This morning, I heard on the news that the NAACP is calling everyone in the Tea Party a racist. I suppose asking why, would be unacceptable; since we are not supposed to question anything that is done by this administration, or the evangelists of its political agenda. Even though I am not a member of the Tea Party, I suspect they will be calling me a racist next! It seems that anyone who does not endorse the political agenda of this administration is a racist.
I'm a math and logic guy. So, I have some knowledge of things like mathematical proofs. I also understand logic. There is a well know mathematical principal: a single example does not prove a theory. A single example can be used, however, to disprove a theory. The NAACP claims that all members of the Tea Party are racists. This is a statement of a theory. The beauty of this claim is the damage it can do, whether it is proven or not. And, I suspect this is the goal. But, I digress; back to the theory. It's simple and logical: this theory can be dis-proven by having one member of the Tea Party that is not racist. So, can the NAACP prove that every member of the Tea Party is a racist? If not, then this theory is false. It's what we call an unsubstantiated statement.
I heard an interview, where an advocate of the NAACP's position stated things like "small government" and "states rights" were code words for racism. Wait - I thought racism was treating someone different because of their race. How did states rights and small government become part of the equation? It's almost as if the NAACP is saying that the only way to avoid racism, is to have a centralized government (opposite of small government and states rights) to control its citizens - to ensure racism does not happen. Well, history tells us that governments can have racists policies; depending on the people who act on behalf of the government. So, I am not sure why someone would trust the government not to be racist. But, I guess someone might believe that the government would be able to prevent racism. It's ironic; the Tea Party is the party that basically says government is supposed to serve the people, rather than the other way around. The Tea Party advocates personal liberty. I guess it comes down to whether you trust the government more or less than the people around you. And, I guess if you are a minority, it would be hard to trust those who are in the majority. That said, we do have laws in this country that expressly make discrimination illegal.
Lets go back to logic for just a moment. Is it logical that all people are racists, if only one person is proven to be racist? The answer is no. So, since racism is assumed when we talk about the need for big, centralized government, can the conclusion be true if one of the fundamental assumptions is proved wrong? The answer is no. The reality is that people are being manipulated.
What could possibly be accomplished by claiming that the Tea Party is racist? It's all about guilt. That's right. It's about the fear of being called a racist. It's leverage against people like me, who try to be independent of the political parties. And, as hard as this is for me to admit, It's leverage against people like me who have been afraid to be called racist.
You see, some people will almost always vote Republican. And, others will almost always vote Democratic. The independents are the ones that really determine elections. They are the group that were fundamental in the 2006 and 2008 elections. They are the group that were upset with President Bush and the Republicans (for any number of reasons). The independent voters are the ones who put the Democrats in control of Congress in 2006. And, they are the group that elected President Obama in 2008.
Why would anyone want to use racism to manipulate a population? Simple - Power. By manipulating people into thinking they are victims of racism, you can get them to support your political agenda (enemy of my enemy, etc.). And, by making people afraid of being called racist, you accomplish the same exact thing. Basically, it's all about fear. Fear of being a victim of racism (on the one hand), and fear of being called a racist (on the other hand). I think it goes without saying, that this kind of public manipulation is just plain bad.
By the way, if the agenda is a centralized government, to ensure that racism does not occur, then the government would have to be able to control everyone. People who are dependent on the government would be very easy to control.
I was taught to treat people the way I want to be treated. And, I have tried to live up to this every day of my life. To me, this is what is important: living according to my values. I have decided to get over my fear of being called a racist. I have never treated someone different because of their race, and I never will. I refuse to be manipulated, based on my fear of being called something that I know I am not. If someone calls me a racist, I could spend lots of time trying to prove they are wrong. Or, I can take it for what it is: an inaccurate statement. No more guilt. I will not be manipulated.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Way to Go!
I just found out that a bunch of friends, who live and work in Houston, have been released from their jobs with oil companies. And, I understand that more people will be losing their jobs over the next couple of weeks. We (as a Nation) are still struggling with a bad economy. People need jobs! And, yet, this administration takes the decision to stop deep water oil and gas activities in the Gulf. Why?
