Coming Back to Civilization?

Coming back from a long, restful vacation is always interesting. One always wonders how fast reality displaces that peaceful feeling.

Mine came real fast. My desk at work earned a PhD while I was gone (that’s Piled Higher & Deeper), and I was assigned two more projects while I was gone to Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Worse, I needed to come up with a presentation on one of those new projects by the end of the week, and still keep all the other projects running. I felt like a juggler with one arm tied behind his back trying to keep all the balls in the air. Sigh… There went the stress relief…

But the time away allowed Mrs. Common Sense and I some much needed time alone, and the unforgettable memories that make up any marriage. We had not been on an extended vacation away from home for 10 years. We were due, big time.

However, the world goes on, and one again wonders what is coming around the bend next.

For instance, OJ Simpson is back in trouble with the law. I have no idea how his latest run-in is going to shake out, and in some respects, I don’t care. I believe that this person got away with two murders, aided and abetted by the inept prosecution & law enforcement that is in Los Angeles, and the judge & jury that had no idea what they were doing. In some respects, that case shows how woefully inadequate our justice system is in dealing with celebrities and other high-profile cases – it becomes a popularity contest instead of justice & closure for the victims (or their families).

And this idiocy isn’t limited to celebrities either. The protests in Jena, Louisiana over the initial charging of 6 black youths with attempted murder over the beating of a white youth is incredible. While the initial charge was over the top, if the colors of the victim and defendants were reversed, the protesters would be screaming “hate crime” and nothing short of life imprisonment. From MSNBC.com:

The six black teens were charged a few months after three white teens were accused of hanging nooses in a tree at their high school. The white teens were suspended from school but weren’t prosecuted. Five of the black teens were initially charged with attempted murder. That charge was reduced to battery for all but one, who has yet to be arraigned; the sixth was charged as a juvenile.

The beating victim, Justin Barker, was knocked unconscious, his face badly swollen and bloodied, though he was able to attend a school function later that night.

The only crime here was the assault of the victim by the 6 defendants. While the act of hanging the nooses from the tree is disgusting, the act didn’t break any laws. But that’s not going to dissuade the race-baiters and activists from a good protest.

Where I have problems with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and their ilk (yes, ilk) is that they are not as color-blind nor as for equal treatment for all persons under the law as they would have you believe. No, they want their race to have special treatment. Multiple cases and incidents for both of these “gentlemen” speak for themselves if you care to do the research. The history there is that they stir things up, not resolve the problems or injustices.

Here’s my case in point: If they were as color-blind as they say they are, they would be pushing for hate-crime charges on the 6 black defendants. After all, didn’t the 6 black defendants beat up a white victim? And if past cases are to be used as examples, it shouldn’t matter what provocation took place – a physical assault took place.

And that’s the fallacy of “hate-crime” legislation. As far as I’m concerned, all crime is hateful in one respect or another. Hate crime legislation is not for the protection of the minority from the majority, but to provide additional penalties for crimes based entirely on hate. Which is another problem – how do you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what a person is thinking or what really motivated him to commit a crime? Justice should be blind, and race (or any of the other hate-crime labels) should not enter into the mix. Entering criminal charges based on crimes with differing race, beliefs, or other criteria as factors can be just as discriminatory as the actions the accused is charged with.

While the above may crank off some of the readers of this post (and I can just hear this one coming) and think that I’m a racist, please stop and be intellectually honest with yourself. Do you really think that one race is superior than another? Do you hate a person’s race or skin color? I don’t on either count.

In many respects, this incident is something that has been blown completely out of proportion by activists. I’m not saying that nothing happened of a racist nature (there was), but calling attention to this event in this manner does nothing but present an “us versus them” attitude which numbs the message that they supposedly want to get across – equal justice. No, they want the defendants freed and not prosecuted for the assault. There is the injustice – do the crime, do the time, not freedom for the criminal.

And they wonder why people, in general, ignore these protests, and distrust the justice system.

Let’s not even start on Congress’s lowest approval rating ever, HRC’s health care plan or promised tax hikes, or Dan Rather suing CBS… 

Who Is Special?

Before going on with this post, I would like to assure all of the readers of this post that I am not a racist, a bigot, and nor do I believe that any one race is superior to another. People are people, and how they conduct themselves is a reflection upon themselves, not about the color of their skin. Whether or not they want to make an issue of skin color, I leave that to the well-established organizations that have a history of such actions & views. Any comments alluding to the contrary will be subject to the Blog Comment Policy posted at the right.

As many of you know, February is Black History Month. This means that my work is now plastered with placards, posters, and art celebrating the ethnicity of Americans of African descent. I personally do not have a problem with this – everyone should be able to relate to and celebrate their heritage.

