Controversial Blackness

Waaaaa! Stop Playing the Race Card!!!

2014-01-21T18:57:00.001-06:00

To commemorate Martin Luther King day of 2014, Sarah Palin thought it would be apropos to whine about people talking about race too damned much: especially black people, because -- you know – back in the 1960s, MLK didn’t talk too much about race.

When he said he imagined a day when people would be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character, he meant that we should collectively stick our heads up our asses and pretend that we all don’t notice race. Hell, we don’t even know what race is. Why, if a gentleman walked up to me and told me something, I wouldn’t even notice if he were a black or white gentleman. I’m just that fricken stupid, the conservative says.

Look, no one likes the guy who is always finding racism hidden in places as innocuous as a pack of Raisinets, but the fact of the matter is that racism does exist. It’s kind of like what’s happened in the NFL where if you breathe on the Quarterback, you’re fined a life’s salary. However, in order to play the game, you have to tackle the quarterback every now and again, and in order to fight racism, you have to “play the race card” every now and again: it kind of requires vocalizing the words “that is racism”.

Therefore, when someone says “stop playing the race card” I do not just find them misguided, but disgustingly deplorable. What they mean by “do not play the race card” is “I don’t like it when you point out my racism, because I think you are wrong. But it’s perfectly fine for me to point out your racism, because I am right about racism and truly know what it is.” (This is usually said by people who do not study racism and think that things like African American Studies should not qualify as a degree.) This overall attitude is not only arrogant and demeaning, but when it is constantly leveled towards blacks, it becomes racist. Blacks are, suddenly, not allowed to say that this or that is racist. Only white people are allowed to. They are allowed to call Melissa Harris Perry racist. They are allowed to call Kanye West racist, but Obama is not allowed to say that racist people exist in the United States? Melissa Harris-Perry is not allowed to talk about the more benign version of racism, structural racism?

Conservatives like to talk about a double standard, but the double standard is not coming from the liberal side, it would seem. We do not mind conservatives playing the race card. Go ahead! Play it to your heart’s content like a finely-tuned fiddle. However, you must then be prepared to have a rational discussion about why you think such-and-such is a racist turd and defend your position with – let’s just say – logic.

The Overlap: Deconstructing Gay Marriage

2012-12-01T10:24:00.000-06:00

A post from, sister blog, University of Me.

Recently, controversial Megachurch pastor, Rick Warren went on Pierce Morgan's show to talk about a little bit of old-fashioned homosexuality.

Many were, of course, offend because he compared homosexuality to arsenic. "I might have an urge to drink arsenic," he essentially said, "but that doesn't mean I should do it." People who disparage this remark, I think, are missing something. "HE'S COMPARING HOMOSEXUALS TO ARSENIC," they say. "THAT'S DEMEANING! WHAT A BIGOT!" Conversation over. The pro-gay wins... But wait a minute! Though you may think the pro-homosexual argument is more sound, there was not an ounce of reasoning in the argument we just witnessed. This fictional advocate for gay marriage did not break down that argument methodically and isolate the logical flaws in the opponent's argument. She just screamed real loud and considered the matter done with.

Too often this happens when we talk about controversial matters such as gay marriage. We're too busy getting outraged to bother doing the work of critical thinking. Therefore, without condoning or endorsing, I will point out a few arguments for and against gay marriage that do not hold water, and will deconstruct them using logic and critical thought.

I'm a Natural!

In his clumsy metaphor, Rick Warren was attempting to rebut the following argument made by gay advocates:

PREMISE 1: Anything that is a natural desire should be permissible.
PREMISE 2: Homosexuality is a natural desire.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, homosexuality is permissible.

Now, in the case of drinking arsenic, Warren was just trying to come up with something that we all agree that you shouldn't do. Unfortunately, the arsenic thing is a poor analogy. Therefore, we will turn to the stronger example Warren provides. "Sometimes I feel like punching a guy in the nose. It doesn't mean I act on it." Therefore, Warren's rebuttal to the naturalness argument goes something like this:

PREMISE 3: Someone may have a natural desire to punch another person in the nose.
PREMISE 4: According to Premise 1, anything that is a natural desire should be permissible.
PREMISE 5: (conclusion drawn from Premises 3 & 4) By this reasoning, punching someone in the nose would be permissible.
PREMISE 6: We as a society agree that punching someone in the nose is NOT permissible.
CONCLUSION 2: Therefore, PREMISE 1 is false, and the argument from naturalness is therefore faulty. (EDIT: Previously said Premise 2 is false. Changed to Premise 1 is false.)

This is no way proves that homosexuality is wrong. All it demonstrates is that a certain argument for homosexuality is lacking in logical merit. Often skeptics are threatened by this and run for the hills instead of actually addressing the rationale behind an argument. They will instead take the low road and call people names and such, which brings me to my next form of bad argumentation: often made by either side.

The "Got" Words: Vilification of the other Side

When you vilify the other side, you end the conversation and squander any opportunity at rational argument. The wheels come off of the conversation. One side panics. He cannot think. Rationality goes out the window, and pure primal instinct takes over. He turns into frenzied monster, with no means of reasoning. "Hulk smash" is his only mode of communication.

The first "got" word that causes this frenzied state is "bigot." Just because someone has a philosophical difference of opinion on what is right and wrong, that in no way means they are a bigot. So, when someone says homosexuality is wrong and therefore they have misgivings supporting gay marriage, it is understandable that they would feel that way. "You are calling a human being an abomination," the gay advocate will say. "That is bigotry." No, that is quoting the bible. Furthermore, homosexuality is not a human being. It is an act. I am not defined, nor is anyone else defined, by what they do behind closed doors.

What are we saying when we call someone a bigot? We are saying that they are calling someone inferior (morally, intellectually, intrinsically) by virtue of what they are (black, white, gay, straight). This is not necessarily what someone who is anti-gay is saying. Someone being gay or lesbian essentially means that they have the theoretical gay gene, but that does not necessarily mean that they are engaging in gay sex. What religious people have a problem with is others actually going out and having sexual relations with someone of the same sex. Now, you can tell them to mind their own business; you can call them old-fashioned; you can even call them ignorant, but do not call them a bigot, because that does not match definition.

I'm reminded of an advocate for gay marriage who shared his experiences of trying to convince conservative lawmakers on the matter. He did not brow beat them or talk down to them. He merely reasoned with them on their own terms. He talked to them about things like love and loyalty -- concepts conservatives understood. Ultimately, they were not convinced on gay marriage, but gradual he was able to sway them in the direction of civil unions. That's progress you cannot get via spitting in someone's fact and calling them a bigot. Many militant liberals may do well to learn this method.

In the same token, I have no patience for those who use the other, more incendiary "got" word (the first half of which is pictured below). It is demeaning, and dehumanizing and instantly ruins all opportunities for rational argument; for not only are you taking the focus off the issue and on the intransigence of your words, but, also, you're making yourself look like a fool in the public light. Whatever ideas you have about gay marriage will be overshadowed by your intolerant language and you will be cast aside into the barrel of the unreasoning along with the likes of the Flat-Earthers and the crackheads. To summarize, you are a dumb ass, and, yes, you have now earned the moniker "bigot".

No, in all likelihood, God hates bigots who
carry a sign reading "God hates fags."

But It's Love!

The second argument I do not buy is merely calling marriage "love" and saying that, on that basis, we should therefore allow it. The argument goes something like "why would religious people want to stop others from expressing love. Religion is supposed to be all about love." Why the idea of two people being denied the public expression of their love for each other is heartbreaking, there are two problems with this argument. One: you are doing what is known as equivocating. Equivocating occurs when you change the meaning of a word mid-argument in order to make a case. If we are to get technical here, love -- in the most scientific of terms -- is known as a combination of three elements between two people: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Obviously, the love espoused by religious people is closer to friendship in which the element of passion is missing. Therefore, the statement is in actuality saying "Why would religious people want to stop others from expressing sexual love? Religion is supposed to be all about platonic relationships." Obviously, this is argument makes no sense and is essence saying nothing.

Lolita is a Controversial book, turned controversial

movie, about a man who falls in love with an under-aged

woman. How do we, as a society, determine that a sexual
relationship between these two is wrong?

The second problem is of vagueness. The meaning of love means many things to different people. If we are allowing and disallowing people from marrying on the basis of love, how are we to disallow the fifty year old who convinces the fifteen year old that they are love? Obviously, mere love is not the only criterion for allowing someone to marry; therefore, we should delve deeper.

Arguments Concerning Consent

Now, let's go from something scholarly to something what some might call sophomoric. If you watch WWE at all, you would know about the wrestling faction known as Degeneration X. Degeneration X consisted of popular wrestlers like Triple-H, HBK, and a cast of others. In one episode of Raw, Stephanie McMahon was set to marry a wrestler known as Test (and, no, you won't be tested on this later). In the middle of the wedding, Triple-H pulls of the granddaddy of all pranks. He plays video footage of him marrying Stephanie McMahon the night before! After drugging her, he takes her to a drive-thru wedding service and tricks the lady at the window into marrying them. Obviously, that someone could marry in this way strikes us as immediately ridiculous. Stephanie has to be aware of what's going on in order for there to be a fair exchanging of vows. She wasn't even conscious. Furthermore, there has to be consent.

An important issue in ethics is that of tainted consent. Tainted consent occurs when one party either is coerced or has incomplete knowledge about the agreement being forged. Thus, when consent is tainted, this deems a contract null and void.