Well, this administration is all about perception. And, by shutting down deep water drilling in the Gulf, it looks like the administration is being tough with the oil industry. Maybe this administration should have thought this through. Clearly, stopping oil and gas activities in the Gulf is costing jobs. This, at a time when we really need fewer unemployed people - not more. The situation in the Gulf is an environmental tragedy of epic proportions. But, shutting down the oil and gas industry in the Gulf is just making the problem worse.
I wonder ... what if these oil and gas workers were union workers? Would this administration have been so quick to cut off their lively-hood? We know the administration used tax payer's dollars to save auto worker's jobs. What if these jobs were in a blue state? Statistics show that most oil field workers are very conservative; thus, not Obama supporters. Let's keep this simple: Did the administration consider the loss of jobs before they shut down the oil and gas industry in the Gulf? Was there a political agenda?
If this administration understood the concept of a free market, they would not have needed to shutdown the oil and gas industry in the Gulf. It's really simple. It's called risk. Businesses (particularly the oil industry) are constantly evaluating the risks they are willing to take, in order to earn revenue. I assure you: no oil company (or any company) wants to take the risk of losing billions of dollars because of an accident; like the one in the Gulf. It's just common sense. If this administration understood more about business, they would have realized that they did not need to shut down the oil industry in the Gulf; they would have realized that businesses know how to manage risk in order to get a return on investment.
Yet another reckless action by this administration, is resulting in more unemployed people. This administration claimed that GM was too big to fail. Really. They claimed that if GM went bankrupt, that all the businesses who depend on GM would also go bankrupt. What about the large scale economic havoc, that shutting down the oil business will have on the Gulf States? How is this different? Oh yeah, this administration bailed out GM; and, they caused the shutdown of the Gulf oil industry. Isn't this a double standard?
It gets even better. Not only has the administration destroyed the oil industry in the Gulf, they have severely impacted our supply of oil. We are still in an economic crisis! If you do something to drive up the cost of oil, you will make the economic crisis worse. It's called inflation. Oil is required to transport goods. That cost is passed onto consumers. I will not even talk about all the foreign countries that are still sucking our (American) oil reserves dry. What were you thinking!
This administration had an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. Instead, they have cost more American jobs at a time when jobs are scarce. And, this administration has put our supply of oil at risk. I just don't understand the rationale for such reckless behavior. Don't you care about the American people?
Well, this administration is all about perception. And, by shutting down deep water drilling in the Gulf, it looks like the administration is being tough with the oil industry. Maybe this administration should have thought this through. Clearly, stopping oil and gas activities in the Gulf is costing jobs. This, at a time when we really need fewer unemployed people - not more. The situation in the Gulf is an environmental tragedy of epic proportions. But, shutting down the oil and gas industry in the Gulf is just making the problem worse.
I wonder ... what if these oil and gas workers were union workers? Would this administration have been so quick to cut off their lively-hood? We know the administration used tax payer's dollars to save auto worker's jobs. What if these jobs were in a blue state? Statistics show that most oil field workers are very conservative; thus, not Obama supporters. Let's keep this simple: Did the administration consider the loss of jobs before they shut down the oil and gas industry in the Gulf? Was there a political agenda?
If this administration understood the concept of a free market, they would not have needed to shutdown the oil and gas industry in the Gulf. It's really simple. It's called risk. Businesses (particularly the oil industry) are constantly evaluating the risks they are willing to take, in order to earn revenue. I assure you: no oil company (or any company) wants to take the risk of losing billions of dollars because of an accident; like the one in the Gulf. It's just common sense. If this administration understood more about business, they would have realized that they did not need to shut down the oil industry in the Gulf; they would have realized that businesses know how to manage risk in order to get a return on investment.
Yet another reckless action by this administration, is resulting in more unemployed people. This administration claimed that GM was too big to fail. Really. They claimed that if GM went bankrupt, that all the businesses who depend on GM would also go bankrupt. What about the large scale economic havoc, that shutting down the oil business will have on the Gulf States? How is this different? Oh yeah, this administration bailed out GM; and, they caused the shutdown of the Gulf oil industry. Isn't this a double standard?
