Veterans Day

November 11, 2017

Today is Veterans Day. This day began as Armistice Day, November 11 1918 being the day that Germany signed the armistice that ended World War I. President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first Armistice Day in 1919 to celebrate the courage of the men who fought and died in that war. The day was changed in 1954 in order to honor the veterans of all the wars of America.

I don’t have anything else to say except Thank You to all of the veterans who have served your country. You are better men and women than I am.

Advertisements

That Devastating Argument against Pro-Lifers

November 6, 2017

Patrick S. Tomlinson has come up with what he considers to be the argument that will silence the people who are against abortion once and for all. He puts forth his argument on Twitter, not, perhaps the best place to find reasoned debate, but here it is.

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I’ve been asking for ten years now of the “Life begins at Conception” crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

It’s a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question. 2/

Here it is. You’re in a fertility clinic. Why isn’t important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

They’re in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled “1000 Viable Human Embryos.” The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no “C.” “C” means you all die. In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is “A.” A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically. 6/

This question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true. No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. 7/

They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency. No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

Don’t let them. Use this question to call them out. Reveal them for what they are. Demand they answer your question, and when they don’t, slap that big ol’ Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them. The end. 9/9

I wonder just how many people on the pro-life side Tomlinson has actually talked to, because it seems to me that almost everyone would agree to save the five year old child. I don’t think that anyone would dispute that the life of a child who can think and feel pain is worth more than the life of an embryo who has not yet developed a nervous system. After all, everyone, no matter how strongly pro-life, agrees that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother precisely because the life of an adult women is considered to be worth more than the life of an unborn embryo or fetus. A great majority of people who oppose abortion concede that abortion is acceptable is cases of rape or incest. This does not mean, however, that the life of an embryo is worth nothing at all or that it is acceptable to abort an unborn baby for trivial reasons or for no reason at all. Mr. Tomlinson actually addresses this in a follow up tweet.

Because a lot of people are missing the point, it is not being argued the embryos are not alive. Nor is it being argued they are without value. All that is being demonstrated is their value is not equal to that of a human child. That’s it. That’s the point.

Good, then we are in agreement. However, it does not follow that if an embryo is of lesser value than a child that it is acceptable to abort or destroy the embryo for any cause short of preserving the life of a more fully developed human being. Nor does it mean that somehow arguing against abortion is lying or being hypocritical. It is possible to concede the relative lesser worth of an embryo while still being concerned to protect the life of that embryo. Notice,also, that Tomlinson uses the adjective human to modify child but not embryo, a subtle  suggestion that the embryo is somehow not really human.

Tomlinson also misses, probably deliberately,  the distinction between a difficult decision between two evils and  decision to commit an overt act which may be considered evil. To illustrate the difference, consider these two scenarios.

First, suppose there is a mother at home with her five year child and their cat. Suddenly a fire breaks out and engulfs the house. The mother only has time to save either her child or her cat. She cannot save both. I think that everyone but the most fanatic animal rights lunatic would agree that she should save her child. Why? Because the life of a human child is worth more than the life of a cat. This does not mean, of course, that the life of the cat is not worth saving, or that the woman is lying when she expresses concern for the life and well being of her cat.

Now for the second scenario. Suppose that a mother is at home with her five year old child and their cat. The child tells his mother that he is bored so to amuse the child, the mother takes the cat outside, lights it on fire, and they both have a good laugh as the cat runs around the yard burning to death. I think everyone would agree that such behavior would be reprehensible. Why? Because even a person who is not sentimental about animals would recognise that torturing a living thing for no reason is an evil act.