Therefore, knowing this about marriage, we can come up with the appropriate responses to the following anti-gay arguments.

ARGUMENT 1: But if we have no limitations set on who can marry who, then what's to stop two kids from marrying?

This is where the issue of incomplete knowledge comes into play. In order for a contract to be a good contract, both parties have to basically know what they are getting into. You wouldn't sign a contract to sign away all of your droodmeyers if you didn't know what droodmeyer was. You have to be knowledgeable of the incident at hand.

Lawmakers realize this and therefore have age limits upon when you are considered an adult: namely when you are competent enough and have enough knowledge about the world to make your own decisions. Therefore, when two homosexual men marry, they still should be within the law.

ARGUMENT 2: Well what's to stop me from marrying a mop? An emu?

Nothing, if you can find someone who will do it for you. Unfortunately, in order for it to be legally binding, again, there has to be consent and the other entity has be competent enough to make an informed decision. In the case of the mop, there is no such thing as competence in its world, for it requires at least a brain to be incompetent. As for the emu, maybe you can get some form of consent, but even then its competence level will be no more than that of a one-year-old. Not even that. Therefore, the rules of consent and competence have not been met in either of these instances. Thus, on these grounds, you have no case.

As you may have noticed, I really have not made any arguments for or against gay marriage per se. My major beef against each side is not in the content of their beliefs but in their weaponry. You do not use a sword in a boxing match; you should not use poor reasoning in debate.

The Ideological War Room

2012-11-29T00:22:00.003-06:00

Recently, Pat Roberson called Atheists a bunch of Grinches trying to steal Christmas from poor the poor little Whos in Whoville. They had waged, he said, an all out WAR ON CHRISTMAS.

Now, don't get me wrong. I get it. I truly get it. In politics you've got to come up with a snazzy name for your opponents' political positions. Something that solidifies what they stand for and at the same time makes them look like complete jackasses. Not to mention, it makes for good television. So, you call a difference in ideology a War on Women, War on Christmas, War on Religion, War on Cute Little Puppies. War, war, war, war, war. I get it, but we as adults talking to each other in the real world -- where there are no cameras, bright lights, or Hollywood sets -- should be able to converse about these issues without all of the hullabaloo, and, in the process, come up with a more comprehensive and rich understanding of our differences on these issues. Then, and only then, can we come to a reasonable compromise.

Therefore, being a bit of a chameleon when it comes to political viewpoints, let me interpret for you what the other side is saying when they call what you are engaging in a "War". This week, I examine the pervasive War on Religion which sometimes comes in its more seasonal form, the War on Christmas.

War on Religion / Christmas

Coined by Bill O'Reilly this metaphorical war takes place every time around Christmas when someone puts up a manger or a biblical scripture in some public area, like, for instance, the state capitol building. Inevitably, the ACLU comes running in, arms flailing in the air asking for Jesus to go to the back where no one can see him. Their argument is usually that no one should be allowed to post all these religious signs on state buildings because it somehow intimidates people, which is odd, since baby Jesus seems innocent enough.

Skeptics have to realize, when you're a Christian, things like Jesus and Jesus's birth aren't minor things. For you to ask people to idly cast aside the person they worship and the creator of the whole known universe as if he were a bald-headed stepchild is asking a bit much. I mean imagine if every time friends came over, you were asked to hide your dad, mom, wife, husband, or child in the back where no one could seem him or her? It wouldn't sit too well with you. Well, you're asking Christians to cast aside a big part of their identity when tell them their savior must be expelled from public view. A bit insulting, don't you think?

On the other hand, there is a separation of church and state, but more specifically, the Constitution says that government shall not make a law respecting an establishment of religion. What this means differs from person to person. Some have gone as far to say that it only refers to the federal government, therefore, state governments could, in theory, start a theocracy. Some note the the words "separation of Church and state" are written nowhere in the constitution. Justice Potter Stewart, the lone dissenter in the case of Engel v. Vitale (a case that decided that decided for the separation of church state), cited that the court plased too much emphasis on a phrase that was written nowhere in the constitution. Rather, it was quoted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson written in 1802.[1] So, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, there is at least some wriggle room for either opinion.

What puts the matter to rest to me is this. My personal opinion is that Jesus being put up in a public display can be interpreted any way you want it to be interpreted. It could be the historical figure of Jesus, the mythological, or the Jesus of religion. As I noted before, if one truly doesn't believe in Jesus, why would one be intimidated by this fictional character being in public display. The true test comes, however, when the shoe is on the other foot. Would the same Christians who allow a baby Jesus to be in public display object to a Mosque being built at Ground Zero? Many have been inconsistent in this matter and therefore do not have the high ground when the roles are reversed. Therefore, I would be inclined to disallow a baby Jesus in public. If you will not allow a mosque to be built in a private area why should we allow the Messiah to be displayed in public? There's no easy answer to these questions, but my answer is that we each learn to lighten up and let everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs be displayed for everyone to see without harm of ridicule.

[1] U.S. Constitution for Dummies by Michael Arnheim pp. 198

The Terrible Two

2012-11-28T00:30:00.002-06:00

The human race is by-in-large consisted of woosies. At least here in America, because we consider it impolite to talk about religion or politics at the dinner table, when, on the other hand, Snookie's new hairdo is fair game. And I understand; you don't want to get into overly deep discussions among a mixed crowd of possible Muslims, Atheists, and Evangelists, but this avoidance of confrontation has become an epidemic of cowardice. We go into the world unable or unwilling to deal with real, substantive issues. We become politically complacent and spiritually shallow.

Nothing or the Only Thing

Why the fear of religion? While personal preferences vary in their potency, when you look at religious tenants they are all described as a way of life. In some instances, a life or death situation. What religion worth its salt does not tell you that it must take control of the entirety of your life?

On the other hand, if you believe religion is nothing more than an evolutionary adaptation developed to cope with the stark realization that our time on this earth is limited, what's the big deal? After all, the office Evangelists are only talking about fairy tales and myths, condemning your non-existent soul to a non-existent hell if you don't turn to a non-existent God so you can go to a non-existent heaven. Oh, that's so offensive! They're trying to get me into Candyland!

On the other other hand, if you get offended when other people talk about their religious views because they don't jive with yours, what kind of a pussy are you? Is it because you believe Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs are your saviors, and if you ever put your belief to a litmus test you're afraid it would fail miserably? Is it because you don't really believe in the BS you've been shoveling? Or are you scared of questioning God? Noah? Moses? Ever heard of these guys? Both of them not only questioned God but did it on a regular basis. Don't you wanna be Moses-Like? Don't you want to be Noah-Like? //You know? MINUS the drunkenness//

But the same thing goes with politics. Maybe it'll irk a few people, expressing your viewpoints, but start a few fistfights I say. Ruffle a few feathers. If they can't handle putting their views to the fire, maybe they're views weren't that great to begin with.

Just my two cents.

Egalitarianism: Breaking the Curse

2012-11-26T23:37:00.001-06:00

Economic egalitarianism is the belief that because we can't control what much of we become in life, and, therefore, we should not punish those who end up on the lower rungs of society. We should work toward equal opportunity by setting up balances and counterbalances to offset the effect our random placements in society has on our eventual ascension of the ladder of success.

The conservative obviously says, "But I got to where I was because of hard work -- " but that was taught to you by your parents, DNA, and other factors in your environment.

"It's because I'm smart -- " But much of that was taught.

"Perseverance, ingenuity, hardiness, clean living -- " taught, taught, taught, taught. And here's a preemptive "taught". Just know, I have a whole bag of "taughts" with your name on it.

The Conservative Argument

The concept of learning our traits rather than attaining them through osmosis is already prevalent in conservative thought. It is Newt Gigrich, the conservatiest of conservatives, who said that poor kids should work as janitors in order to learn the value of hard work. It is conservatives who think that things like food stamps and unemployment benefits are detrimental to the non-working, because it teaches them dependency. Even old KJV, which is supposed to literally be the Bible of the conservative movement, is filled with generational curses. Ishmael and Isaac, David and Bathseba, all of mankind were and have been cursed for generations through no fault of their own.

No biblical story is more demonstrative of the misconception between the egalitarian and the meritocratic than, John 9:1-3, the story of the man who had been born blind. The disciples were brought up to believe that any harm that befalls us in life is the fault of our parents or ourselves, so when confronted with a blind man they thought, "Well, of course it's his own fault."

"Who sinned," they asked Jesus "'this man or his parents, that he was born blind?'"

I'm sure Jesus gave them his patented what-you-smokin' look before he responded, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him.'"

Or what about John 19:10-11 when Pilate was having a hissyfit because Jesus wasn't talking to him? //Poor Pilate//. Pilate finally tried to intimidate Jesus by mentioning that he had the power to crucify him or set him free. Jesus basically responded, "Fool, you ain't squat." Or as the scripture goes, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

These biblical stories and conservative ideas seem to go against the idea that any deficiencies we may have in life are the result of our own shortcomings or even our parents'. So why should we structure our government in such a way that ignores all of these varying mechanisms which conservative doctrine tells us is not of our own doing?

The Philosophical Argument: The Veil of Ignorance

In ABC's hit show Once Upon a Time the characters have entered into
a "Veil of Ignorance" of sorts, forgetting their past identities

Leading up to the Presidential election, 61 percent of small business owners polled said they would be voting for Mitt Romney while a large percentage of the poor voted for Barack Obama. As Bill O'Reilly clumsily suggested, lots of these people may have been voting for Barack Obama because they believed he had their best interest at hand. Rarely do we see people voting and making decisions about the country because it's what's best. Often we see people voting out of self-preservation.

