The Rules of Racism

Now that a little time has passed since the Shirley Sherrod saga exploded, I think now is a good time to examine all the relevant facts and come up with the proverbial "teachable moment." The first step is to dispassionately list all the elements of the story. I believe that the following can be demonstrably shown to be true.

At an annual gathering, the NAACP passed a resolution calling on the Tea Party Movement to denounce the racism of some people who show up at their rallies who clearly exhibit racist attitudes. Leaders of the Tea Party Movement and Republican's appearing on cable news programs express offense at the NAACP for calling the Tea Party a racist movement. Andrew Breitbart posts a video on his website of Shirley Sherrod. The video is an excerpt of a speech given at an NAACP event. In the excerpt, Ms. Sherrod recounts an event where she considered denying a white man her best efforts to help him simply because he is white, and was exhibiting what she perceived to be a superior attitude towards her.

The clip went viral under headlines declaring proof of reverse racism at USDA. People at USDA demanded and received her resignation. The rest of her speech was released and it became clear that it was a story about overcoming racial prejudice. That is the story in a nutshell.

Prior to these events, Fox News and Republican pundits were hyping a phony story about how the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) had declined to prosecute two members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation because they were black. I say this story is phony because the decision not to prosecute was made 2 weeks before Obama became President. In other words, it was decided by the Bush DOJ.

To sum up, we have Tea Partiers taking umbrage at racism charges that were never leveled at them, and charges of reverse racism against the Obama administration that fall flat against the evidence. These are the facts and I welcome anyone to offer proof that refutes them. Now, here's the teachable moment. We need rules to know when racism is occurring and when it is not.

• Rule #1: If you feel the need to defend yourself against racism charges that nobody has made, think twice before uttering the phrase, "I'm not a racist" or "How dare they call me a racist!"

• Rule #2: Racial insensitivity is not racism. For example, I make ethnic jokes all the time. Okay, not all the time, I will play to the stereotypes of any ethnicity among my friends. A side note here- when Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team as "Nappy-Headed Ho's" it was insensitive, juvenile, disrespectful, and worst of all just not funny. but it was not racist.

• Rule #3: Being surprised that people of different ethnic background are any different than you is a strong indicator of racial bias. And example here is Bill O'Reilly describing his surprise when having lunch with Reverend Al Sharpton at Sylvia's the black patrons were not saying, "Mofo" he was implying the longer version of the epithet.

• A Corollary to Rule #3: People of different sexual orientation aren't different from you either. Gay people aren't going to try to have sex with you unless they perceive a mutual interest.

I think this is a good start- when people familiarize themselves with these, we can add more.

Immigration distraction

It never ceases to amaze me how much passion there is to do something about the problem of illegal immigration in what has long been called a nation of immigrants. For those who believe (wrongly, but I'll address that later) that we are a Christian Nation, that Christianity arrived via immigration. The Native Americans, who came across the Bering Strait about 10,000 years ago and are thus also immigrants, were not Christians.

Almost from the day after colonists landed in Jamestown in 1607 we have wanted to put a huge Keep Out sign on this country. The idea that immigrants can be illegal is fundamentally un-American. The Lady with the torch in New York harbor encapsulates America. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," she beseeches. That is us to which she refers, and our parents and grandparents. As Bill Murray points out the next line in the movie "Stripes" we are the wretched refuse. We've been kicked out of every country on the planet and we've been kicking ass for 200 years!

On Passover, the Jewish People tell of the departure from Egypt as if it were this generation being freed. We need to think of the current illegal immigrants in much the same way- as though they are our parents and grandparents. These are people fleeing desperate circumstances. They are, as our ancestors were, seeking a better life.

The economy is in bad shape. There is record unemployment. These people are not the cause of it. They are easy targets for our anger. It is misplaced. . . .to be continued

Rethinking taxes

We need to change the way we talk about taxes at a fundamental level. We should stop thinking of taxes as money that goes to the government. Sure, that pretty much is the definition of tax. Only government can levy taxes, and enforce collection. But the point of the money isn't where it goes. The point is who has it and who doesn't. Right now we simply think of money we don't have because we have to fork it over to the government. For most of us, we don't even fork it over, it gets taken out of our paycheck, and we file paperwork to get some of it back.