Other months and weeks celebrate Hispanic, Asian, and Native American ethnicity, and also have their own posters, art, and whatnot showing the rich culture that these groups have. And yes, there is a Gay, Lesbian, and Trans-gendered display for that community that gets put up once a year. But there is nothing celebrating the White, Caucasian, or European stock that populate this country.

Why is it that only certain groups get their days in the sun while a certain group does not? Now while I admit to being of mixed-Irish decent, St. Patrick's Day just doesn't cut it in my humble opinion. One day of revelry (?) does not make up for a month of hoopla (and even then there are some accounts that the day has a negative connotation about the Irish, but I digress). But if I or others of my ethnic background make a fuss about this apparent inequality, we are promptly branded racist, hate-mongering bigots.

This is one of the reasons that I believe that diversity, as a whole and in practice, is a sham. If we truly want to celebrate a diverse culture, we would not single out one race or skin-color for omission nor raise one up above all others. And if one ethnic group points out the inequality, they shouldn’t be flamed for it.

From another angle on the same subject, I was listening to a local radio station, and there was a statement that Detroit was the most segregated city in the United States. There was a further announcement that there was going to be a symposium to discuss the issue (translation: problem). Is this really a problem or not?

I hate to state the obvious, but people of similar ethnic backgrounds tend to band together. There is this herding instinct, one that wants to have familiar or similar faces and backgrounds around us. Be honest with yourself – do you have more friends of a similar race to yourself, or from a different race? What is your real preference? Nothing to be ashamed of – that's just the way humans are.

But the problem is that there are people thinking that this is inherently wrong behavior. These pointy-headed social engineers (PHSE) believe that to think differently than their paradigm means that you are racist and a hate-monger. Sorry, Professor PHSE, that is a false assumption for your perception of perceived problem.

The fact of the matter is that you and I most likely have more friends of similar skin color than not. This doesn’t mean that we are racist or bigoted. In fact, I get along with just about everyone whether or not they are the same skin color as I am or not. But the PHSEs don’t like this, and lobbied for laws and regulations to force the issue.

I’m not talking about the civil rights acts that guarantee everyone a fair shot at jobs, housing, or education. Rather, the ones that I am thinking of are ones that state quotas (explicit or implicit) for the same subjects: jobs, housing, and education.

As an example, there is a regulation that states that each large corporation must award a certain percentage of business to minority-based or owned suppliers. To do otherwise would incur higher taxes or fines. These businesses know this, and typically charge higher rates for their services. Is this fair to a non-minority owned business?

Another example is Michigan’s Proposal 2 that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters last election. It stated in part:

Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

And the courts are now battling the will of the people stating that this is unconstitutional! In effect, the courts are arguing that some places in these institutions should be reserved, i.e., a quota, for people that may not otherwise qualify or have the opportunity to attend school or get a job. Excuse me? Shouldn’t the best qualified people be hired for the job or an educational spot instead of a person that isn’t? Here would be my argument to the court:

Suppose that a person who does not have the ability or education is hired for the job of designing and building a highway bridge. They are contracted merely because the contract that needed to be filled was reserved for a person of that ethnic or social background. Would you want to be the first person to drive over that bridge after it’s completed?

Because of this argument, I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race, gender, or social standing. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the affirmative action programs are supposedly helping.

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post titled Equal Diversity. In it I wrote:

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people’s attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissension, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

So whether it is an ethnic holiday, applying for a job or education, or anything else, we should be color-blind, and so should our government, education, and employment institutions. It’s either all or nothing as far as I’m concerned – I’m fed up with the double-standards and favoritism. How about you?

What I Think...

This is what I think on a few choice subjects...

The War in Iraq:

When it was announced that the United States was giving Iraq's Saddam Hussein an ultimatum in response to the non-compliance of UN resolutions, I really didn't like the implications. Going into Iraq without UN support, i.e., alone, was not the right thing to do. I was concerned that the second Bush was going to do what the first Bush didn't do (and was severely criticized for) - get rid of Saddam Hussein. While the intelligence at the time supported the invasion of Iraq, Saddam had too much time to bury or otherwise get rid of his WMD arsenal. However, as I've posted here and on numerous comments on other blogs, the United States cannot leave Iraq without a self-sustaining government - the danger of Iraq descending into chaos and taking the region with it is too great.

The War on Terrorism:

As stated in several previous posts, negotiation with terrorists should never be an option. They should be found and prosecuted with every means at the disposal of the United States government and the governments of the world. And it can be done if the politicians get out of the way...

War in General:

War is the last resort after diplomacy has failed, and should be avoided, but not at all costs. Giving away everything you believe in just for the sake of peace is a deal with the devil, and will not, in the long run, achieve the desired result of peace. War is unhealthy for all the participants, both for soldiers and civilians alike. I do not want war, nor do I promote it - I just know that in some situations it cannot be avoided.