How do you compensate for this factor? Well, you enter into a realm known as the "veil of ignorance". The veil of ignorance is a philosophical term to describe a hypothetical state where we as inhabitants of the earth do not know our identities. All of us have awaken from some weird slumber with some form of amnesia. Poor people don't know they'll be poor. Rich people don't know they're rich. Minorities don't know they're minorities and so forth.

In this veil of ignorance, philosophers theorize that if we were going to come up with a way for a government to be run, this would be the fairest way to come up with it. Not knowing your lot in life, you won't implement a caste system where you could get saddled with the curse of remaining poor your whole existence. Well, what about a meritocracy where people succeed based upon who does the best? Well, even then, you'll realize the richest among us are more likely to have access to things like the best schools, the best colleges, the best connections, and the best opportunities overall. Therefore, you would want to implement policies to level the playing field a little bit. At the same time, you don't want a communist system where everyone gets the same thing. Thus, you want a freedom to move from one economic level to another. This is what egalitarianism advocates.

The Scientific Argument

Study after scientific study will tell you that traits from intelligence to "clean living" are a function of genetics as well as environment. I could randomly pick out any study among the millions to demonstrate this, but the book, The Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell, does a wonderful job of demonstrating how opportunity and environment rather than just "being the best" accounts for much of our successes in society.

In this book Gladwell tells the story of Jewish immigrants coming to America for the first time. Lots of them got into law, but at that time they couldn't get much work. They ended up getting the crap jobs that no one else wanted to do -- like proxy fights -- the less profitable jobs. But what happened? In the 1970's and 1980's the areas of law that the Jewish immigrants had been forced to gravitate to suddenly became profitable. Therefore, through no fault of their own, they stumbled upon a successful field of work.

Millions of dollars to play a
kid's game. Where's the justice?

What we have here is random chance deciding who would be successful in life. This immigrants didn't know that an industrial revolution was looming. They only were trying to make the best living they could and it by pure chance paid off. The same thing goes when it comes to basketball players. If you were a basketball player in the 50's you made nothing. Today it's enough to feed a small nation.

This is seen in modern-day inequality of pay. Yes, women make 77 cents to every dollar that men make, but a great part of that is because the occupations that women get into (teaching, nursing, psychology) tend to pay less than the occupations men get into (construction, computer programming, engineering). Society has decided, for one reason on another, that the latter set of occupations is more important than the former.

Why should we, therefore, punish people for happening to have a set of skills that just so happen to be in demand at this time. It was through no foresight of their own that they gravitated to these skills. Indeed, many feminists believe the fact that little girls are encouraged to play with dolls, rather than building blocks, causes them to gravitate to occupations that require more care-giving abilities.

Everything that causes you to take credit for your victories is a trait that you learned. Why is that parents who are rich have kids that become rich? Why is that parents who are poor have children who become poor? If environment does not dictate any of these things, then why suggest, for instance, that we should cut back on unemployment benefits because all unemployment does is discourage people from looking for a job. If environment doesn't count. they would act the same no matter what policy we employed.

Therefore, it is in light of all of these facts that I believe we should employ social programs such as affirmative action and progressive taxation in order to combat all of these accidents of birth, for not only is it scientifically sound, but it's what Jesus would do.

The Real Thanksgiving

2012-11-22T19:53:00.001-06:00

I'm not very familiar with the real story of Thanksgiving. But I am familiar with human beings' tendency to romanticize holidays and pretty much all historical events into something more G-rated and marketable. So, not particularly sure that Thanksgiving was full of crap, I took a shot in the dark that it was and came up with this blog post. After all, Easter doesn't have squat to do with hiding eggs in the back yard, Christmas trees and some fat guy in a red suit are a rather quizzical addition to the birth of Christ, and no one even knows what St. Patrick's day is about anyway; it's just an excuse to get drunk. So, what are the chances that Thanksgiving has nothing to do with Indians and Pilgrims getting together and breaking bread? I didn't know how right I was.

There are varying stories as to what the original thanksgiving was but none is more interesting than the story of the Pequots.

It turns out that in 1637, a bunch of Natives (the Pequots) were approaching their annual Green Corn Festival (our modern day Thanksgiving). On this blessed day, early that morning, some English and Dutch mercenaries awoke the sleeping Indians from their slumber and asked them to come out. They had something they wanted to show them. What did they want to show them? Apparently their guns, because "those who came out were shot or clubbed to death while the terrified women and children who huddled inside the longhouse were burned alive."

And to commemorate this horrendous loss of lives the governor of the Massachusetts Bay declared a "Day of Thanksgiving" for all the people they killed. Goldmine. Right? But save your applause until the end. For after a second raid against the Pequots by some mercenaries from Stamford, a SECOND day of celebration was declared. How did they celebrate? Turkey? Fireworks? Ten gun salute? No, they played soccer with the severed heads of slain Native Americans. //Way to keep it classy, Connecticut!//

Look, I'm not here to take a whiz all over somebody's Thanksgiving Day parade. I am here to enlighten those who may not know the truth, which is -- ok -- in essence taking a whiz all over people's Thanksgiving Day parade.

But look, at least you can stop wondering why every time you wish that Native American guy "Happy Thanksgiving" he gives you the bird //and I ain't talking turkey//. But who are we kidding? Since we so wisely killed off all the Natives in order to decrease the likelihood of socially awkward situations such as these, the chances that any of us have a Native American friend is slim to none anyway.

Questionable Sources

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3R0P5RQGc
http://www.manataka.org/page269.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greener/the-true-story-of-thanksg_b_788436.html

Dynamic Diversity

2012-11-21T10:00:00.000-06:00

A few years ago when I was trying to get scholarship money to pay for school (well for school and to support my benadril addiction) I came across this appealing essay contest. The premise of the contest was merely to state what diversity meant to ME. So, I sat there and tried to envision what diversity meant to me. And, for the first two minutes, my mind wandered away to a land of rainbows and puppies and tax-free living. But then it slowly began to dawn on me what diversity meant to me, and my conclusion was that it didn't mean SQUAT.

Don't change the channel just yet; let me explain. If we take a bunch of volatile elements and randomly toss them into a bucket, one of two things will likely happen. (A) It'll blow up in our faces. (B) Nothing. Only through some brilliant stroke of dumb luck will we produce a cure to cancer, or an eco-friendly alternative to gasoline, or a new type of alcohol that gives you a buzz without shrivelling your liver.

That's what we do when we encourage diversity in our workplaces, our schools, and t.v. sitcoms(that token black girl was fun to see on Friends, but she wasn't very funny). We just put a bunch of hispanics, whites, and blacks in the same room and expect to come up with a solution to all the racial problems inflicting this nation. The problem with doing it this way is that once these people are placed with one another, there's no guarantee that they learn from each other or even ASSOCIATE with one another.

Diversity is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It's a mere hammer which can be used to build a house or bash somebody's brains in. There are those who take initiative and make an honest effort to learn about other cultures and, in the process, grow by assimilating another race's philosophies into their OWN way of thinking. THAT'S dynamic diversity. And on the other end there are those who only gravitate toward those of familiar skin and hair texture. Stuck in their ways. Cursing the outsiders. THAT'S mere diversity. Let's learn the difference.

Walking the Food Court (Classic Post)

2012-11-20T08:47:00.000-06:00

I remember a while back I was walking through the food court of the mall. All of the places had a good mix of people--Taco Bell, Subway, McDonald's. And then I got to a Popeye's Chicken and it had NOTHING BUT black people and A BUNCH OF THEM at that. I was a real life witness to a bunch of black people sitting around eating chicken!

I didn't know what to say. I mean, it's not like they were doing anything wrong. It just... looked bad. I guess what I was feeling is best expressed by Ron Simmons...

Personally, I like chicken in the edible sense of the word, but I definitely don't love it. What I LOVE is orange juice. And as far as fast food goes, I'd rather have pizza or a burger before chicken. The only reason I do eat chicken is for variety.

Watermelon is the worst fruit in the world in my humble opinion second only to coconut. Spitting out all those seeds---that's too much work. Just like crayfish, pealing all that skin off. If anything, when it comes to food, I guess I have the black man's stereotypical laziness.

David Chappell says that blacks prefer grape drink over grape juice-- that juice is nowhere in our vocabulary. Kool-Aid and drink: that's all we're supposedly concerned about. But MY refrigerator is FILLED with juice. One hundred percent JUICE (says the label, but if you look a little closer, you'll see it's from concentrate. So maybe it IS closer to Kool-Aid).

But probably the reason why I don't like these things that much is because they're guilty by association. These foods have negative baggage attached. Every time I take a bit out of a drumstick, I can't help but hear David Chappell's hypothetical white guy watching in the background and saying to his wife, "Look at him honey. He LOVES the stuff." So maybe my socio-allergic reaction is psychosomatic. That's a personal issue though. I'm not suggesting you stop eating these foods in some misdirected boycott of sorts. I'm just saying this to highlight behavior even MORE stupid than mine.

Think about it.