However, there are lots of things we have to fork over money for: Health insurance, gas and electric bills, phone bills, gas for the car, a mortgage to name a few. You might argue that you are getting something for that money, and you'd be right, of course. But imagine if you could get the same thing for less money. In purely hypothetical terms, in other words I have done no actuarial research, imagine that the government levied a $0.50 tax per gallon of gas. This is clearly a tax hike. But what if, as a result, people drove less, or bought more fuel efficient vehicles and the lower demand dropped the price of a gallon of gas by the same $0.50

You break even. The government has extra revenue to build a wider highway or spend on research on alternative fuels, or other activities that could end up driving costs down further. Otherwise that $0.50 might end up in BP's CEO's pocket or Saudi Arabia. The point is it's coming out of your pocket anyway. I'd rather our government have it than BP or Saudi Arabia- at least there is a chance it'll do you some good.

The Bogeyman

Republicans go to rallies, go on Fox, and they tell everyone that the Democrats are going to take their guns, raise their taxes and kill Grandma. The claim that the Democrats want government to control everything. Tell you how to live your life. Tell you how you cannot make it by yourself, that you need government help. None of these claims are even remotely true. Republican leaders know that it is not true, but they do not care.

President George W. Bush said that he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban had it been brought to his desk. Nobody has proposed legislation to re-instate now. Taxes have gone down for 98% of Americans since President Obama took office. True, they are going to go up on January 1, 2011 if nothing is done, but that "tax hike" was passed by a Republican Congress.

It is actually the expiration of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 that had sunset provisions to hide the costs. I am not going to dignify the kill Grandma charge with a defense.

The Democrats do not want the government to control everything- regulation is not control, oh and look how well deregulation has worked. Republicans are the ones who want to tell you who you can sleep with and what you must do even if you are raped. Offering help is not the same as saying you need it.

The Republicans are the people who tell their kids that there actually is a monster under the bed that will eat them if they turn off the light. They also tell them that Democrats want to call them racists for being afraid of the child eating monster.

A quick note on racism

I will go into great detail on this subject in the near future, but the events of the past few weeks demand at least some comment. The NAACP called on the Tea Party movement to denounce members who display racist messages. Republicans pandering to the Tea Partiers denounce the NAACP for calling the Tea Party as racist, which they did not do. A right wing activist posts an edited video which purports to show a black woman acting in a racist manner. Her resignation is demanded- then the full text of her speech reveals that she had done nothing to affirm the reverse racist meme she was portrayed as having.

America needs to have a conversation about race. two things need to happen to make it an honest discussion. White people need to acknowledge that racism exists in America, and recognizing that is neither an accusation that someone is a racist nor an admission of it. Minorities need to acknowledge that sometimes they lose by virtue of losing. Sometimes in America racial a=motives are ascribed to things that have absolutely no racial basis.

Debating same sex marriage

I have always had difficulty in following the logic of those opposed to same sex marriage. For starters, I fail to see how any marriage affects anyone other than the participants in it and perhaps their immediate family. Secondly, I think that by definition, divorce does more to harm the institution of marriage than expanding the right to same sex couples. In the interests of disclosure, I personally would not marry someone who was the same sex as I. My sexual preference, however, is beside the point.

I can appreciate that some people believe that marriage is a sacred institution. To them I say that if it is sacred, the governments got no business in it; separation of Church and State and all. However, marriage is an institution that carries many legal benefits and obligations: Hospital visitation, next of kin, taxation, health and Social Security benefits put the government right in the middle. In light of this, I believe that the government issued marriage licenses should all be called civil unions. Let the clergy confer the title of marriage on a couple.

As a legal contract, if I have attained the age of consent and can enter into a marriage contract, and I wish to do so with someone who has also attained the age of consent but is of the same sex (I don't), then under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause I should be allowed to do so. Denying our right to wed is discrimination because someone does not like the choice. Opponents are not willing to concede this point. They say that I have a right to marry a woman, and a woman has a right to marry a man. They do not feel that my not having the same right to marry a man that a woman possesses violates equal protection.