What is the difference between the two scenarios? In both cases the cat suffers a painful death by being burned alive. The cat suffers the same level of pain in both scenarios. Does it make any difference? I think it does. The difference is between a regrettable choice and a deliberate act. In the first scenario the woman is blameless. In the second scenario the woman might be a psychopath. The end result is comparable, as far as the cat is concerned, but the motive is different and that is what makes the difference. It is one thing to allow an embryo or even a thousand embryos to perish while saving a child, it is quite another to deliberately destroy a human embryo who, if left alone, will develop into a human child

That is the core of the controversy about abortion, whether or not abortion is the destruction of a human being, the one thing that no one on the pro-choice side wants to discuss. They prefer to use euphemisms like “women’s health” or impugn the motives of pro-lifers by suggesting they are not interested in preserving life but oppressing women or establishing a Christian Theocratic patriarchy, anything to change the subject. My advice is don’t let them get away with it.

Refuse Fascism

November 2, 2017

Be sure to mark November 4 on your calendar because that is the day the revolution begins. Massive street demonstrations all over the country will drive the Fascist Trump/Pence regime out of power. At least, that is what the good people at Refuse Fascism hope will happen.

In less than a week, it begins; in 19 cities across the country, we will unite with courage and conviction, overcoming fear and uncertainty, to put a stop to the grave danger that the Trump/Pence regime poses to the world. Only the people acting together in non-violent mass protest, raising the demand that this regime must step down from power, can end this nightmare.

We are right to do this. For the survival of millions of people around the world, we must do this. For the rights of women to determine the course of their own lives, we must do this. For a future on this planet for all of our children, we must do this. If we don’t want to see white supremacist mob rule, in the government or in the streets, we must do this. For every group that is demonized and targeted by this regime, for whom this regime is already a brutal nightmare, we must do this. Our actions reflect the values of respect for all of humanity and the world we want – in stark contrast to the hate and bigotry of the Trump/Pence fascist regime.

These days, whenever I see someone using the word “Fascism”, I cannot help but think of Inigo Montoya’s line from the Princess Bride. I do not think they have the slightest idea what Fascism actually is.

 


Fascism is not a general term of abuse to be hurled against Conservatives, or whoever you do not like. Fascism is a word that describes a particular social and political ideology. According to Dictionary.com, Fascism is:

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Politically, a Fascist state is a one party totalitarian state ruled by a charismatic dictator, in which the government claims total control over the lives of the citizen’s while those citizens have no rights the government is obliged to respect. Fascist economic policy is essentially anti-free market Socialism that while permitting private ownership of the economy controls it to such an extent that such ownership is largely nominal.

Is Trump a Fascist? Of course not. Trump has not suspended the constitution, abolished opposition parties, thrown dissidents in prison, or anything or the sort. Like it or not Donald Trump won the election and is the duly elected President of the United States.  Setting aside his often ill-conceived words, Trump’s actions as president have been entirely what one might expect of a slightly right of center president. If Donald Trump weren’t Trump, little of what he is doing would be controversial.

There are no mainstream figures in American politics who could even remotely be considered Fascists. There is no American Fascist Party. There are no politicians describing themselves as Fascists. The people who claiming to be fighting Fascism can go home. They have no one to fight.

I have to wonder what groups like Refuse Fascism hope to accomplish with these protests. The President’s term of office is set by the constitution at four years. Unless Donald Trump is impeached and convicted of a crime or resigns, he will be president in 2020 regardless of how many people are protesting against him. There is no constitutional provision for a do-over election. If both Donald Trump and Mike Pence resign or are removed from office, there is a clear line of succession  established by the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. If the President and Vice-President are unable to serve, then the Speaker of the House Republican Paul Ryan becomes President. The Senate President Pro Tempore, Republican Orrin Hatch is next, followed by the Cabinet Secretaries, all appointed by Trump, in order of the creation of their department. There is no legal or constitutional means by which Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets to be president, even if both Trump and Pence are removed. At present every single person in the line of succession is a Republican, and presumably part of the Fascist regime. This will only change if the Democrats gain a majority in either House of Congress in the 2018 midterms.

Given that even impeaching Trump and Pence would only result in other members of the Fascist regime becoming president, there is no legal, constitutional way to remove the Fascist regime. How, precisely do they plan to go about it non-violently, and how are we supposed to select a new president, given that the constitution will have been discarded? Is it the plan to force a democratically elected president and his cabinet from power and replace him with a leader chosen by a mob?