What happens if a black person offers you chicken and you decline? What will they say?--- "You're not black!" (as if declining chicken and Kool-Aid were some kind of denial of your heritage). You see, they've set up all these invisible rules of what "being black" requires. You have to talk a certain way. Walk a certain way. Act a certain way. Dress a certain way. Think a certain way. Vote a certain way. A black man can be praised as a god for being lascivious and condemned as a traitor for wearing a cowboy hat.

Bottom line is that blacks who engage in belittling people for breaking away from stereotypes need to do a little self-examination. What would THEY do if a white person came up to them claiming that chicken-eating was a requirement for blackness? Would they say, "hey, you're right, boss!" and start tap dancing? Or be offended?

What's a Fiscal Cliff?

2012-11-19T08:18:00.000-06:00

I know what you're thinking. Why doesn't he just buy some food with all that money he spends on ACME products instead of chasing after that skinny ass bird? Well, according to some, with the fiscal cliff looming Wile E. Coyote won't have any choice to hunt for his food because he won't able to afford anything.

So what's the fiscal cliff? In a word, nothing. Zilch. Zero. Bupkiss.

But "cliff" you say, "I would think that's a bad thing." Yes, but politician, you see, peddle in fear. Therefore, it's not a fundamental difference of opinion on reproductive rights. It's a WAR ON WOMEN. It's never a disagreement on whether to skip the nativity scene in front of the capitol. It's WAR ON CHRISTMAS. But while people are going around picking wars with all these groups of people and pagan holidays, half of the people are standing around arguing about the fiscal cliff while the other half is scratching their heads wondering what it is.

"Fiscal cliff" is nothing more than a marketing ploy like putting girls with big breasts in your commercials. Nothing to do with the actuality of the situation and more to do with creating rampant fear. So, let's put on our spectacles and oxford shoes to dive into what the fiscal cliff is. Well, it is in fact nothing. It's what happens if we decide to do nothing when the Bush Tax Cuts along with many other programs expire in January 2013. Spending would go down by a whopping 630 billion they say while taxes will go up on everyone. The only problem with this is that we're still in a time of economic uncertainty, and the CBO estimates that with the economy slowly recovering, raising taxes and pulling the rug from under all of the entitlement programs at this point would have a great detriment to this society. However, interestingly enough, the CBO estimates that raises taxes on the rich will, in fact, do little or no undue damage to the economy.

Grover Norquist, American Lobbyist and Owner of Souls

This means that Democrats would seem to have all the leverage and Republicans are put in a precarious position after signing their souls to the devil in a deal with Grover Norquist. It's one of those awkward situations where you have the working and middle class over for dinner only to have the devil incarnate show up to remind you that you signed your soul away to him. Sure, you want to lower taxes for middle to lower income individuals, but you also don't want to piss off your fiscal overlord by allowing his rich buddies' taxes to go up. How's a sniveling sack of human feces to decide?

A simple table illustrates the dilemma presented for conservatives by showing what they believe versus what liberals and the CBO believes.

*CBO says increasing taxes on the wealthy will have little or no harmful effect on the economy

So as you can see, the most economically-friendly model is that of the liberal democrats: raise taxes on the rich, keep spending high, and lower taxes on the poor and middle class. However, these are politicians and they are all beholden to their donors. Therefore, we shall see if this plays out the way it logically should or the way their donors want it to.

SOURCES:

What is The Fiscal Cliff? by Jonathan Masters
The Next Game of Economic Chicken: Not on the Deficit But Over Taxing the Rich by Robert Reich
NBC: Tax Hike on the Wealthy Won't Kill Growth CBO says
Huffington Post: Taxes on the Rich

Why Obama Is So Hated: The Elephant in the Room

2012-11-18T11:57:00.000-06:00

First, let me preface this by saying that I realize that there are a cast of reasons to dislike the current administration. We now hold a 26.5% stake in GM, the number of welfare recipients is at an all time high, unemployment has shown no signs of improvement, we're running trillion dollar deficits each year with no hope of a significant decline.

Now, all that being said, the votes have been tallied, Obama has been re-elected, we still have the highest level of discord in the history of this nation and I think this can mainly be attributed to one compelling reason:

It's Because He's Black.

Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking I'm just one of those chicken-little black people, who, every time something negative happens to a black person, is quick to say, "Oh, it's because he's BLACK!. I can't taxi cabs because I'm black!! I can't get dates because I'm black!!! If I'm with a white person in the woods, a grizzly bear sees us and goes straight for me, it can only be for one reason: it's because I'm black!!!"

But I realize the truth. I can't get cabs because it's Houston and not New York, and we have a crappy taxi service anyway. I can't get dates because I'm less apt to lie and therefore less adept at coming at women with load of crock and bull in order to win them over. As for the grizzly bear eating me, it's probably because I'm black. Everyone knows grizzlies love dark meat.

But in this instance, I think I have a solid case for race playing a significant contributing factor in the controversy surrounding our current president Barack Hussein Obama.

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

What Would You Do?

That's the name of a TV show. What would you do. What the show does is put people in different situations to see -- you guessed it -- what they would do. As you can further surmise, this seems like a good venue to test people on issues of race. Let's see how we did.

In the first experiment -- I guess this would be the control experiment -- a group of Caucasian teenagers are found vandalizing a car. Not only do dozens of people pass them up without saying a word. A couple of passersby even giggle at the sight. All told, one person put in a call to 911.

Now, at the same time on the other side of that same park, there were another group of teenagers vandalizing a car. All told, two people put in a call to 911. Not much difference until you realize. It wasn't a group of teenagers. It was two. And they weren't vandalizing the car. They were only sleeping in it.

So, two black teenagers sleeping in a car elicits more calls to 911 than a group of white teenagers actually vandalizing a car. Not only that, but the group of white teenagers elicits a call to 911 plus a chuckle: that's no more than a regular night with Charlie Sheen.

I wonder what will happen if we get a group of black teenagers to actually vandalize a car? When a group of black kids were found vandalizing the car, not only were there way more interventions and no polite chuckling, but ten calls were made to 911 as opposed to a paltry one.

You may wonder what this has to do with Obama? Well, everyone knows all politicians are criminals to some extent, but if you see a black person committing the crime, this study dictates that most would be more likely to set off the mental alarms. Hell, Obama could be chilling in the White House just minding his own business and it would set off twice as many alarms.

But this study isn't all that scientific. Certainly, it could have been the way the blacks were dressed, the way they behaved, that made the difference in whether or not 911 was called. Lets look at some other, more scientific, studies.

I'm Racist Against Blacks

I'm the biggest racist in the world. Did you know that? We'll maybe not the biggest, but according to this test that is supposed to test racial preference, I have a hard time associating positive feelings with black people.

I don't know if you heard the news, but I'M BLACK.

This test is known as the IAT which stands for the Implicit Association Test and anyone across the world can take it so long as they have an internet connection and live under a non-authoritarian regime. Good luck on the second one. The test basically tests how easy it is for you to associate positive feelings with a black person as opposed to a white person. As you can see, overwhelmingly people have shown a preference for white: 70% versus 12% for blacks.

How this translates to Obama is obvious. Think about a muscle in your brain that you have to work. When it comes to that muscle that thinks nice things about black people, most of us are pretty lacking. Therefore, when there is an attempt to associate positive things with a black person -- say -- a President, the mind is going to struggle. You can say all the positive things you want, but that does not change the fact that it is easier for you to associate negative things with this man than positive, and that is part of the reason why Obama has gotten such flack over these past four years.

But, of course, maybe the methodology of this test is lacking. Maybe since people are primed to go into it thinking that they are going to fail, then they end up failing. Let's look at another study.

A Slight of Hand

Imagine for a moment, that you're black and you open a business. You want to sell IPODs. So, what do you do? You hold up your IPOD in front of a camera, snap a picture, and post it online. Wala! You're J.D. Rockefeller.

Imagine for another moment, you're white. You do the exact same thing and hold up an IPOD, snap the picture, BAM! You're in.

Who do you think will get more customers? Well, a study was done to determine just this thing. It turns out, when customers saw a black hand holding the item 2 - 4% less people bought the IPOD. That sounds promising and slightly indicative of a post-racial society. Little to no racism here, but then we go into the remaining stats. When dealing with a black rather than a white seller, buyers were:

17% less likely to include their name in e-mails
44% less likely to accept delivery by mail
56% more likely to express concern about making a long-distance payment.

What does this mean in reference to Obama? Well, think about it. He got elected and re-elected overwhelmingly. So, people were perfectly willing to buy the IPOD. He had a tremendous approval rating going into his first term, so people gave him a chance, but what happened after that? Tremendous buyer's remorse: more mistrust, more complaints, more outright fear. Sound familiar?

Therefore, when you take into account all of these and a cast of other studies on race, you'll see that racism is not just a figment of black men's imaginations. It's a real and true entity and it even plays a role in politics.

THE STATISTICAL EVIDENCE

As soon as the election results started coming in, a bunch of racist tweets also started raining in. Let me quote a few of them so as to release all doubt as to whether they were racist. The names have been changed to protect the innocent -- well, stupid.

The first one is pretty straightforward:

And then there's:

I looked it up and I'm sure there's no such word as coinensadince, but maybe in places like Gutwater, Mississippi, that type of thing is acceptable. But here's my favorite.

That's awesome! Obama isn't even Arab! So, you managed to be both politically incorrect and factually incorrect at the same time!

Looking at the election map, the bulk of these tweets, coinensadintally, came from red states. States
that had not voted for Obama. (And states that probably spell coincidentally coinensadintally). This would lead one to believe that some were making their decisions based less upon facts and more upon race.