The first argument that usually comes out is that traditionally, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. I've read parts of the Bible and have found that many times marriage is between a man and more than one woman. When this is pointed out, I've been told that in this country it has always been this way, and if I am going to allow same sex marriage I must allow polygamy. This is demonstrably false. I can define in law that a person can only be legally married to one person at a time without violating equal protection. Under these circumstances, if someone gets married to several people, a la "Big Love" on HBO, the government takes no position on the multiple religious ceremonies, but only 1 of these marriages carries the legal benefits.

Another argument that is often presented is that if we allow same sex marriage than if someone wants to marry a box turtle they can marry a box turtle. I don't recall who in Congress actually made the box turtle reference, it has been made similarly with dogs and horses. J.D. Hayworth mentioned the horse marriage in a segment with Rachel Maddow. What is it with Republicans and bestiality? This argument, like a sieve, fails to hold water. Under our laws, animals cannot consent to enter into contracts. Therefore, they cannot get married.

There has only been one situation that I have agreed a marriage should not be allowed is one in which an adult marries a minor with the parents' consent. That is legal in many states and it shouldn't be. Is that where opponents of same sex marriage want to make their last stand? We cannot allow adults of the same sex to marry because that would mean we have to legalize the marriage of a minor with parental consent which is already legal anyway?

Does this make any sense?

Cinderella America

There is a scene in the movie "Cinderella Man" where James J. Braddock walks into the relief agency and returns money that he received when his family was struggling. This is what comes to mind when I think of America. I like to believe in the best of people.

Republicans have blocked an extension of unemployment benefits several times this year. They say that it creates a disincentive to work. These people who crow about American Exceptionalism are so cynical and petty that they believe Americans are lazy and would rather collect a check for doing nothing than work. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I just don't believe that most people are like that.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much

The Republicans are in high dudgeon these days. Actually, they only have one gear when it comes to dudgeon, and they seem to be perpetually in it. The latest outrage is the NAACP's resolution calling on the Tea Party to denounce the fringe members who engage in racist rhetoric, or carry racially themed signs or posters at their rallies. Republicans are responding to this resolution in 2 ways. First, they are condemning the NAACP for calling the Tea Party racists, which they did not actually do. Second, they are calling out the NAACP as hypocrites for not condemning the New Black Panther Party for their racist rhetoric

I don't think it would cause controversy for me to say that 2 wrongs do not make a right. However, Republicans are defending a failure to denounce racism by charging the NAACP with a failure to denounce racism. They may be accurate with the charge, but it is no defense. Wrong is wrong. Politicians on both sides of the aisle often believe that they are above the law. That's fine, it is what they do. But when people defend acts that they deplore by saying the other side does it, too, I am offended by that. As Bill Maher might say, we need a new rule: If you are unwilling to denounce an offense committed that benefits you, you are Constitutionally barred from expressing outrage about the same offense committed by your political rival.

My Basic Political Philosophy

You are not supposed to argue politics or religion at a bar. Unfortunately, many people do, and after a few pints it can get ugly. I have seen and heard a number of call-in shows make their debuts, and many callers ask questions specifically trying to ascertain the host's politics. I'm not going to wait for the Christmas rush and state that I am a liberal.

If you are conservative, feel free to call me a progressive, socialist, or any other perceived pejorative du jour. The funny thing is, I used to think of myself as a moderate- a real middle of the road person. I'm even a middle child. I thought that liberal folly was believing that a problem could be solved by throwing more money at it. I was pro death penalty, and I believed that there should be restrictions on late-term abortions.

However, we live in an age where there are no moderates. The recently passed healthcare bill is more conservative than one proposed by President Nixon, yet it is called Socialism. Senator McCain with a 97% rating by conservative political groups was derided by party members as a liberal and a RINO until he became the party's Presidential nominee. Senator Graham is now getting flack from tea partiers for the sin of working with Democrats to craft an energy bill.

That's enough food for thought for now- my glass is empty- literally.

An introduction

Hello World!

As this is my first post, I thought I should introduce myself, and say what you can expect by visiting. This site is devoted to the political junkie in me. The pint that I get is the one at the local pub. It is also a play on the arrogant assertion that I get the point; a point which I will share with you, should you indulge me.

My next post will begin detailing my political philosophy, and we can start arguing over both pints and points from there.