Follow by Email

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Can you even BE a racist if you aren't white?

A white male student, after attempting to find scholarships and batting zero, created a scholarship that would help those like himself in the often overlooked demographic: white males. 

Of course, most people are crying racist, but that's because Americans are conditioned to believe that it's only racism if it is perpetrated by whites against other groups. In fact, just recently a group at the University of California Davis was forced after legal scrutiny to remove the following definitions from its charter: 
Racism - white people discriminating against anyone who is not white.
Religious persecution - Christians discriminating against anyone who is not a Christian.

On the surface, it may seem like a racist thing to do - to offer a scholarship opportunity only to white males. But unfortunately, when you take into account Affirmative Action, the group is right on target in saying that white men are being neglected. It was an old joke in the Army - the best way to get passed over for promotion is to be white, male, and good at your job. Because of the litigious nature of our society everyone is so terrified to take a step that might irritate a minority that the majority is all but overlooked. If you can get a scholarship simply on the basis of Hispanic or African American descent, it's ludicrous to attack a group that offers the same scholarship simply on the basis of Caucasian descent.

The tables have turned, but the laws have stayed the same. Affirmative Action, which was purported to be the great equalizer, has worn out its welcome in a very real way. Instead of balancing the workforce, it has created new depths to which racism in America can sink. Affirmative Action claims to level the playing field so that minorities in the workplace can get a fair shake. But in reality, it promotes the idea that without some kind and compassionate legal maneuvering, those minorities would not have what it takes, they would never be good enough or qualified enough or smart enough on their own to compete with whites. Affirmative Action lets the minorities know that the only reason they are allowed to play with the white kids is that the government stepped in and forced them to allow it.

Discrimination against whites happens everyday, and no one takes notice. Five students at a San Fransisco school wore American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo last year. At least two of them were Hispanic. The Principal ordered them to either change their shirts or go home because the fact that they wore American flags to an American public school was considered offensive.

And just a little more food for thought: in American public schools, African Americans are taught to be proud of their roots. Hispanics are taught to be proud of their heritage. Asians, Arabs, American Indians, all are taught that they should be proud of their ancestry. White students, in contrast, are taught that they should embrace all of these other groups but are never taught that they too should be proud of their own European ancestors.

Or try this analogy on for size: suppose you grow up with one sibling. At every meal you get enough to eat, but your sister is allowed a second helping. You get to attend school, but your sister is allowed to participate in extracurricular activities. Your parents agree to pay $10,000 for your wedding, but they fork out $50,000 for your sister. In no way have you been deprived of anything you need, therefore your parents were not discriminating *against* you. However, they have been discriminating *in favor of* your sister. It's the same thing in racial politics today. It's not that whites are actively discriminated against, only that concessions are made for minorities that would not be made if the person on the receiving end was white.

In the above article, NYT columnist Charles Blow quotes a poll that claims that more and more white American conservatives are claiming to be the victims of racism. And then, of course, he explains to you how it's impossible for white people to be the victims of racism, simply because they are...wait for it...white.

What's funny to me is that he is simply jumping onto the liberal bandwagon of defining eligibility for victimhood by skin color and crying racism at people who refuse to do so.

However, if I walk down the street, an African American can call me "cracker," and a gay man can label me a "homophobe." They can do this without reason, and if I so much as raise an eyebrow, I am labeled a "racist" and a "bigot."
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I do not consider myself a victim. The victims are the people who truly believe that 50 years after the Civil Rights Movement and nearly 150 years since slavery was abolished we still have something for which we need to do penance. The victims are the minorities who have been conditioned through careful manipulation and in some cases outright pandering and bribery to believe that even though most of them have grown up free to attend any school they want and drink from whatever fountain they choose the big bad white man owes them something simply because he is white and they are not.

Blow goes on in his NYT piece to praise the Democrats because while over 50% of Republicans and Tea Party activists believe that racism against whites is a real problem in America only 30% of the Democratic ranks agreed that it was even happening.

NEWSFLASH: Democrats agree with this statement in smaller numbers because keeping minorities in their place is what guarantees them an *injustice* upon which to build a campaign.

Friday, February 11, 2011


So...I inadvertently started a war on my Facebook page the other day. It was a simple post, really:

"Donald Trump is pro-life, pro-border security, and would like to impose a 25% tariff on all goods coming in from China. Is it to much to ask that he run for President in 2012?"

The responses were immediate and all over the map. 

One comment voiced concern over entrusting the Federal Government to "the Donald" since he has had businesses go bankrupt in the past. In my mind, that's the beauty of the whole idea: the Federal Government is already bankrupt. Worse than bankrupt, actually. And even with a history of business troubles, Donald Trump has proven time and time again that he has the guts, determination and knowhow to doggedly soldier on and rebuild, from the ground up if necessary.