Now, Clarence the Conservative will say, "Well there were hateful tweets on the other side, too." I'm sure there were, but that can in no way diminish the fact that these tweets were racist.

Add to this there was also a study that examined which states were more likely to do a search containing the word "nigger", and they found that such searches were more prevalent in states that voted against Obama in '08. So, it would seem race is making a difference.

THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

Now, people will say that Obama is unique in that he has all of these socialist agendas and that is what people ultimately fear. Well, let's take a look at them shall we?

Obamacare

By all accounts, Romney's healthcare plan was eerily similar to Obamacare. There didn't seem to be rampant outcries in his state calling him a socialist. People didn't jump out of windows at the prospect of him being elected. Not to mention, the public mandate, the part of the bill that most everyone hates, was originally a Republican measure hatched by the heavily right-leaning Heritage Foundation. Why did no one run hiding then? Why didn't anyone yet out "socialist" then? And why haven't we been calling it socialism all these years when we've been forced to buy car insurance? I think you know the answer.

Welfare

Forget the fact that the idea that Obama has taken away the work requirement from welfare has been soundly rebutted by all the fact-checking organizations. It is a fact that welfare has escalated under Obama. However, the same can be said of the Bush Administration. Bush, at the time, set a record for the most welfare recipients under his watch. The fact that no one yelled "socialist" at the time seems odd, if we're trying to be even here. Why not then?

Executive Orders

The classic defintion of an executive order is when the president says "SCREW YOU CONGRESS! I'M DOING THIS $#% ON MY OWN!" Yes. In all caps. When the President declares an executive order, for those few seconds in time he becomes an internet troll. Now, if Obama is such a dictator, as some people would have us believe, he obviously would be rolling out executive orders at an unprecedented pace.

Well, if unprecedented means issued the least amount of executive orders in the history of the United States, well, yes. If unprecedented means issued the most amount of executive orders in the history of the United States, I can help you get your head out of your ass, but it's a process that requires a crowbar and eighty dollars.

As of September 30th, Obama's grand total stands at 138. That's almost 30 less than that communist dictator George H.W. Bush. Now, I know it's just his first term, but according to Snopes, he's on pace to pass NO ONE.

Czars

When I think "Czar" I think "funny hat". "Funny hat" always comes to mind. But there's nothing funny about Czars. Is there? Well, it is funny how when one administration has a substantial number of Czars and the following administration has a smaller number of Czars, the one that has the smaller number gets called a communist for having so many Czars (most of which weren't even appointed by him). Plus, NONE of these czars even got a funny hat. *frownie face*

But they did get funny names: Manufacturing Czar, Faith-Based Czar, The Diversity Czar, Sneezy Czar, Grumpy Czar, Dopey Czar...

REBUTTAL EVIDENCE

Now, there are several rebuttals that I have to address in this issue.

But Blacks Are Prejudice Too

Yes, they are. Lots of times more so than whites. Their identity has been so intertwined with whites for much of history it's easy for them to get into this victimized mindset and take it out on random white people. But there's two factors you have to take into account.

1. There are more white people in the nation.

Though their power is slipping in America, there are boatload more white people in this country right now. It stands at 72%, so when you have a significant portion of whites voting on the basis of race and significant portion of blacks voting on the basis of race, the aggregate effect will swing more heavily in the favor of whites.

2. Subconscious Bias toward blacks is, more often than not, negative

The bias toward blacks is usually going to be negative, especially so when it comes to the presidency. Blacks are more likely to be seen as radical, violent, angry, immoral, stupid. These biases do not as easily stick when it comes to their white counterparts. The only positive bias a black might get is that he is "cool".

But Some Whites Vote For Obama Because He's Black

This is almost definitely the case also, but this in no way "cancels out" the level of vitriol directed toward this president. Either the vitriol is there at a higher level or it's not there. Positive biases toward him do not diminish the fact that there are those that will hate him no matter what.

DISCLAIMERS

Now, if you're white, black, Asian, Sulu or whatever, don't take this to mean that you're racist. That's the last thing that all these studies show. They just show that on the aggregate most people have a tough time associating positive feelings with blacks and minorities in general, therefore, that will have some subconscious consequences.

Furthermore, this post is not necessarily meant to infer racism on the part of any of the parties mentioned. Racism, to me, is more of a conscious and hateful discriminatory act toward someone on the basis of their skin color. When I talk about this issue, however, I tend to talk about racial biases which are more subconscious in nature. All of us, from black to white, have them hidden within us, and all of our opinions are thus affected by them.

CONCLUSION
Now all this hullabaloo is really just to rebut the common argument that Obama is somehow purposely causing all of this divisiveness in our country. You'll notice the Gallup poll used to point out Obama's polarizing effect, lists George W. Bush as one of the most polarizing presidents in history also -- more polarizing in many instances. Though, I have less evidence for it, I think that was because of Bush's hyper-religiosity. You throw in the media and their penchant for sensationalization and we have to perfect recipe for fear and discord.

So all I'm saying is don't blame the presidents when we fuss and argue. Be a big boy and blame yourself.

Sources:
The Visible Hand Study: Race and Online Market Outcomes

The Implicit Association Test

Racism Cost Obama 3 - 5 percent of 2008 vote

Racist Teens Forced to Answer Questions About The Nigger President

Gallup Poll: Obama Ratings Historically Polarized

Why Liberals Get Away With So Much... STUFF

2012-11-17T09:37:00.000-06:00

Often it's said that liberals get a free pass when they make improper statements about minorities whereas conservatives are burned at the stake and made to sacrifice their first born. Most recently, Tricia Macke, a Fox News anchor, was sacrificed at the altar of political correctness for saying of MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that she was "an angry young man."

Macke was suspended two days and has been soundly lambasted in the liberal media.

On the liberal side of the coin, however, there was Bill Maher warning people who were planning on voting for Mitt Romney that "black people know who you are and they will find you." Or what about Old Crazy Jo Biden saying of Republicans with that awful Southern cadence, "They're gonna put ya'll back in chains!"

So, what gives? What's the secret? Why do minorities give liberals a pass and conservatives the bird? It's very simple really: Minorities just know them better.

You see, if you know the bulk of Bill Maher's work, you'll conclude that when he said what he said about black people, he didn't mean that black people are naturally violent and will kill anyone who tries to vote Romney. No, he meant that there are a lot of racist people who are stupid enough to believe that all black people are naturally violent and will kill anyone who tries to vote for Romney. Whereas, if Rush Limbaugh says something like "Watch out! Black people are going to kill you!" Minorities conclude from their passing knowledge of him that he means, "Watch out! Black people are going to kill you!"

So, for better or worse, your body of work informs people of what you mean when you say a certain thing. Furthermore, the type of company you keep informs people of what's going on in the back of your mind. When you take the SAT, you have to utilize these things known as "context clues". That's when you don't know the meaning of a word, so you look at the words around that word in order to garner the context in which it is being used and hence the meaning. Now, I don't know Tricia Macke, but when the "words" around her (i.e. Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, Bill O'Reilly) are saying things like -- oh, I don't know --

-- that gives us a clue that maybe she isn't very good with minorities either. Therefore, Tricia Macke calling Rachel Maddow "an angry young man" tends to come off as "I don't like lesbians."

You see, if you're a democrat, you've got the cool card. You're the party of the hip. The party of the young. The party of black people. The party of gay people. The party of Hispanics. And if you show up at the door to the club, you know enough people that you just might be able to skip the line and get in without a cover charge. You can show up to their houses uninvited, call them ugly names and make jokes about their wives' cooking.

Republicans just don't have that level of a trust when it comes to minorities. It's like you're dealing with strangers. And you don't just bust into a stranger's house the first day and go:

No, you have to build and cultivate a relationship with that person, and then slowly but surely you build up to making obscene jokes about having inappropriate liaisons with their wives.

So, when you get suspended, fired, or ostracized from society because you tried to make a joke that didn't turn out too well, it's not that you're a vehement racist. You're just not on the guest list.

The View from The Bubble

2012-11-16T07:50:00.001-06:00

When you live in a bubble, there are certain side-effects that go along with it. For one, you become very good at games, like Trivial Pursuit. For two, you become very used to getting your way. For three, when things don't go your way, you snap.

Karl Rove was the very first victim of the bubble. Indeed many right-leaning Republicans fell victim to having their precious bubble shattered. In the days following the election it was something like seeing someone go through a twelve-step program. While some have grown up and graduated others have gone mentally insane.

Unskewedpolls.com and Rassmussen

I remember the day clearly. Of the twenty some-odd polls saying that Obama was winning, there were maybe two or three saying he was losing. On the conservative website, Independent Journal, everyone commented on how skewed other polls were and that Rasmussen and unskewedpolls.com -- a poll I had never heard before in my LIFE -- were the more well-informed polls.

Oops! My polling methods SUCK!

I then went on to shyly rejoinder, "Well, given the fact the in 2010 Rasmussen was found to be as accurate as a five year old trying to take a piss with the seat down, isn't it

reasonable of me to doubt their polls and lend more credence to more accurate ones instead? Because the Rasmussen model, it seems, was biased -- intentionally or unintentionally -- toward Republicans. You see, when they make these random calls to people asking whether they'll vote for the socialist or the walking silver spoon, if there was no answer, they would never call back. As you can imagine, this would tend to under-sample young people as they're more likely to be out getting drunk, doing weed, and asking for excess handouts to answer the phone. Whereas when lonely, older people get a call, they run -- well, fast as an 82 year old man with a walker can run -- to get the phone because maybe it's their niece Daisy Lew, who hasn't called in 18 weeks."