Ironic is a word that is overused but there is something ironic going on here, since these people don’t seem to have studied history at all. Overthrowing an elected government by the threat of mob violence is precisely what Benito Mussolini did with his March on Rome in 1922 and Adolf Hitler tried to tried to do with his Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. When you consider the very real possibility of violence breaking out at some of these anti-Fascist protests, based on the past history of violence by the Antifa, it might seem that the real Fascists are the ones protesting Fascism.

There is the irony. Refuse Fascism will not be able to force Donald Trump from the Presidency, but if they manage to create an atmosphere of disorder and chaos by continuous, daily, possibly violent, demonstrations they will succeed in creating the atmosphere that a real dictator can take over. Again, if they had actually bothered to study history, they would know that Fascist dictators like Mussolini and Hitler were preceded by chaotic, lawless conditions in their respective countries. If regular, constitutional government cannot maintain the order people need to live their lives, they will turn to the strongman who can.

If the people planning to protest this Saturday really wanted to fight Fascism, they would protest Trump’s policies while acknowledging that he is the legitimate President and not a dictator. They would be putting their efforts into recruiting candidates for office in the upcoming elections and seeing to it that he is a one-term president. But, that would take knowledge and maturity, two characteristics not often associated with the Left. It’s easier just to have a giant temper tantrum.

 

Halloween

October 31, 2017

Today is Halloween. The name “Halloween” is actually derived from “All Hallow’s Eve“, that is the day before “All Hallow’s Day” or All Saint’s Day. All Saint’s Day was and is a Christian, primarily Roman Catholic, holy day which celebrates all the saints in Heaven and includes prayers for those in Purgatory.

Halloween, however, is not a Christian holiday. It seems to have come from the Celtic festival of Samhain, which was a summer’s end or harvest festival. The Celts celebrated Samhain with bonfires to ward off evil spirits and sacrificed animals and sometimes humans to their gods. This pagan heritage has made Halloween controversial among Christians at times. The Protestant Reformers in England did not like the holiday and tried to suppress it because of its pagan and Roman Catholic origins. The Scots were more lenient and Halloween is celebrated there more than in England. The Irish, of course, still celebrated it as they remained Catholic and true to their Celtic Heritage. Halloween was not much celebrated in America until large numbers of Scots and Irish immigrated here during the nineteenth century.

As for the customs which have grown up around Halloween, it would seem that carving pumpkins into jack-o-lanterns is an American innovation. The Scots and Irish used turnips. Pumpkins, which are native to North American, turned out to be larger and easier to carve. Trick or treating seems to be derived from the Scottish custom of guising. Guising is the custom in which children would go from door to door in costume begging for treats and performing a trick or song in return. This custom was first noted in America in the early twentieth century. Trick or treating became the custom by the 1930’s. Haunted houses have also become popular since the 1970’s.

So, Happy Halloween, or Samhain.

For another view:

The KKK Mural

October 15, 2017

The Great American Cultural Revolution continues apace, this time at my old alma mater, Indiana University at Bloomington. According to WHAS News, the university will cease holding classes in a room with a controversial mural depicting a Ku Klux Klan rally.

 Indiana University says beginning next spring, it’ll no longer hold classes in a room where a mural panel depicts a Ku Klux Klan rally.

The scene that’s part of a 22-panel Thomas Hart Benton mural created in the 1930s hangs in Room 100 at Woodburn Hall on the Bloomington campus. The mural panels depicting Indiana history are spread over three buildings.

IU Executive Vice President and Provost Lauren Robel said in a statement Friday the room will have other uses beginning next spring semester.

Jacquline Barrie, a former IU student who started a petition calling for the mural’s removal that collected more than more than 1,000 signatures, told The Indianapolis Star she considers the university’s decision a “small victory.” She has said the scene is a symbol of hate.

