, erect another bureaucracy, and continue to keep ‘Them’ at arm’s length.


One could shake their head in abject disgust that such attitudes continue to exist in 21st Century America, but unfortunately they do. You find them within the most self-proclaimed 'Progressive' of individuals.

If you’re African-American and consider that sort of Liberal – the kind that gentrifies ghettos under the shield of federal Economic Empowerment Zone money, all the while spouting crapspeak about ‘affordable housing’ – to be your natural ally, then think again.

The only allies you will have in your struggle, whether the fight is for equality, civil discourse, or just plain old peace, look like you, and there aren’t enough food stamps, not enough Midnight Basketball, nor Affirmative Action entries into the toniest Law Schools, that can substitute for your honest effort, the fire in your belly, or your sense of self-respect. Set the proper example, be the catalyst for change in your own little corner of the world.


The Old Days of double-standards and politically-correct, excusatory dialectics in terms of the behavior we expect from people are over, or soon will be. It is a constant throughout history that civilizations that find themselves under cultural stress tend to get rather regressive, and often draconian, when it comes to restoring their perceived moral imperatives and standards.

Cultures experiencing extreme economic hardship, political turmoil, and social degeneration always try to ‘turn back the clock’ to a supposed Golden Age of proper behavior, and the agents of this change are often violent or unintentionally harsh, and dismissive of those least prepared – or willing --to join in the transformation.


Today it’s a curfew in but one American city, tomorrow might bring an outright (un-)Civil War. For the sake of civil peace and fundamental fairness, it behooves all of us to get out in front of that approaching tsunami before it surprises and drowns us all.


Mayor Nutter has taken a first step in the right direction, and we should all follow his example. Do your part in any way you can. My own contribution will be to volunteer at the local Boys and Girls Club (I’ve signed up this very week!) and perhaps mentor a kid or two who may need the help, and appreciate the effort.


To do otherwise is simply irresponsible and runs counter to your responsibility as a citizen of a free and decent country.

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: STUPIDITY, THY NAME IS 'DEMOCRAT'

On the recent dustup between Republican Allen West, and Democrat Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

Allen West has called Wasserman-Schultz 'despicable', 'vile' and 'not Lady-like', and been called a 'sexist' by the biggest bunch of doofuses on Planet Earth for it.


Now, whether you agree with West or not is a matter of opinion, and your opinion would require some background material and facts, which, incidentally, you will not get from that link. It is not my intention to dispute or support the veracity or propriety of anything either has said about the other in this little political pillow fight.

And pillow fight is the proper term, because when you stop to consider all the other problems this country faces, this one -- an accusation of incivility made against perhaps one of the more civil members of the House of Representatives -- that's exactly what it amounts to.

Let us engage in that silly little game libtards like to play, "Replace _____ with _____": if Debbie Wasserman-Schultz were a republican, and Allen West were a democrat, it would be just business as usual in running her down. No one would bat an eye,and all would be considered normal. That's just how politics gets played in this country, and the press and other media outlets would be defending him with a quite considerable vigor against any attack. After all, he's a Black Man and she's a White Woman, and their reversed political affiliations would somehow matter.

But let's take the game one step further, making no allowances for political affiliation at all. If Allen West were not a Republican and a stalwart of the Tea Party, but was instead one of those fake 'Civil Rights Leaders' of the Jackson/Sharpton mold; calling a white member of Congress nasty names would be sufficient grounds for having a statue erected in his honor in some quarters.

Double standards abound, and in no place else do they count (at least amongst the people who tell us they do) for so much than in American Politics.

Some significant points should be made in Allen West's defense (although he hardly needs me to hold his shield for him):

1. There is a First Amendment. He can say whatever the hell he wants, express whatever opinion he wishes, and so long as there is no malice in what he says (the legal definition of malice, that is), he's golden. You can disagree with his point of view, but he's entitled to have it aired.

Had the positions been reversed, and Allen West the target of the words 'despicable', 'vile' and 'not a Gentleman', he would be expected to suck it up, being a man and all that. That double standard still exists in American society, that Men should shut up and persevere, while women are entitled to bitch, moan, cry and snipe at the drop of a hat for all slights, real or imagined.