This -- to me -- seemed reasonable, but I was shocked to find not only was Obama not winning by two points, but he was trailing by 10 according to some strange unheard of poll. Unskewpolls.com is the story of man who was tired of polls saying exactly what percentage of people were voting for a person, so he came up with his own poll -- a more "factual" poll -- that only incidentally happened to favor Republicans. But it turns out when you construct a poll specifically to make yourself feel better, it ends up being full of crap.

Unskewedpolls.com no longer exists.

700,000 "Patriotic" Americans -- wanting to be non-Americans -- and Counting

The Legend of the Bubble Boy goes that George Castanza was getting his ass kicked in a game of Trivial Pursuit by a man in a bubble. And, with the game in the balance, a question was asked: Who invaded Spain in the 8th century? The answers, of course, was "The Moors" which is the answer Bubble Boy gave. Unfortunately, the there was a typo on the card. The answer instead read "The Moops." When George refused to grant the point to his opponent for the reason, Bubble Boy went crazy, nearly strangling him to death. The frantic fight did not expire until Bubble Boy's bubble was finally popped.

Unlike our friend from unskewedpolls.com there are many people who are still in the bubble. They either cannot accept defeat or are just sore losers, but numerous people from numerous states are now trying to secede from the United States of America. They all give some BS reason, but we all know it's because you're pissed because the black guy got re-elected. Forget the idea that signing a petition is not the proper way to secede from the nation. Forget the idea that less than 30,000 people in a state cannot determine the fate of millions of others. What the hell are you going to do, Arizona, when Mexico comes knocking for a cup of sugar? Only that cup of sugar is an ass-kicking and instead of taking it, they're giving it to you. Oh, but I'm sure they'll understand when Secretary of State Ampero tries to bargain with them. All that locking-up-perfectly-legal-Hispanic-people-for-no-damned-reason stuff? It was just a misunderstanding.

The revitalized Confederacy will fall into turmoil and refugees will seek refuge in the United States of A. Oh, but what's this? You can't get in, because we just put up that fence you always wanted. Sorry.

A Grief Observed

Republicans have before our very eyes gone through several stages of grief. First there is denial which comes in the form of -- say -- people denying things like -- for instance -- math, on national television. And though I admit it was a pleasure seeing Megyn Kelly's legs as she walked backstage to confront the experts who had called Ohio for Obama, the whole thing struck me as a bit much. These experts were brought out onto the Fox News set at the behest of Karl Rove in some desperate attempt to get them to deny math with him.

His denial of Ohio being called for Obama was so unsettling that I began to wonder if someone was going to have to call the loony bin. That men in white uniforms were going to descend upon him and take him away on national television. Unfortunately, that never transpired. But I'd go crazy too if I'd just realized I had just pissed way all my donors' money.

The next step in the bubble of delusion, however, is anger. That's why you see people coming up with all manner of conspiracy theories for how Obama managed to win the race. You see, apparently, aliens came down from outer space and zapped Republicans with this ray that made them incapable of voter-fraud and suppression, and at the same time they zapped Democrats with this ray that made them voter-fraud-and-suppression machines. Therefore, every possible instance of what can be interpreted as voter fraud in this country must be true and must have been in favor of President Obama. Forget the fact that he didn't even need Ohio or Florida to win. Forget the fact that there are currently half a million uncounted votes in Arizona that more likely than not favor democrats. These Republicans say, we know it's the mature thing to do to realize that our polls were full of crap, but we like having our heads up our behinds. I mean, winter's coming; it's getting cold. You don't want to wear a ski-mask or you'll instantly be pegged as a bank robber. How else am I going to keep my face warm?

It's very warm inside the bubble. But slowly, surely, Republicans came over to the stage known as bargaining. Think about Sean Hannity on his radio show saying that Republicans have to get rid of the "immigration issue" by allowing amnesty. Oh, it's not because it's the right thing to do or anything, but it's because it will get them more votes.

Then there's finally acceptance. So it was a bit of a breathe of fresh air when Newt Gingrich came out and said in reference to the election results, "I was wrong." No, you were full of crap. There's a distinct difference. Nevertheless, we'll settle for it, for those in the bubble do often stay in the bubble. So, it's a welcome change when those who are in the bubble step out to smell the roses. Because, let's be honest, it's very hard to hear logic and reason or even be understood when you're trapped inside a bubble.

A Tale of Two Obamas

2012-11-12T23:08:00.003-06:00

The campaign trail for Barack Obama, it seems, has been the mirror image of his Presidency. A presidency that started off with so much promise and hope for progressives four years ago, slowly got bogged down by reality as we watched as piece after piece of real, substantive legislation had been exchanged for more "practical" legislation -- and, coincidentally, more conservative legislation.

Now, conservatives are, oddly, enraged at his re-election. "We can't stand another four years of socialism!" they exclaim. Another four years? I shirk. Forget the fact that what he has done is far from socialism. Even the public mandate, his so-called socialist creme de la creme, was originally the brainchild of the right-leaning heritage foundation and is anything but socialism. It isn't even liberalism. First of all, any socialist worth his half his weight in food stamps will at the very least raise taxes on individuals making 250,000 or more. He would at least implement some type of government program to increase the amount public sector jobs. Obama has done neither of these. The problem with this is it gives conservatives fodder to say "See, that proves Keynesian economics don't work!"

But that's like me giving me giving you a car with out the spark plugs, the fan belt, or tires and you saying, "See! Cars don't work!" No, we as sane individuals know that cars work perfectly fine so long as all the pieces are there. Yes, we got the increased spending on social programs associated with Keynesian economics. What we did not get was the increases in public sector jobs. Instead we got a decrease. What we did not get was higher taxes on upper income individuals to help pay for all these government programs. Now, we have a jalopy of an economy and we're lucky it's moving along at all. Unfortunately, the reason that it is not working is because we have a mishmash of Keynesian and supply side. That's like asking Bloods and Crips to get together to throw a barbecue: it just won't work.

Therefore, this jobs bill and this deal on the budget is very important for progressives moving forward. People are saying we cannot afford another four years of Obama. No, we cannot afford another four years of the moderate Obama. One who cuts quizzical deals and gives away the queen in the first act: lack of derivatives legislation, extension of the Bush Tax Cuts, a conspicuously absent public option. And it's not just important for our economic policies; it's also important for our social policies. Because if it's four years from now and we're still treading 8.0 unemployment, this gives the radical right more liberty to say: "See, liberalism doesn't work!"

I would much rather liberals implement these policies only for them to fail than for them never to be implemented only for Republicans to blame liberalism for our shortcomings.

You see the jobs bill and the outcomes of the looming fiscal cliff will determine more than our economic futures. For if progressive measures are not taken, and our economy flounders, the public just might throw the baby out with the bathwater and all our social gains will be a distant second to the economic concerns of our electorate. In the face of a swelling unemployment rate and collapsing American dollar, they will say, "Maybe conservatism wasn't so bad after all," and their concerns about social justice and equality will become worthless trinkets in the glow of a suffering economy.

Will we get the reversal of his previous administration? Starting with disappointment and frustration -- as in the first debate -- and ending in hope and progress? Which Obama will show up during budget deals? Which Obama will show up when it comes time to sign the Job's Bill? The fate of the whole free world of progressive thought depends on it.

Job Creators: The New False Idol

2012-11-11T19:50:00.003-06:00

Exodus 20:3 says "Thou shalt not worship false idols." But with extraneous gods like Zeus and Ra, the sky god, going the way of the eight track, this commandment seems antiquated in today's world. Sure, we can't get through the day without bearing a little false witness, and everyone likes a good old-fashioned coveting now and again, but worshiping false idols is just soooo 900 B.C.E. Well, at least it was... then came the advent of lobbyists and big business. These two joined forces to come up with a complex form of legal bribery. Congressmen became beholden to businessmen. Businessmen became their bread and butter. So, being the lap dogs they are, these congressmen (mostly republicans) began to lavish praise upon the businessman. Yes, corporations and CEOs, they said, can do no wrong. Corporations are people. Corporations are our friends, and the businessmen that inhabit them are the greatest patriots of all...

This is the part of the story where Moses comes down and eighty-sixes the bums with a sawed off shot gun.

Corporations aren't our friends. They aren't patriots. Hell, they aren't even people. And the businessmen that inhabit them are the same.

They are streamlined, state-of-the-art money making machines specially designed to maximize profits, and nothing in that definition happens to include you. No matter what you call them -- the mega-rich, corporations, job creators -- they have demonstrated they do not have our best interest at hand.

Oh, sure, they have cool exteriors with their sunglasses and power suits, and passive faces hidden behind the latest version of IPHONE, but just mention Obama and these so-called patriots turn into petulant children ready to stab you in the back at the drop of a dime -- especially if it's their own dime.

Don't Raise Me (Taxes), Bro

While republicans were whining that the DNC platform wasn't "Christiany" enough, democrats at the DNC decided to have a little church. In reference to Mitt Romney's Kamen and Swiss bank accounts Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland quoted Matthew 6:21 saying that "[T]he scriptures teach us that where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." He furthermore noted that, "any man who aspires to be our president should keep both his treasure and his heart in the United States of America..."