I do not believe that the artist, Thomas Hart Benton was intentionally creating a symbol of hate or trying to glorify the Ku Klux Klan. He was commissioned to paint the series of murals to illustrate events in Indiana’s history and the lives of ordinary Hoosiers. At the time Benton was painting the murals, the Ku Klux Klan was powerful in Indiana, and his work depicted that unpleasant fact.

It might seem odd that Indiana was a stronghold of the Ku Klux Klan, since Indiana is not usually regarded as a Southern state. Indiana was never a slave state and it did not secede from the union. The fact is, however, that Indiana; at least the southern half of the state, tends to be culturally aligned with the South. The earliest settlers came from Virginia, either directly by travelling down the Ohio River or up from Tennessee and Kentucky. There were men who lived in Indiana who owned land and slaves across the river in Kentucky. During the Civil War, there was a great deal of pro-Confederate sympathy along the northern banks of the Ohio, both in Indiana and Ohio. So it was only natural that the Ku Klux Klan might find it easy to gain influence in the area.

It should also be noted that the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920’s was influential all over the country and not just in the South. This Ku Klux Klan was what historians call the second Ku Klux Klan which was active from around 1915 until 1944, in contrast to the First Ku Klux Klan which existed from 1865 to 1871 and the Third Klan from 1946 to the present. This Second Klan was unlike the First and Third Klans in that it was more widespread across the nation, having branches throughout the midwest as well as the south. There was even a Klan organization in California. The Second Klan did not only support White Supremacy but were anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic. They also saw themselves as moral guardians, protecting their communities against vice and political corruption, and were in favor of Prohibition. Essentially, they were part of the national desire to return to Normalcy after World War I and the Progressive Era. During the 1920’s the Ku Klux Klan was almost a respectable organization with a membership of around six million at its height in 1924.

Indiana was right at the center of the Second Klan. Under the leadership of its bright and ambitious Grand Dragon D. C. Stephenson, the Indiana Klan dominated the state’s politics. By 1925, over half the members of the legislators as well as the governor,and many other state officials were members of the Klan. It was not possible to have a political career in Indiana without the support of the Ku Klux Klan. Stephenson himself hoped to use his influence to gain control of the Ku Klux Klan at the national level and began organizing his own Klan organization in the states he influenced. At the height of his power, Stephenson claimed, “I am the law in Indiana”.

It turned out not to be the case. It is said that pride goeth before a fall and that was certainly the case with D. C. Stephenson. In 1925, Stephenson committed an unforgivable crime. He abducted and raped a white woman, a state official named Madge Oberholtzer. His treatment of her was so brutal that she committed suicide and Stephenson was tried and convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.

Once in prison, Stephenson tried to obtain a parole from Indiana Governor Edward L. Jackson and when Jackson declined to grant him leniency, Stephenson began to talk to the newspapers. He released the names of all the Indiana state officials who were members of the Klan and discussed at length the many unsavory and unlawful activities in which the Ku Klux Klan leadership had been involved, More investigations and indictments followed, and the power of the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana was broken. Stephenson’s fall was only the beginning of the end of the Second Ku Klux Klan as more financial and sex scandals erupted nationwide, revealing that far from being the public guardians of public morality, as many members had believed, the Klan leadership was corrupt to the core. Membership in the Klan declined precipitously and by 1930 the Klan had only around 30,000 members.

Such is the history of the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana. It is not a part of Hoosier history to be proud of, but neither should it be forgotten or whitewashed. If anyone is troubled by a realistic depiction of this unpleasant history, than good, they should be troubled. The fact that Indiana was a stronghold of the Klan in the 1920’s is something that should be troubling, not covered up out of a misguided crusade against “hate”.

But the odd thing is that these contemporary iconoclasts who have been busy trying to rid the country of “racist” statues are not trying to bury or forget the past. Instead they seem determined to bring to life every conceivable grievance or injustice that every group that could possibly claim to be victimized or oppressed. Why do this if they are so concerned about people being triggered or upset?