Another comment informed me that at that very moment he was on CNN live, making it clear that a run for the Presidency was definitely on the table and that a formal announcement would be made this coming June...

And then someone asked what was a good argument for imposing a tariff on China, suggesting that any limits on trade would be bad because according to a college macro economics class, trade was good for all parties involved.

The argument for a tariff is simple: other countries are already taxing their American imports. Our government thinks that if we do the same and tax imports from other countries (which would make it much more cost effective to buy American here in the States) those countries would respond by making their tariffs higher. Which is probably true. But if it once again becomes cost-effective to buy American, more people will. And that will return the need for a manufacturing base here as well, which would provide more private sector jobs. If America manufactures more, the cost of that manufacture will go down - because we now have a reason to manufacture in bulk, and because the one thing Obama got right in his State of the Union Address last month is that, when faced with a challenge, no one does innovation like Americans with a necessity to get things done. There really isn't a good argument for NOT imposing a tariff, especially on things from China. 

The commentator then made the point that we shouldn't "force" people to buy American, and that the things we import from China, such as cheap t-shirts, are things that Americans don't really want to make anyway because they have better things to do.

It's not about forcing people to buy American. But if we can stimulate the American economy and provide jobs while not rewarding a nation that is building an empire on the breaking backs of its people, then maybe we should aim for that. 

Also, with an unemployment rate hovering around 10%, I think it's quite safe to say that the number of jobs Americans don't want to do - like making t-shirts or making $4 an hour to pick fruit - is a lot smaller than you think.

And as for China in specific: You need to take into consideration that things made in China can be bought so cheaply because their workers are paid next to nothing and forced to work in horrific conditions. Those curly light bulbs that everyone is raving about - look up how many Chinese workers die every year from mercury poisoning as a result of their light bulb industry. All so that Americans can feel better about saving the ozone layer, one Chinese laborer at a time. 

China is also taxing American goods so heavily that the workers (who are being paid a small fraction of their worth) cannot afford to buy American. Then they sell to Americans at a rate that they can only sustain by continuing the unethical treatment of their workers. By not placing a reciprocal tax on Chinese imports, the American government is making American businesses less viable and displaying tacit approval of a regime that shows no regard whatsoever for human rights.

So why Donald Trump? America needs a businessman - someone who understands how to make things work. But more than that, America needs someone who will take a risk in the UN "boardroom" or in an interview with Matt Lauer. Someone who realizes that promoting America's interests could possibly annoy people in other parts of the world. We need someone who realizes that fighting for a future that features a strong America is more important than making sure President Hu has a good time in Washington. (Even George W. Bush got that.)

Donald Trump does not expect everyone to like him; in fact he expects some people NOT to like him. He expects them instead to respect his ability to take actions that will be in the best interest of his business venture - in this case, possibly America. That kind of confidence has been missing from the Presidency for a long time. We caught a glimpse of it in George W. Bush, and a lot more of it in Reagan. And that's something we need to get back to. If Donald Trump can take us there, I say let him try.

Saturday, February 5, 2011

At least Reagan gave up acting when he got to Washington...

On the eve of what would have been the 100th birthday of President Ronald Wilson Reagan, Americans are resigned to listening to people discuss the similarities between Obama and the Gipper...

While it is true that both Obama and Reagan campaigned on a message of hope for the future, Reagan put his hope in the strength of the American people. Obama clearly puts his in the simultaneous expansion of the Federal Government and the deficit.

It is also true that both Obama and Reagan faced major disappointments at the midterm elections, but the pendulum swing in favor of the Tea Party movement was one of the biggest swings in Congressional history.

And as for the economic "crisis," Reagan's response was to allow the private sector the freedom to create the jobs that would pull America out of the slump. And it worked. Obama's current strategy seems to be to apply regulations and moratoriums that guarantee that in the next 50 years all Americans will either be employed by the Federal Government (due to its unprecedented and astronomical expansion) or getting paid by the government in the form of entitlements.

In a meeting with Presidential historians, Obama was most interested in hearing about Reagan and his time in office. It seems to me that Obama could not pick a better Presidential role model than Ronald Reagan. The problem is that he is trying to reconcile with the Reagan role model policies that line up more with Marx. Reagan said that when it came down to most things, Government was not the solution. It was, in fact, the problem. One might ask why, if Obama looks up to Reagan so much, he wouldn't try to achieve the results Reagan got by attempting to implement similar policies? 

The American people are trying to climb a ladder toward a stronger economy. While Reagan's response was to get the Federal Bureaucrats out of the way and give the people room to move, Obama's is to get out a chainsaw and systematically remove the rungs of the ladder. Every so often he turns off the chainsaw to smile and remind America "Yes, we can!"

The real difference between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama? My husband put it best: "At least Reagan gave up acting when he got to Washington."