Immigration:

Illegal immigration is a blight on our country, and a subject that politicians would rather avoid. Just mentioning this topic raises many feelings that are not, shall we say, are very civilized. I do not have a problem with people immigrating to this country legally, but to reward those that come here by illegal means and then defend their actions grates against my law-abiding nature. It also gets me that illegal immigrants are eligible for Social Security benefits, driver's licenses, & other governmental services (your tax dollars!!), and the politicians just give the wink & a nod & ignore this problem.

Michigan's Proposal 2:

Michigan's Proposal 2 states:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSES

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

* Ban public institution from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institution affected by this proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.

* Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)

On the surface, this looks like a good idea. I have problems with quotas wrapped in the guise of affirmative action. Everyone should have an equal bite at the apple, but the deciding factor should be on the person's ability & merit, not race or gender. Unfortunately, what has happened is not fair and is patronizing to those people that the program is supposedly helping. In an earlier post, I wrote the following of what Martin Luther King had envisioned for the Negro people:

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas.

Equal Diversity

I've debated for some time about this subject & posting it, but I feel it is appropriate to do so on this day. I do wonder what Martin Luther King would think about today's situation if he had not been killed. Please have the courtesy to read the entire post and understand the viewpoints before responding in the comments to flame me. Thank you.

Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrikan, and Al Sharpton all lament that their people are being mistreated, held back, discriminated against, and otherwise separated from their proper place in society. They constantly point to the "white oppressors" in government and business who stop at nothing to hold the minority back. Of course, they then pass the plate for funds to change the attitudes of business and change the laws to favor their people.

Their speech inflames and divides people along racial lines. How can anyone accept diversity with such hateful speech from the proponents of diversity? Unless, of course, they like to stir up the masses to line their own pockets...

How many times have you seen the above three in the slums or ghettos with their "people", with or without their legions of bodyguards? When was the last time that you heard of their organizations helping the victims of Katrina get back on their feet, or contribute or organize programs to help their people to better themselves to get themselves out of the desperate situations that they are in? How many "photo-ops" have featured any of the above? Damn few, if any, from what I've seen.

Their solution is to have the government take care of their people while they live the high life. And there is something fundamentally wrong with this - these three bitch & moan about the government mistreating minorities, and expect the government to take care of the same people that they are being accused of mistreating! What am I missing here?

To rely on the government for anything long-term is insanity at best and stupidity at worst. Government changes depending on who is elected and how much public opinion pushes the elected officials to make those changes. Politicians have no allegiances except to themselves. Further, government cannot make people change their attitudes about themselves, which is a greater hindrance to progress than anything else.

Here's a better solution for these three to consider: Stop the politicking and fundraisers, and turn your attention to changing the attitudes of the people you claim to represent. Aid them in finding solutions instead of assigning blame. Support getting the able-bodied off of Welfare, and find jobs, educational opportunities, and other positions that will improve their standard of living. Recognize the rapper/drug culture for what it is, a self-destructive blight upon your people, and kill it. Instill in these same people self-respect and self-control, the understanding of tolerance, and the fruits of social change will be forthcoming. You, the self-appointed leaders of your race/community must first demonstrate leadership before any positive changes can even be expected to occur.

Government sponsored quotas & regulations will not change people's attitudes toward diversity. All these will do is promote division, dissention, and resentment. I have noticed in recent years an increase of these attitudes. This is NOT what Martin Luther King had in mind.

His vision looked for the Negro people to stand side by side with the White people as equals, and to get there by self-sufficiency, not by a government mandate. He wanted his people to rise up to their potential, to stand on their own two feet, not by some law or subsidy. Patronage of the Negro was not his vision, but to join the human race as equals to any other ethnic group, to enjoy the fruits of hard labor through equal opportunity, and not through quotas. It is truly a travesty that his own people have hindered this vision instead of completing it.

GM Diversity Decision

A federal court has upheld GM's decision to not allow Christians to organize in an employee group under its diversity program. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that GM's diversity program does not discriminate against Christians because it treats all religions equally.

The diversity program allows Hispanics, Blacks, Gays & Lesbians, and other groups to organize under its Affinity Groups program. The program's guidelines do not allow religious groups to organize.

OK, how about someone at GM wanting to organize an Anglo-Saxon group? Does anyone reading this blog think that would happen without someone from one of the "other" groups complaining or the Affinity Group management denying the application? Hah!

Or how about some Muslims wanting to organize under a Middle-Eastern group? Think they would be denied or disbanded if they started religious-oriented activities? I doubt it.

One of these days, I will need to write about whom diversity really serves, and what I have seen. There is so much BS and hypocrisy in this movement that is absolutely unreal.