I believe the activists see history not as the shared story of a people or nation that unites us and teaches us lessons. Instead they seem to see history as a never ending source of grievances to be used to turn us against each other. They do not see historical figures as complex personalities to be understood in their historical context, but as figures of good and evil in a morality play. If this is the case, than the toppling of statues of Confederate generals and similar instances of iconoclasm are being performed not as acts against hate or attempts to ensure social justice, but a campaign to reopen old wounds and turn us against one another for their own purposes. We ought not to let them get away it.

 

Eye Tattoos

October 7, 2017

I do not like tattoos. Part of the reason for this distaste might be because I do not like being stuck with needles. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that I am absolutely terrified of being stuck with needles. Whenever I see someone with their whole body covered with tattoos, I can’t help but shudder at the thought of being pierced with needles over and over again for hours. Another reason is aesthetic. I have not noticed that people appearance is much enhanced by having pictures drawn all over them. To put it bluntly, I think most tattoos are ugly. Still, that is just my personal opinion. To each their own. I wouldn’t care to get a tattoo, but I wouldn’t dream of keeping anyone else from getting as many tattoos as they want. I do have to draw the line at eye tattoos.

Eye tattoos? Yes, there really is such a thing. I didn’t know about eye tattoos either until I read this article from WHAS 11 News.

A Canadian model received a botched eye tattoo and is now warning others about the dangers of the practice.

Catt Gallinger, 24, went to get a scleral tattoo, which colors the white part of the human eye with ink, three weeks ago and things went terribly wrong.

The next morning Gallinger said she woke up with her eye swollen completely shut, according to a Facebook post. She was suffering from an eye infection.

She believes that “undiluted ink, over injection, and not enough/smaller injections [sites]” caused the infection.

“I am NOT sharing this with you to cause trouble, I am sharing this to warn you to research who you get your procedures by as well as how the procedure should be properly done,” Gallinger wrote in a Facebook post.

She had her eye tattooed purple but has been to the hospital three times since, she said.

“I was on antibiotic drops for the first week and a half and have been on steroid drops for four days now, with little success at bringing down the internal swelling,” Gallinger said after the procedure.

Gallinger has currently lost part of the vision in the swollen eye and is facing the prospect of living with irreversible damage, the Vancouver Sun reported.

Doctors said it is not likely she will completely regain her vision, reports said.

Why on Earth would anyone do this? Who could possibly think that injecting ink into the eyeball is a good idea? I can’t even imagine thinking that coloring the sclera would improve the appearance of someone’s eye. Who first came up with this idea? And who would agree to inject ink into someone’s eye?

The model has some good advice for anyone seeking to have this procedure.

“Just please be cautious who you get your mods from and do your research. I don’t want this to happen to anyone else,” she wrote.

I have even better advice; do not allow anyone, under any circumstances to inject anything into your eye.

Trump and the NFL

October 2, 2017

Say what you will about President Donald Trump, he is certainly a master at controlling the national narrative, not to mention driving his opponents crazy. The leading news over the weekend ought to have been the Republican failure to repeal and replace Obamacare once again, news which does not reflect well on either Trump or the Republicans in Congress. Instead, by inserting a remark in a speech, that the NFL players who refuse to stand for the National Anthem ought to be fired, Trump changed the subject on everyone’s mind to an issue he can’t lose, placing his enemies in the media and in politics in the position of defending behavior that a great many Americans find indefensible.

This is not to say that Donald Trump is some sort of political genius. Since the Democratic Party has moved more and more to the extreme left and the cultural divide between the progressives and ordinary Americans has grown ever wider, it ought to be easy for any Republican to maneuver the opposition into such untenable positions. The fact that the Republicans have generally been unable to do so demonstrates Republican fecklessness more than Trump’s tactical genius.

The left has been trying to reframe this issue as a free speech issue. “How dare”, they exclaim, “this president infringe upon these athletes’ sacred right to peacefully protest injustice by suggesting they ought to be fired.” It is more than a little odd that the same people who have had no problem with tech companies firing workers who express dissenting views, social media censoring conservative opinions, or Antifa thugs rioting against certain conservative speakers on college candidate, and who called the peaceful Tea Party protests “political terrorists” are now concerned with freedom of expression, but let it pass. No one is arguing that these players do not have the right to protest. They absolutely do have that right. The issue is that there are appropriate times and places to conduct a political protest. Among the times and places where it is not appropriate to conduct a political protest is when you are on the job.