2. Allen West is an elected Member of Congress, and as such, is presumed to represent the will or conscience of the people of his district, the ONLY people he's responsible to when all is said and done. Note the lack of any report of approbation from his own constituents within this story; They either agree with him, or damn near agree with him, vis-a-vis Wasserman-Schultz at least, or can be presumed to be able to recognize a political argument when they hear one, and thus, offer up no opinion, positive or negative, upon this one.

Which is more than we can say about the Political Press in this country, which is reporting on this thing as if the Third World War erupted just after breakfast.

3. You can tell just how close to the truth West is in his assertions by the a) menstrual-whiny quality of the response it evoked, and b) by the menstrual-whiny quality of the people who responded. If you were to sit down and deliberately make a list of '100 people you should never, ever take seriously', you could do no worse than to start with Sheila Jackson-Lee, a woman who's own mental acuity has been likened to that of an unset jello mold in some quarters, and Carolyn Maloney, a woman so brazen that she has somehow managed to convince the voters of Spanish Harlem that a White, Carpetbagging, Southern, widow-of-a-mega-hedge-fund-Manager is the absolutely PERFECT representative for their district.

4. I find it rather strange that the members of The Congressional Black Caucus should turn this matter into a tepid protest against discrimination when they themselves belong to an organization that fairly screams discrimination. It's difficult to make the case for inclusiveness in America when you belong to an organization that identifies and distinguishes itself specifically by race.

In the eyes of such people (the CBC), Allen West's biggest crime is not to be critical of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, as much as it is to be black and a republican. He is the flaw in the pattern, the nail that sticks out, the stain that must be rubbed clean. In democratic (small 'd' intentional) party circles this is on par with being a Jewish Jihadi, a Fundamentalist Christian Homosexual, or a African-American Klansman. Allen West's real crime in this context is to have wandered off the political and mental reservation that the Liberal political establishment (with the full connivance and blessing of the Congressional Black Caucus) has created for African-Americans.

In this regard, Allen West as an independent thinker and advocate for a conservative dialectic, must be destroyed because he is indicative of a mindset the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party cannot abide, or allow to let stand or fall upon it's own merits, and any excuse to attack him is eagerly utilized. You (that is, the Greater Public) must be convinced -- by any means necessary -- that people like Allen West represent a reactionary threat that will bring with it a return to the Plantation, the revocation of the Franchise, Prohibition, Theocracy, and the destruction of a laundry-list of 'hard-fought-and-won' rights (of dubious origin or legality, based upon the the philosophy that personal responsibility is bad, but that Government as the final arbiter of all things good and decent would be a shining achievement) which reads not so much as a declaration of human dignity as much as it does an adolescent's wish list.

If you ever wanted to see just what the world would look like if your 15-year-old ran it, then keep voting for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the people like her. This is why they set out to personally destroy the Allen West's of this world, often over complete and utter nonsense.

5. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a Big Girl. Big Girls should know that when you throw mud for a living, you might sometimes get a little upon your own skirts, or that your targets are sometimes fully capable of throwing some mud back. If Wasserman-Schultz is so thin-skinned that she cannot take what she herself regularly dishes out, then I suggest she find another line of work. I understand that Domestic, Midwife, and Dental Hygienist positions are opening up every day across America.

Modern Feminism considers it axiomatic that a woman can do anything any man does, only better, and this should, logically, also extend to taking or refuting criticism. Of course, no True Feminist believes such a thing is intrinsically true, for if it were then Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would not be playing the 'He called me Unladylike and offended my feminine sensibilities ' card.

The brouhaha is not about whether or not such accusations are actually true -- the argument can never be that simple because that would give the game away -- it's about creating two conjoined-and-symbiotic dialectics: a) a double-standard which the Wasserman-Schultz's of this word can use as both political sword and shield, and b) about silencing a critic whose opinion is inconvenient to them, or worse, might actually be listened to by the millions of otherwise-disinterested (or outright stupid) people which the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party relies upon in order to stay in power. The danger of Allen West is that someone might get it in their head to actually agree with him. Without that double standard, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz could never be taken seriously, and without Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the double standard has no defensible reason for continued existence.