Let's be honest. CEOs give two squats about America. It's number nineteen on their to-do list somewhere between Tai-Chi and screwing over their grandmothers. Numbers one through ten? moneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoneymoney.

Businessmen don't give a damn about America. They outsource our jobs overseas. They outsource their money overseas. And some have even started to outsource themselves overseas.

That's right. Our patriotic "job creators" recently started whining about the prospect of having to pay 4% more in taxes and to show their solidarity with the U.S. of A, they denounced their citizenships because, you know, there's nothing that says "I love America" more than denouncing the fact that you're American. Like spoiled little brats, they can't get their way, so they're taking their balls and going home -- or in this case, China.

ObamaSCARE Tactics

Imagine you're at work and your boss calls you and other employees into a big room. You and your coworkers are giggling like schoolgirls in antsy anticipation of the surprise he says he has planned for you. Your boss stands before you on a stage behind a podium and speaks thoughtfully into a microphone. He reads a prayer.... (ain't that sweet)....

...and then he FIRES you.

This happened. Not in a galaxy far, far away, but in Utah -- which... is kind of like a galaxy far, far away. CEO, Robert Murray, fearing an Obama war on coal (who the hell picks a fight with coal?) laid off 54 employees. I imagine they were sitting in chairs and he just pressed a red button, like Doctor Evil in Austin Powers, laughing maniacally as a hole opened in the ground sending all 54 unsuspecting souls to their untimely, fiery graves.

Even before Obama was re-elected, we were hearing stories of business owners all but threatening to fire their employees if they voted for the incumbent. Childishly, petulantly, and -- perfectly legally mind you -- employers were found sending letters to their subordinates basically saying "Hey -- no pressure or anything -- but November 6th, if you vote for the black guy, don't come to work the next day."

Let me tell you, I worked at a place once that was going through trying times. The economic recession of 2008 hit. Jobs were even more scarce back then. The managers gathered us all in a room and you know what they said? "Not one of you are leaving. All of us managers are taking pay freezes." Because they value and know the value of the American worker. These managers knew we were not mere toys to be tossed aside and disassembled in some childish temper tantrum when millionaires don't get their way. They knew we were people -- with families and futures and hopes and dreams -- and not ticks on a stock tape.

To summarize -- and I know this is a foreign concept to many of you CEOs out there but -- they cared.

What Bootstraps?

Call me crazy, but I thought republicans were the party of personal responsibility. I thought Republicans were the party that thought if you just try hard, work hard, and pull yourself up from your bootstraps you can accomplish ANYTHING. If you fail at life, it's YOUR FAULT.

So, why, if a private business fails in the face of excess regulations is it suddenly the government's fault that they are failing. I thought the "job creators" were smart enough to strive despite pesky little things like regulations. If you truly are the visionary geniuses you maintain that you are, you will rise above all obstacles.

Oh, I'm sorry, you were just talking about poor people. It couldn't be that you don't know how to run a business. It couldn't be that you just have a stupid idea. It couldn't possibly be that you don't know what the hell you're doing. You failed in life because Obama told you you had to install a handicap ramp.

Now, no doubt job creators will think I'm "picking on" them. Forget the cosmic irony of a lowly-blogger picking on a multimillionaire who probably has legions of men and women at his beckon call (to have anything at your "beckon call" kind of makes you a big deal). My disgust for lionized idols is not confined to the movers and shakers of Wall Street. I despise Romanticism of all modes: the hapless blue collar worker, the noble veteran, and visionary presidential warrior paving a way for a new tomorrow. It's all bullshit.

My problem, therefore, is not with CEOs per se. There are good CEOs. There are bad CEOs. My problem is conservatives giving them a benefit of the doubt by virtue of the fact that they are CEOs. When employers threatened Obama-voters with firings, conservatives snickered. When they started moving from the country to protect their precious money, conservatives "understood". When they whined about mean old Obama stifling their growth with unfair regulations, conservatives coddled them like a little baby and said "Here, here. Don't worry. I'll make the bad man go away."

Idolatry occurs when you make something, other than God, superior by default. By default, God is better than me at being good, doing math, and cooking Chinese food. None of those things can be said about CEOs and corporations... well except maybe the last two.

The New Republicans: The Revision of a Failed Strategy

2012-11-10T18:06:00.002-06:00

Legend has it that decades ago in the late 1960's Republicans, under the watchful eye of Barry Goldwater, would develop what would come to be known as the "Southern Strategy". Under the guise of "state's rights" Republicans would subversively garner the support of traditional southerners who disagreed with inconvenient little things like allowing blacks the right to vote. This strategy has since evolved and expanded to include (or exclude) women, Latinos, and gays in its dastardly plot: denying women easy access to contraception, being antagonistic toward amnesty for illegal immigrants, and not allowing gays the right to marry.

Now, it's 2012 and Republicans got a thrashing in the general election. As demonstrated in a recent Buzzfeed article, in the1960's, their strategy of only going for the white male vote and ignoring the "everybody else" vote would have worked. But this is not 1960; it is 2012 and now, realizing that they were using an antiquated system, they have had to regroup.

Certainly the subtle inklings of a new strategy -- a more inclusive strategy -- have began to emerge in the wake of this electoral massacre. These are the issues where Republicans are beginning to show some signs of change or have showed promise in showing change.

(1) Immigration Reform

Already, Sean Hannity has come out and said that he's "evolved" on immigration. And, of course, by evolved he means realized that the country would no longer buy into his Neanderthalian, racist viewpoints, and therefore sold out to what he truly believes and compromised his own morals in one last desperate attempt to stay relevant. But, ce la vie, that's what all politicians do and, being a mouthpiece for the radical right, Hannity is no different.

"We've gotta get rid of the immigration issue altogether," he said, "It's simple for me to fix it. I think you control the border first, you create a pathway for those people that are here, you don't say you gotta home."

Sound familiar? It's the same thing Democrats have been saying for the past four years -- even longer -- and Republicans have been denying since Reagan left office. Following Hannity's "moment of clarity", Rupert Murdock "coincidentally" tweeted out his two cents in favor of immigration reform. Ironically, Sean Hannity went on to make mention of Marco Rubio running on the platform of immigration reform in 2016. The same Marco Rubio who was passed over as Vice President in deference to the "safer" Paul Ryan. A pick that was a symbolic rejection of the new America and a reaffirmation of the southern strategy they hoped would still win out.

And who can remember that cast of boos that met mostly conservative Governor Perry when he expressed his sympathy for illegal immigrants who wanted money for college. This shows while there are Republicans willing to reach across the aisle on immigration, there is a certain element that does not want. So, don't be deceived; though Hannity's "evolution" is anything but sincere, the opportunity for Republicans to evolve on this issue has long ago presented itself in the guise of Rubio and, to a lesser extent, Perry. Therfore, this republican transtion into the new millenium may not be as rocky as some may envision. Those Latino votes are ripe for the picking as long Republicans are ready to step up to the plate and lay aside their staunch convictions in exchange for a few more electoral votes.

(2) Marijuana Legalization

Pat Roberson of all people has led the cry on this matter. I don't know if he's developed glaucoma in his old age and suddenly discovered puffing on a "little bit of the blow" enhances his religious experiences, but either way he has realized that the war on drugs causes more problems than it prevents.

This already goes in lock-and-step with the Republican precepts of states rights and less government intervention, so it would seem a seamless transition. Glen Beck, Ron Paul, and other republicans have already shown their support for such a measure. With Obama and his federal prosecutors shutting down perfectly legal, state-sanctioned marijuana refineries, any Republican taking up the four-twenty-friendly stance would make a worthy adversary.

(3) Ease Down on Trickle-Down

Less-likely and less-promising is for the Republicans get rid of this idea that taxing the wealthy less will lead to economic growth. They say Romney was shell-shocked when he learned that Obama had won the election. Well I was shell-shocked when I heard Romney say in the second debate "Trickle-Down doesn't work." Furthermore, the little minions on Fox and Friends were shocked to hear long-time conservative Ben Stein say that we need to raise taxes on upper income individuals if we wish to reduce the deficit.

Republicans have, in a way, tried to get rid of trickle-down by calling it something else. But people are not fooled; whether you call it trickle-down, supply-side, or a box of caramels, 60% of people in exit polls want to raise taxes on the most wealthy individuals.

(4) Ron Paulisms

You may not even need to get rid of trickle-down, because young people are not necessarily turned off by fiscal conservatism. It's more so the social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and civil rights that they disagree with Republicans on.

Take Ron Paul, for instance. He is for throwing out the whole tax code and a bevy of regulations. On the other hand, in addition to being for the legalization of pot, he has been a staunch advocate of civil rights and has rightly bashed the Obama Administration for its infringement upon those rights. If republicans can at least gravitate toward a more Ron Paul frame of mind, they can capitalize on the young vote. Maybe even the minority vote. And let me tell you, when those young voters go to bat for Ron Paul. They go to bat. It's almost cultish the way the way they blindly follow him.

Just look at how they bomb a youtube video with dislikes every time it infers something remotely negative about Ron Paul. I merely searched for "Ron Paul gets Owned" and these were two of the first three negative videos that came up. Look at the likes versus dislikes.

Anyone who frequents the Youtube message boards will tell you these dislikes are the work of none other than the so-called Paulbots. Or as the urban dictionary calls them:

"Someone suffering from an obnoxious personality disorder which causes them to endlessly scan online discussions for mentions of Ron Paul and then descend on those discussions with hostile invective and over the top praise for Dr. Paul, accompanied with various rude behavior including shouting down disagreement and accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being a fascist. Often characterized by not actually understanding the principles of libertarianism, the political positions of Ron Paul, or how to make any kind of effective argument for their positions. Despite being real people they have been called 'bots' because their comments often have the non sequitur like quality of computer generated spam."

You may wonder why I didn't show the third video. Well, it seems that "likes and dislikes" had been turned off on that one. I wonder why?

But as you can see, Republicans, all you have to do is somehow harness the youthful exuberance that these young people have for Ron Paul and someday you can ride the wave of their enthusiam all the way to the White House. Early in the republican primaries Paul was continuously gaining ground. His only problem was that the Republican establishment didn't want him there.

Its much like the story of the dog with a bone in his mouth who barked at his reflection in the water thinking it was a dog with a second bone he thought he could steal. The only problem was this resulted in his own bone falling into the water, leaving him with none. Republicans could have had their billionaire tax-cuts but didn't want to give up their senseless wars; so they went with a candidate that could give them both, but he failed; so, now they have none.

And so it is with many of their policies. Thinking back to the rowdy crowds booing the American soldier because of his homosexuality, yelling of a man on his deathbed to "let him die", and disdaining Perry for his signs of levity toward immigrants, it seems like a different time in a galaxy far, far away. And, in a way, it is because that is not the America we are today.

For the past four years, while it seemed the southern strategy was winning, we should have known all along it would not be triumphant. Beckoned by the implications of an African-American President with a muslim-sounding name speaking of socialistic things like the public option, the ugly face of racism and intolerance reared its ugly head for one final, climatic battle. Republicans saw their chance. They chose their sides, and when the battle was won, a New America arose. A better america, too intelligent to be driven by fear, hatred, or intolerance. Now, driven by knowledge, love, and inclusivity.

We have evolved. You cannot -- as you have for the past four years -- play to our baser instincts hoping to maintain a foothold in this foreign new world you find yourself in. We have moved forward. We will move forward. You can hop aboard the bullet-train to progress or be left behind.

My guess is that Republicans are too smart to do that latter.

Party's Over: A Response to the Tea Party

2012-11-09T21:43:00.001-06:00

Recently a tea party member, frustrated about the changing demographics of the country, posted this on a tea party webpage:
"The Republican Establishment wants us to become more like the Dems. They want us to “reach out to minorities” – with what? Government checks? They want the Tea Party and the Christians to go away – but they welcome our votes at election time, and we get little or nothing for supporting them. We get “moderate” candidates who run campaigns where they refuse to attack the opposition, and allow their candidate to be painted as radical and right-wing, while the other side moves further to the left. I am sick of it. I thought Boehner would be a good Speaker and would uphold conservative principles, but has turned out to be as much a milk-toast compromiser as Mitch McConnell in the Senate. Makes me want to throw up. And yet, currently, this is the only choice we have? I don’t think so."

After editing out the cuss words I had intended, I responded with the following:

First of all, I’m going to be real understanding and try to explain this to you without flipping my lid. You see, it’s a two pronged problem with the tea party. First, you — like the Republican Party — cannot attract minorities like me when you make statements like “what are we supposed to do? give them more government checks?” I am not in search of a government check. I am not on welfare, food stamps, or any derivation thereof. When you say such things it is interpreted — rightly or wrongly — as racist and accordingly blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities do not trust you.

And secondly, it’s a matter of policy. Certainly, I wouldn’t mind a curbing of regulations. A curbing of social programs to prevent more fraud, but whose hands do you put these matters in? It goes back to the previous point. You put them in the hands of someone you trust.

If you come to me as a tea party member, saying these things you have already said — assuming that I must be on welfare or want a government check and don’t want to earn my money — why would I trust that you wouldn’t be overly lax when it comes to regulations leading to the exploitation of -- what most commonly would be -- minorities. Why would I trust that you wouldn’t be too strict when it comes to welfare so that people who actually need it and actually cannot work wouldn’t be able to get it.

Why wouldn’t a logical person not interpret your words as nothing more than the “smooth evasion” that FDR warns us of? A lip-service to equality, but merely another way to “keep a brotha down”. You guys have a long way to go, because Bill O’reilly, Dick Morris, and all the folks at Fox News have already admitted it: You guys are outnumbered. And it will only get worse for you if you don’t learn to truly embrace and understand all races and walks of life.

Just trying to help you out.

Peace

Post-Election Thoughts

2012-11-09T08:00:00.001-06:00

Forgive me, for this post rambles, makes little sense, and makes illogical jumps. These are just my free-written thoughts on the election fallout and they will have little use three weeks from now so I'd better get them out there right now.

Prior to the 2000 election results, an idealistic 22-year-old (who believed that Democrats were the banner bearers of freedom and equality who cared about the little guy and that republicans were mini-Mr. Burnses cowering in their lairs hatching plots on how to keep a brother down) went out and voted. This 22-year-old was, of course, me. As someone who had just learned an emotional investment in politics, the events leading up to the election in 2000 were stressful to say the least. Bill Clinton, a president whom I respected and loved, was under investigation: NOT for illegal wire tapping, NOT for giving guns to terrorist, but for having sex with an intern -- and because it was oral, it didn't count if you ask him.

After all the struggling and fighting with what the hell was going on I finally reached a conclusion. A period of time where I was struggling with my religion and taking up the armor of critical thinking and impartiality to thwart the lures of materialism, I was in the process of expanding these critical methods to my political opinions. Concerning the Lewinsky scandal, I eventually settled on the fact that Republicans were NOT demons. They were NOT the villains democrats paint them as. They truly believed in what they were doing. They truly believed that having sex with an intern was a disgraceful matter worthy of being brought before congress. "But it's deadlocking our congress," Democrats would say. "We need to get on with the business of the country." "But this is the right thing to do," Republicans shot back.

So, the matter went before congress and Clinton was impeached and eventually censured. Fortunately, this did not lead in his dismissal. He finished out the term to hand the reigns over to his logical successor, Al Gore. Or so we thought. Everyone remembers the debacle in 2000. The false calls, the hanging chads, the back and forth in Florida. I looked on, at first elated and then disappointed and then hopeful and the confused as projections shifted, changed, rose, fell like a gynmast on a balance beam. Ultimately, Bush would be declared President, but Gore did not concede just yet. The drama over whether or not Gore had been cheated out of the Presidency went on for weeks. The tension was so thick you could cut it with a knife and then I heard it... "But it's deadlocking our congress," Republicans would say, "We need to get on with the business of the country." "But this is the right thing to do," Democrats shot back.

A light went off. My heart sank. For my side was not the superior side. They were not more moral or more right than the other side. They were not more human or less so: They were politicians.

I was, and continue to be, disgusted with politics and their games. They do not care about logic. They do not care about reason. Neither side has true convictions. They're both just trying to save their own asses. By the time the drama in Florida had completed, I was too numb to care that Bush was the winner. I gave him a chance, tried to understand his viewpoint. Though I disagreed, I understood it. It didn't bother me much because I had come to the conclusion that both sides were criminals. Both sides were saints. One side just agreed more with my philosophy of government.

You see, everyone gets into politics wanting to be some type of savior. Wanting to make some type of change, but the sad thing is that we are all politicians. We all play politics to get to our positions in life whether it's the head cashier at Denny's or the CEO of the Firm. We all play it and will play it when given the opportunity, so my disdain is not a disdain that says I suppose I have superior morals. My disdain is for those who portend that they or their party leaders have superior morals. Who black-and-white things into Republicans are the saviors of our nation and Obama is a villain of epic proportions: a fool, a socialist, an anti-colonialist, a business-hater, a rich person hater, a racist, a demagogue , a socialist, a communist, the physical embodiment of end of the world as we know it.

That people believe these things irrationally, uncritically, and without question to the point that they think that the world is heading toward some weird zombie apocalypse if Obama sits in that oval office four more years... That they would threaten to leave the nation because of an Obama win... That, after losing, they attack inanimate objects and curse the wind and cower inconsolably as if their grandmother had died... it sickens me that ignorance has taken such a stronghold over these people's lives that they cannot function as regular human beings. It worries me that these people are not rational and never were. These are people who predicted a Romney win even though almost every poll was saying that it would unquestionably be Obama.

IF you allow such wishful thinking to get in the way of rational thinking when it comes to whether or not Obama will be re-elected, I have no use for you. Why should we believe you Karl Rove when you say that conservativism is the best way and that our country will be swallowed up like Jonah in the whale if we do not follow your tune, when you irrationally hold to the belief that somewhere in Ohio, there's still republican votes to be had. Why should we believe all of your ranting, Donald Trump, if even in the face of defeat you have a hissy fit and call for a revolution. Why should we believe newsninja? Why should we believe Independent Journal Review? Why should I believe a SINGLE ONE of these conservative blogs that believe themselves to be the rational counterpart to the liberal media when they have demonstrated that they are not and are bigger propaganda machines than than the ones they attack?

There are few things I hate. I hate bribes. I hate blackmail. I hate trickery. When these blogs and these people constantly specialize in self-deception and foist their delusions upon an unknowing public it pisses me off. When they put their unreasonable rationalizations into print, it ticks me off... because they are the enemy of the very thing they pretend to uphold: the truth.