I have a right to express my political opinions on this blog and elsewhere, as long as I am on my time. If I am at work, however, I do not have an absolute right to express my opinions on social media when I am on my employer’s time. I am being paid to work, not express my opinions. In like manner, these athletes are being paid to play football, not engage in a political protest.  The people in the stands and watching on television want to watch a football game. They want to get away from politics. The athletes have ample opportunities to protest on their own time.

Not only is their protest inappropriate, but also counter-productive. Disrespecting the American flag or the national anthem is going to be offensive to many Americans, particularly the people most likely likely to be following football.  Refusing to stand for the national anthem is not easy to interpret as a protest against a particular issue, such as the treatment of African-Americans by the police. Most people are going to interpret such an action as protesting or disrespecting American in general. By not standing or kneeling for the national anthem, these football players are projecting contempt for their country, whether they intend it or not.

I cannot believe that offending people is a very good way to gain sympathy for a cause, no matter how noble or just. They could be kneeling to protest against mistreating puppies and kittens and people would still be angry. The fact that the leadership of the NFL had allowed the players to conduct these protests without considering the reaction of the fans demonstrates the growing divide between the elites who run our politics and entertainment and the great mass of deplorables who live in flyover country.

This is a divide that Donald Trump has been uncommonly good at exploiting for his own purposes. What is amazing is that his enemies keep walking into the trap, over and over.

This matter of athletes and the national anthem is not really a very important issue compared to the possibility of war with North Korea or the aftermath of Hurricane Maria’s devastation of Puerto Rico, but it is sad to see how something, like sports or entertainment, that should be bringing Americans together and away from politics is now being used to pull us apart. Can there be no part of life that can simply be enjoyed for its own sake and not be part of the Great American Cultural Revolution? I hope so.

Going With the Wind

September 23, 2017

It looks like the classic movie Gone With the WInd will be the next victim of the ongoing cultural revolution., as I read in this article from Deadline Hollywood.

One of Hollywood’s iconic films is under some serious scrutiny in Memphis, Tennessee. The city’s historic Orpheum Theatre is pulling showings of Gone with the Wind after the 1939 classic was deemed as “insensitive.”

Victor Fleming’s film was part of their summer series programming. After the first screening on August 11, the Orpheum received numerous comments about the film which prompted them to drop it from their 2018 series. Based on the book by Margaret Mitchell, Gone With the Wind starred Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh and was set in on Southern plantation during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. Although a landmark in cinema, the film and its subject matter has seen criticism for its portrayal of people of color and its overall perspective of the South during that divisive time in history.

Admittedly, the portrayal of African-Americans in the film is not altogether positive and it does tend to glamorize the Old South, reflecting the Lost Cause or Dunning School of Confederate historiography, but Gone With the Wind is still one of the best movies ever made, from an era in which they actually knew how to  make great movies. If we are to purge the culture of every work of art, literature, or entertainment that could possibly be construed as being offensive, we are not going to have many such works left to enjoy. If every new work of art, literature or entertainment must be produced according to the most exacting standards of political correctness, very few such works will be worthwhile. Certainly none will stand the test of time to become classics.

What is the point of this cultural revolution in which statues of Confederate statues are overturned and anything related to the Old South prohibited? If it is to fight racism, then we ought to declare victory and leave the statues alone. Racism as a political and social force is dead in America. Yes, I know that there are still many prejudiced people out there. That will always be the case, as long as there are human beings. Prejudice against people who don’t look or act like us is, to some extent, hardwired into our programming. Yet, the United States in the twenty-first century is probably one of the least racist countries in history. I doubt if any other nation has done so much to reverse past injustices as we have. We are not perfect, but if perfection is the standard, we will always fall short. The people who claim that contemporary America is an oppressive regime of systemic racism are simply too ignorant of history to know what they are talking about. If you want to see true systemic racism, you only need to hop into the Wayback Machine and travel back about sixty or seventy years.