This (a political realm with no double standards) would be so unfair to the Wasserman-Schultz's of the world --because they cannot otherwise compete in the crucibles of talents and ideas -- to have to live in a world that is far too often results-oriented. It's easier to whine that you should be able to have your cake and eat it too, rather than to go out and actually bake that cake for yourself. The Greatest Tragedy of All to people like Wasserman-Schultz is that someone might actually notice their inherent uselessness, question their right to retain their exalted position, and then apply the same method they would to a Man in similar position: vote them the hell out of office based upon their lack of utility or identifiable achievements.

6. At no point -- at least in this story -- does anyone ever actually dispute anything Allen West has said about Wasserman-Schultz. No one defends the WOMAN HERSELF, they only take the gratuitous opportunity to turn this extremely-minor-and-petty fracas into an exercise in Groupthink and Victimology. Therein lay the problem, methinks, if you're a democrat (small 'd' intentional) ; you can't even find anything nice to say about Wasserman-Schultz to defend her with, and instead are reduced to repeating well-worn-and-inoperable-in-this-instance bromides about gender discrimination and diversity, which anyone with a functioning brainstem knows is simply a vast load of bullshit.

7. If the democratic (small 'd' intentional) party were actually serious about it's professed concern for the poor and downtrodden, it could have picked a much a better cause than to defend the sensibilities of a privileged White, female and probably-wealthy, member of Congress who also happens to be the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, specifically charged with the task of sending Allen West to the unemployment line come the next election.

I'm certain there's a woman somewhere in America right this very second who is suffering far worse than to have her ladyhood, intelligence, and political motives questioned on the House floor. But being a democrat means never having to be consistent, or even intellectually honest, in your approach to the 'vital issues that affect all Americans'. Instead of members of Congress debating which gold-plated-and-fur-lined waste of government funds should be eliminated in order to stave off crippling debt, they're apparently obsessed by the equivalent of a schoolyard argument which basically boils down to "Oh yeah? And your Old Man, too!".

8. If you needed any more proof that Modern Liberalism (which is no such thing) is divorced from it's professed underlying premises and is instead consumed by petty matters of personality and politics, then here is just one more shining example.

In the grand scheme of things, Allen West calling Debbie Wasserman-Schultz out within the context of 'the World's Greatest Deliberative body' should be par for the course. One should expect that sort of thing of the rough-and-tumble of political debate. I can promise you that even worse things are said -- and done -- every day on the floor of the English Parliament, and I defy anyone who's capable of reading this without using your index finger to keep your place or without moving your lips, to argue that the Houses of Lords or Commons are far more civilized, polite, concise, respectful, and egalitarian places.

Compared to what happens in that body, Allen West basically saying to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz 'put up or shut up', is much ado about nothing, a knuckle-duster full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (oooh! I got TWO Shakespeare references in there!).

9. As to the propriety of using this minor stupidity as a fund-raising endeavor; democrats (small 'd' intentional) invented the game of emotionally-pumping minor eddies up into Armageddon-type tornadoes, so they shouldn't complain when it's done to them. They certainly wasted no time in doing exactly just that themselves, so why call West out on it?

Frankly, you should be giving campaign money to Allen West (and others like him) because they are the last line of defense between a free people and a technocratic socialism of the sort that George Orwell used to write about. Defeating a Wasserman-Schultz, a Jackson-Lee, a Nancy Pelosi, or a Carolyn Maloney (and their neutered male counterparts), or at the very least defeating the political insanity which drives and supports them, is of paramount importance if we're to keep what little personal liberty, wealth and security we have left.

Calling Wasserman-Schultz 'despicable' and 'vile' is, in this context, rather tame. What she is is a petty tyrant, and the proof of this is her professed allegiance to a political philosophy which uses the Constitutional framework in order to advance a new-and-improved incremental slavery.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her fellow travelers are not concerned with your welfare; they are concerned with being able to tell you how to live according to their own tastes and preferences, and with using the force of government and law to reorder the world according to their own severely-warped vision of what it should be.

The Debbie Waserman-Schultz's of this world are not smart enough to tell you how to live, but they insist on doing it anyway. You let them continue their work at your own peril.

10. Once again we're reminded, in the response to West's little diatribe, just what a feeble and reflexively negative philosophy Modern Liberalism truly is. It's not about facts, propriety, and sober deliberation upon weighty issues; it's all about manipulating people emotionally, or along gender, racial or political lines. It's about sticking your tongue out at your opponents and pretending that it is reasoned discourse.