It gets even better. Not only has the administration destroyed the oil industry in the Gulf, they have severely impacted our supply of oil. We are still in an economic crisis! If you do something to drive up the cost of oil, you will make the economic crisis worse. It's called inflation. Oil is required to transport goods. That cost is passed onto consumers. I will not even talk about all the foreign countries that are still sucking our (American) oil reserves dry. What were you thinking!
This administration had an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. Instead, they have cost more American jobs at a time when jobs are scarce. And, this administration has put our supply of oil at risk. I just don't understand the rationale for such reckless behavior. Don't you care about the American people?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Filibuster Kagan
Hello!?!? Any Republican Senators out there?!?!
Where in the world have all the Republican Senators gone? What are you doing?
Perhaps it is time for you to do something. Here's an idea: how about taking a stand on the appointment of an obviously extremely liberal supreme court judge.
We need checks and balances. Given the importance of the Supreme Court, I would think this is the perfect time, and issue, for the Republicans to take a stand. Democratic strategist have painted Republicans as advocates for big business, and not as advocates for the American people. Why not show the American people, that the Republicans are willing to stand up for the preservation of the Constitution?
Get off your butts and stop the Kagan appointment to the Supreme Court! Prove to the American people that your party is truly all about the Constitution.
Where in the world have all the Republican Senators gone? What are you doing?
Perhaps it is time for you to do something. Here's an idea: how about taking a stand on the appointment of an obviously extremely liberal supreme court judge.
We need checks and balances. Given the importance of the Supreme Court, I would think this is the perfect time, and issue, for the Republicans to take a stand. Democratic strategist have painted Republicans as advocates for big business, and not as advocates for the American people. Why not show the American people, that the Republicans are willing to stand up for the preservation of the Constitution?
Get off your butts and stop the Kagan appointment to the Supreme Court! Prove to the American people that your party is truly all about the Constitution.
Hannity Hype
I did not like the Bush bashing, when Bush was President. And, I do not like the Obama bashing. I know that Obama, himself, bashed Bush mercilessly during the 2008 election. So, maybe he deserves all the abuse. But, I was taught that "two wrongs do not make a right".
During the 2008 election, Obama was bashed regularly. And, what happened: he got elected. I don't believe the bashing does any good.
I sometimes have to drive for two or three hours, as I live in one town and work in another. The last two weeks I have had to change radio stations, because the attacks on Obama were just too much. Enough already. If I am changing the channel, then I assure you other like-minded independents are changing the channel. Obama is in office. He is going to be in office until 2012. I really do not want to have to listen to the Obama bashing for another two years.
Here's the deal. The 2010 elections are just around the corner. And, I know that you (Hannity, et al) think that the Republicans are going to get majorities in both the House and the Senate. I am not so sure. While you are bashing Obama, the Republican candidates are losing ground against the Democratic candidates. If you really want to get rid of this Democratic Congress, you had better find a way to start helping the candidates that are running against Democratic Congressmen and Senators. It's almost like you think that bashing Obama will translate to votes against the Democrats. I am not so sure.
It seems to me that if you really want to vote out all the Democrats, you need to start talking about what the American people need to do to make this happen. What is the battle plan? Who are the Democratic Congressmen and Senators who are vulnerable? What are the specific issues that indicate why their Democratic Congressman or Senator should be voted out of office?
Enough Obama bashing. Let's focus on how we get these government elitists out of office; starting with the 2010 elections.
During the 2008 election, Obama was bashed regularly. And, what happened: he got elected. I don't believe the bashing does any good.
I sometimes have to drive for two or three hours, as I live in one town and work in another. The last two weeks I have had to change radio stations, because the attacks on Obama were just too much. Enough already. If I am changing the channel, then I assure you other like-minded independents are changing the channel. Obama is in office. He is going to be in office until 2012. I really do not want to have to listen to the Obama bashing for another two years.