Liberals often claim that Republican politicians promote racism by speaking in coded “dog whistles” that only liberals can hear. There was a time when Democratic politicians openly supported depriving African-Americans of their civil rights. The record for the longest Senate filibuster was set 1957 when Strom Thurmond spoke for twenty-four hours against the Civil Rights Act. Black Lives Matter claims that police officers routinely shoot unarmed Black youths for other reason than racism. Upon closer examination, these innocent youths invariably turn out to be criminals who attacked the officer in question. Yet, there was a time when police officers could indeed harass and even murder Blacks with impunity. There was a time when mobs of Whites could murder Blacks with impunity. There was a time when proposals for federal laws to prevent lynching were controversial.

Read that last sentence again and let it sink in. There was a time, less than a century ago, when laws designed to stop Americans from murdering their fellow human beings who had the wrong colored skin were so controversial that they could not be passed.

In my own home town, Madison Indiana, Blacks were required to sit up in the balcony at the local theater. If they got ice cream from the local drug store, they had to eat it outside. They were not allowed to swim at the public pool. They could not attend the same schools as the White children.

Speaking of schools, there was a time when President Eisenhower had to deploy federal troops to ensure that teenagers in Little Rock Arkansas could attend a school in compliance with a Supreme Court decision. Take a look at the infamous picture taken at that time and just try to imagine the hatred those young people had to face.

That is what systemic racism is really like. We are no longer that country. Attitudes about race have changed drastically for the better in a little more than a generation, to the extent that a lot of this behavior is incomprehensible to the people who didn’t experience it. I simply cannot imagine refusing to allow someone to use a public facility because of their race. I don’t really understand why normal, decent people behaved in a manner that even a hardcore racist of today might be ashamed of. We worry about microaggressions today. Blacks of a previous generation worried about real aggressions.

Of course, there is still racism and prejudice. There will always be prejudice as long as there are human beings. It seems to me, however, that if we want to continue to make progress against prejudice, or just maintain what progress we have made, conducting a purge of everything in our culture and heritage that might be considered racist might not be a good way to go about it. I would think that if reducing racism is the goal, than we should be trying to make race less important. We ought to be striving for a world in which the color of a person’s skin is just as inconsequential as the color of their hair or eyes. Instead, the people who profess to be the most against racism seem to be trying to inject race into everything. They seem to be trying to deliberately turn people against one another by stirring up racial tensions. I wonder if the goal is not fight racism but to encourage it. Maybe they need to believe that no progress towards racial equality has been made, or that the country they are living in is hateful and evil. Maybe they want Americans to be divided rather than united. Whatever the reason, this business of driving us apart has to go with the wind.

Punching Nazis

September 14, 2017

I have seen this chart here and there on the internet.

 

For those who are unfamiliar with Dungeons and Dragons, the descriptions at the bottom are the various alignments that a player can choose as the moral path for his character to live by. The system is actually a little shallow, since few people actually regard themselves as evil, and a stance of neutrality  between what one considers to be good and evil is, in itself an evil stance, but that is all beside the point. The idea expressed is that because Nazis are evil, it is a good thing to punch them, and being concerned about the Nazis civil rights or pointing out that one can be evil even while hating Nazis makes one evil.

I think I can simplify this chart a bit. If you believe that it is acceptable to “punch” Nazis or to make use of political violence for any reason, you are evil. I am not talking about using violence in self-defense or for the protection of someone’s life or property. If you see a Nazi hitting a Jew, it is perfectly acceptable to use force to protect yourself or a victim of an assault. What I am talking about is the idea of assaulting a person because you do not agree with his political or religious views. That is always unacceptable, even if his views are hateful.