Within that article, West's exercise of his right to Free Speech is called 'gender discrimination'. It is likened to having a Multinational Media Outlet hack your private voice mail, or to having your dignity violated in the most cruel and public manner. I'm surprised that none of the elected doofuses quoted in that article called it a 'rape'. Maybe that's coming next week?

But you can see the problem the Left has: instead of defeating West's allegations point-by-point with a reasoned response, it has to instead be all about the End of Civilization as We Know It. This is their default starting position, and it leaves them no room for logical or political maneuvering, or compromise. The tone of these responses are also all very similar: petulant, cringing, negative, dismissive, reflexively calling for retribution and punishment. The people who claim to be the first and greatest defenders of the First Amendment want someone punished for exercising it because they disagree with him. The argument has been presented as one of personalities, and not a fundamental difference on policies. Modern liberalism is not about meeting fact with fact, or defeating logic with better logic; it's about soundbites and half-quotes divorced from context, and whipped into a fondue of obfuscation and confusion.

The question is simple: Was West right, or just impolite, in his assertions? Instead, the question has started to become Is West a republican bully who has unfairly attacked an oppressed and defenseless woman?

But asking that question in it's proper context would wreck the story, and defeat the purpose of creating a narrative in which a liberal is the victim of an unfair and vicious attack -- without acknowledging that West is himself under assault on a daily basis from the very liberal he's denigrating!

The truth of the matter is that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree (if you've ever seen her on television this would become apparent within 15 seconds of her opening her pie hole), and could not, even under the best of circumstances, refute a single syllable that West has uttered if asked to. Primarily this would be because she would have to have the same level of intelligence and integrity one might associate with a garden weed, and then it would require that we (the Great Public) get the opportunity to more closely scrutinize her own words, deeds and record of Public Service in order to weigh up the pros-and-cons of West's outburst and make an informed decision, yea or nay.

And if there's anything a democrat (small 'd' intentional) hates more than the disinfectant of sunlight, it's having to prove beyond their own regally-pronounced assertions that they are, indeed, smarter and better than you or I, or the better judge of character. Asking them to prove it is something we're not supposed to do. Only republicans every need to prove anything, you see.

Was West wrong in applying words like 'despicable', 'vile' and 'not a Lady' to Wasserman-Schultz? Personally, I think he could have made his case with different words, but then again, this would have diffused the impact of his statement. For all intents and purposes, it's my considered opinion that just about everyone with a 'D' next to their name is a liar, a thief, and a communist-in-training, but then again, I'm a cynical old bastard with documented mental disorders.

What do you think?

AFFIRMATIVE REACTION: PHONY RACISM, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, AND A DEAD CHILD


Today I’d like to tell you a tragic tale involving a dead 13-year old girl, a yellow school bus, a bad public transportation system, a tractor trailer, a school administration that is more concerned with appearances and political correctness than student safety, and a court system which city lawyers openly abuse. It will not end well, I promise you, and I can also guarantee that at the end of it all you’ll be shaking your head in stunned disbelief that so-called responsible adults could be this stupid, petty, and well, irresponsible.




Our story begins two years ago, when the New York City Board of Education (three lies for the price of one) began looking for ways to cut it’s budget without firing the 2,000 or so teachers currently held in so-called ‘rubber rooms’ (more on this later) awaiting termination or criminal prosecution, and pissing off the local education unions, whilst still giving the appearance of being both fiscally responsible and fair to racial minorities.


Given that combination of political requirements, it’s not surprising that Education Administrators (an oxymoron if ever there was one) came up with a politically-biased solution that cost a young girl her life.


It all has to do with appearances, and false accusations of racism, plain and simple.


You see, I live on Staten Island, the Forgotten Borough of New York City. It is a place that City Government tends to think of as a cash cow and a dumping ground for projects that no other borough -- with their decidedly greater populations and more vocal ‘community organizer’ types -- just won’t take, such as Landfills, Wind farms, prisons and infectious disease wards.



Wikipedia describes Staten Island as a ‘suburban community’, and it once was, but it is so no longer. What it has become is a 12-by-7 mile bonanza of property taxes for a City that can concern itself with your salt intake, but then not give a shit about whether or not your community has adequate sewers and storm drains, public transportation, hospitals, or schools. There are about 500,000 people shoehorned onto this over-developed island which is always last on the City’s ‘To-Do’ list, but always first on ‘People We Can Raise Taxes On’ list.


City Officials just absolutely love the property and income taxes they can collect here (amongst the highest in all of the United States!), but they just can’t see their way to spending any of it here. Probably because the island typically votes republican, and most of us are gainfully employed. There’s far more money and political power in poverty than there is in the catering to the needs of the Middle Class who pays for it all, you see.


Four consequences of this attitude are:


1) The Road System on this island is a joke. Many of the main arteries still follow their meandering, pre-Revolutionary War-era paths from days of yore – in some cases, they still follow the routes they took during the days of the Dutch Settlements (pre-1660!) and these are often narrow, crowded with vehicular traffic, and lacking in adequate safety features (traffic islands, traffic lights, stop signs, or crosswalks). You’ll find the roads in a perpetual extremely-poor state of repair (the 12’-long-by-three-foot-deep-pothole-full-of-frozen-water-on-every-corner capital of New York!), and many basic services – like sidewalks along busy streets – are simply missing, and no one in City Government gives a shit. I can’t tell you how many stories of ‘Person-struck-and-killed-by-car-in- neighborhood-without-sidewalks’ stories there are every year in the Staten Island Advance, the local newsrag. It’s easily in the double digits.

Remember, this is supposed to be 21st-Century New York City.

2) Public Transportation is seriously lacking, and what is available is often unreliable, hardly goes where it needs to (the Transportation Plans which brought it here dating to the 1960’s, and only begun in earnest in the 1980’s), and under-utilized since decades of abject neglect of the transportation system has created a cult of the automobile that would rival that to be found elsewhere in the United States. This may be the only place in all of New York City where your trip to the ‘Corner Store’ often requires a journey by car that will take you a mile or more from home, and take 30-40 minutes because of traffic.

3) Schools are in seriously short supply. Since most of the available land (even City-owned land) has been parceled off and sold to developers (we need more overpriced Mother-Daughter townhouse/condos on this island like we need a plague of locusts), or goes to more Parks and Nature Preserves (which we need like a hole in the head. 1/5 of Staten Island is State-or-Federally-protected Wetlands, bird sanctuaries, parks, national monuments, and so forth), less space is available to build schools. Especially middle schools. The last new High School, for example, built on Staten Island (in the early 1980’s) was originally designed as a minimum-security prison -- in a residential neighborhood -- that only became the ‘new’ New Dorp High School because of the near-violent outrage that sprang from a community that wasn’t even asked if it would want a prison in it’s backyard, nor told until the very last minute that one was even being built.

4) What schools we do have are generally placed far apart, and are poorly served by public transportation, requiring more yellow bus service than might be normal for children who live in the other boroughs where there are more schools and more transportation options available.

Yellow school bus service in this borough is a necessity if children are to get to and from school safely and in a timely fashion. In fact, Yellow School Bus service for Staten Island schoolchildren from kindergarten to Middle School had been a standard for over four decades, courtesy of a political class that once understood the unique nature of the problems here, and a federal judge who granted Staten Island a waiver when parents in the other boroughs claimed that Staten Island kids were receiving a benefit that children elsewhere weren’t getting. The majority of these complaints, incidentally, were based upon race. At the time, the majority of Staten Island public school kids were white.


And if anything ever screamed ‘Racism’ way back when, it was the idea of white, middle class kids being chauffeured to and from a school three miles away when minority children had to walk, usually just a few blocks. Go figure.


The accusations of racism in Bus Service have never completely gone away, and those who have yelled ‘Racist!” the loudest and most persistently, I can promise you, have never stepped foot upon this isle to see the truth for themselves. Then again, people who make their livings shouting ‘Racist!’ and extracting government money for it are very often never really concerned with truth, nor care about the consequences of their actions, so long as a politician scratches his particular itch.


To give you some idea, my nephew Mikey is one of those children who was eligible for Yellow Bus Service. Let me tell you what he has to do to get to and from school, and maybe this will illustrate the problem for you.


Mikey’s school is approximately 4.6 miles from his own front door. Without a school bus, Mikey has limited options. He could walk to and from school, having to cross at least three major arteries which local drivers treat like the Indianapolis Speedway, dodging distracted by text-messages or putting-on-their-makeup-in-the-rearview drivers for whom simple things like proper use of turning signals, red lights, traffic lanes, No Right on Red signs, and pedestrian traffic are crippling inconveniences which conspire to keep them from their quest to be the first to the next red light at 65-mph-in-a-35 zone. It’s like a for-real game of Frogger.


This is mostly a cultural problem, exacerbated by poor road planning, construction and maintenance. To illustrate these issues for you, it is not uncommon for private individuals around here to pool their OWN money to build their OWN speed bumps on their school-zoned streets, because the City won’t, citing the excuse of expense. The City, however, has absolutely no trouble finding the funds to remove those privately-financed speed bumps – often in the dead of night --just as soon as it discovers them.


Option Number Two is that Mikey can walk eight blocks to the Staten Island Railway Train (a misnomer which consists of two tracks travelling in opposite directions that serves approximately 1/6 of the island’s population on any given day), take it four stops, and then have to walk 10 blocks from the station to school, both ways crossing busy (sometimes blind because of the curves or overgrown park/wetland) intersections without crossing guards or responsible drivers.


Option Number Three is take a City Bus, requiring a three-block walk from home, a transfer, and then a six block walk from the nearest stop. This requires, incidentally, about 45-60 minutes, so that he’d have to leave home at 6:30 to ensure he got to school anywhere near 8:00, due to the numerous stops (buses here stop at nearly every block for some reason), traffic and irregularity/unreliability of service.


Option Number Four is to take another City Bus which leaves him closer to school (after a transfer to another route), but which goes two miles out of his way in order to get him there, and probably takes closer to 90 minutes, all told.


You can see the problem.


So, the Board of Education, in a cynical effort to have it both ways -- paying lip service to the concept of financial responsibility, while pandering to the louder elements of the “Everything in Creation is Racist!” brigade -- decided it was time to end Yellow School Bus service for Staten Island (White) Middle Schoolers. Two years ago, the City claimed that doing so would save an estimated $2 million per year, which is a joke when you consider the NYC Board of Education is capable of finding more ways to waste $2 million a week without even breaking a sweat.


Local government (our Borough President) went right to the courts to stop this plan and to have the waiver granted 40+ years ago guaranteeing school bus service upheld. The judge in that case let the waiver stand, and then asked the Board of Ed to turn over its internal documents and e-mails related to the decision to stop service. What he got was a mess of blank and/or redacted paper, and an injunction against his upholding of the original waiver issued by a judge in a different borough after the Board of Ed went judge-shopping in (more-liberal) Brooklyn.


Another judge, a state appellate judge, told the Board to go and pound sand, upheld the waiver, and squashed the injunction, and bus service was restored.


However, the Board of Ed is nothing if not persistent – and willing to waste that potential $2 million savings on more lawyers – and had the service stopped once again by yet another judge, claiming the Original Waiver violates the ‘spirit of’ the 14th Amendment, despite any practical considerations. The court fight continues to this day.



There are two ironies here:


1. Aniya Williams was probably entitled to Yellow School Bus service under the Old Waiver, which would have picked her up in front of the school, and dropped her off mere yards from her own front door, if not for all the legal wrangling and false accusations of racism in bus service.

2. Aniya Williams happens to have been African-American.

For the sake of $2 million dollars (probably $10 million now after the legal fees are all counted up), and to quiet the uninformed noises that came from the full panoply of ‘advocates’, ‘community organizers’, ‘’community groups’, ‘education watchdogs’, public unions and all the other busy-body organizations and individuals who typically speak out of their collective asses, a child is dead. The only saving grace here is that more children aren’t dead, because on any given day there are probably going to be 50 more Aniya’s, racing for a city bus that runs on an irregular schedule so that they won’t have to walk 4 miles home, and who are forced to do so because a City Government that can’t count, but which can pander to anyone with an uninformed complaint and wants to monitor your caloric intake, just doesn’t get it.


Note: Edited this post after-the-fact for some grammatical errors, and restated the population of Staten Island.