Here's the deal. The 2010 elections are just around the corner. And, I know that you (Hannity, et al) think that the Republicans are going to get majorities in both the House and the Senate. I am not so sure. While you are bashing Obama, the Republican candidates are losing ground against the Democratic candidates. If you really want to get rid of this Democratic Congress, you had better find a way to start helping the candidates that are running against Democratic Congressmen and Senators. It's almost like you think that bashing Obama will translate to votes against the Democrats. I am not so sure.
It seems to me that if you really want to vote out all the Democrats, you need to start talking about what the American people need to do to make this happen. What is the battle plan? Who are the Democratic Congressmen and Senators who are vulnerable? What are the specific issues that indicate why their Democratic Congressman or Senator should be voted out of office?
Enough Obama bashing. Let's focus on how we get these government elitists out of office; starting with the 2010 elections.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Papers Please!
I'm sitting in the airport waiting to board my flight. I've already been through security, where we were subjected to the wands and all kinds of modern technology. So, I'm sitting here, and a TSA agent walks past me. I noticed because she had a cast on her foot. Actually, I noticed the limp, then the cast, then the TSA uniform. Well, the TSA agent proceeded to walk through the seating area asking for boarding passes and IDs. Then, a second TSA Agent appeared; doing the same thing. As a person who has flow a million miles on two different airlines, I know what security was like before 9\11. And, I cannot tell you how happy I am that the TSA was put in place.
As the TSA agents were making their way through the seating areas, I had a thought. I'm sure there is value in random searches. And, I am not about to second guess their methods. But, a thought occurred to me: what if they are just doing this because they don't have anything else to do? Then another thought occurred to me: how is this any different than an Arizona police officer asking for immigration papers? And finally, I had a flash back to the movies where Russian police and Nazi SS were walking around constantly asking people for their "papers please".
First, I certainly hope we are not just throwing federal dollars at all the various federal agencies, telling the supervisors to "find them something to do". Surely, we would not spend money just to spend money. Right?
Next, how is this different from Arizona trying to protect their citizens? The federal government (TSA agent) could discriminate against someone just as easily as an Arizona police officer could. The situations are exactly the same. Yet, I hear democratic congressmen saying that asking for papers could be discriminatory. Please, someone tell me what the difference is here, other than one is not being subjected to a political agenda.
Finally, doesn't the idea of a federal agent walking up to you and asking for your papers bother anyone else? I get that we need security. And, I have already said how much I appreciate what the TSA has done to improve airplane security. But, the federal government puts the effort into protecting airports, rather than protecting our borders. Why is that? Why wont the federal government put the effort into protecting the borders? They seem to be able to hire TSA folks. Why not give the police on the border the support they are begging for?
By the way, when is asking for your papers "over the line"?
As the TSA agents were making their way through the seating areas, I had a thought. I'm sure there is value in random searches. And, I am not about to second guess their methods. But, a thought occurred to me: what if they are just doing this because they don't have anything else to do? Then another thought occurred to me: how is this any different than an Arizona police officer asking for immigration papers? And finally, I had a flash back to the movies where Russian police and Nazi SS were walking around constantly asking people for their "papers please".
First, I certainly hope we are not just throwing federal dollars at all the various federal agencies, telling the supervisors to "find them something to do". Surely, we would not spend money just to spend money. Right?
Next, how is this different from Arizona trying to protect their citizens? The federal government (TSA agent) could discriminate against someone just as easily as an Arizona police officer could. The situations are exactly the same. Yet, I hear democratic congressmen saying that asking for papers could be discriminatory. Please, someone tell me what the difference is here, other than one is not being subjected to a political agenda.
Finally, doesn't the idea of a federal agent walking up to you and asking for your papers bother anyone else? I get that we need security. And, I have already said how much I appreciate what the TSA has done to improve airplane security. But, the federal government puts the effort into protecting airports, rather than protecting our borders. Why is that? Why wont the federal government put the effort into protecting the borders? They seem to be able to hire TSA folks. Why not give the police on the border the support they are begging for?
By the way, when is asking for your papers "over the line"?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)