I will repeat. If you believe that it is acceptable to physically attack someone for their political views, no matter how hateful they may seem, you are the one acting like a Nazi. If you believe that it is acceptable to get someone fired or endanger his livelihood for saying something “politically incorrect” than you are the one being evil. If you think that it is acceptable to harass someone over the internet or publish a person’s address in the hope that a mob will harass him, or if you are part of that mob, you are being the hateful bully. If you like the idea of mobs shouting down conservative speakers on college campuses, you are part of the problem., If you are “anti-fascist” while embracing the acceptability of political violence like the Fascists did in Germany and Italy,  you are not opposed to Fascism because you understand why it was evil. You oppose Fascism because it is the other team. You are nothing but a gangster opposing another set of gangsters, like the Crips and the Bloods.

It is important that we denounce political violence and intolerance where it occurs, even when it is against the most intolerant among us. Violence against Nazis or White Supremacists is still violence. Does this mean that we ought to tolerate people who are preaching intolerance and hatred?  Yes, it does. As long as the person does not initiate violence against another person, he can speak and think as he wishes. If we begin to punish people who say things we don’t like, there is no telling how far it may go. Nazis, or other extreme ideologies which preach hate are an tempting target for censorship, because they preach hate. But, human nature being what it is, there is always the temptation to label those we disagree with, even if they hold beliefs that are entirely mainstream, as haters to justify silencing them. You only have to look at our college campuses to find alarming examples of this trend. It is best to avoid the slippery slope altogether and practice tolerance.

We should tolerate the intolerant, not for the sake of the intolerant but because we want to remain tolerant. I do not want to live in a country in which political violence by mobs of thugs has become the norm. I do not want to live in a country in which I have to watch every word I say lest it be taken out of context and used against me. I certainly do not want to live in a country in which I have to worry that friends, co-workers, or strangers report me to the PC Police. I want to live in a free country. For that reason, I am willing support the right of people whose beliefs I find repugnant to have and share those beliefs. I only hope that the majority of my countrymen agree with me.

 

Sixteen Years

September 11, 2017

It has been sixteen years since 9/11. We said that we would never forget, but I am afraid we are already forgetting. They are even starting to teach in colleges that it was our fault.  A person turning eighteen this year, old enough to vote, was only four on that fateful day. I don’t imagine that they would have any clear personal memories of that day, unless they or someone close was personally affected. I am afraid that we are trying to forget the most important lesson of 9/11, that the world is a dangerous place, and there are people out there who would like to destroy us.

Well, I will never forget that dreadful day fifteen years ago, no matter how long I live. We will just have to keep telling the story to the younger generations so they will not have to experience any such attacks for themselves. With that in mind, I am going to copy what I wrote three years ago.

On that Tuesday morning, I was at work, driving from Madison to North Vernon when I got a call from my wife. She asked me if I were listening to the radio. I was not. She told me to turn it on because something terrible was happening. I turned my car radio on and listened to the coverage of the attack.

I went about my duties at the stores in North Vernon in a sort of state of shock.  The North Vernon WalMart and Jay C played continuing news coverage of the day’s events instead of the usual soothing Musak. Not too many people were working or shopping in the stores. They were mostly just listening.

I had to go to Seymour for a meeting that afternoon. On the way I noticed that some gas stations had raised the price of gasoline to a then unheard of price of $5 per gallon. At the meeting, no one wanted to discus the business at hand. Instead we talked about the terrorist attack. It seemed certain to us all that more attacks were on the way and that this time we couldn’t just launch a few missiles, blow up some tents, and then move on. We were in for a long fight.

I don’t remember much about the rest of that day. I went home but I don’t remember much about it.

I was once in the World Trade Center. I was in New York with some friends as a sort of tourist and we took the elevator to the top floor of one of the twin towers. There was a gallery up there where you could look out over the city of New York. The day was foggy so I didn’t see anything. They had a gift shop in the center section of the floor. It sickens me to think that the people who worked there went to work one morning, and then had to choose between burning to death or jumping, Not to mention the tourists, who only wanted to look at the city.

It still sickens me to think about the people who were only doing their jobs having to lose their lives.

twin

 


%d bloggers like this: