This isn't really about Paula Deen.
She is just a stupid volunteer. It is about a moment in time which converges with SCOTUS' Voting Rights Act decision and Zimmerman. It is about a society that thinks it is reality TV instead of the other way around.
The "N-word" - stupid childish, gives more power to a shitty word (one of many bazillion shitty words); because I am white, I am supposed to call it that (none of us knows what it stands for!). Thus we convince people that they can be hurt by a word. It is like being in a Harry Potter movie - I can't say Voldemort but "The thing that shall not be named". What incredible Bull Shit.
Words are letters, syllables, sounds, strung together that impact your tympanic membrane and become sounds - then you make a meaning for them. It if hurts you, then look at yourself. It is an immature world where words are hurtful - "She called me a ....". The next step is that this justifies whatever one does in response. Quite frankly, a society cannot allow the use of a word to justify criminal behavior. It can try to understand it, but cannot tolerate it.
Let's be fair; white, European-Americans are not the only ones taught to use such terms or who, either anonymously or when with their own "group", demean others and make stupid or threatening statements. [Please go see how innocence looks]. I do not normally read The Blaze - but it is what it is - these are the little cherubs we are all supposed to be concerned about, the poor children the liberal media would tell us are so mistreated, the budding young sociopaths. I feel certain that Paula Deen, for her many faults, will not be threatening mayhem on strangers any time soon, even after being robbed - just calling them names. So, let's see: Paula Deen is the devil, but these little cherubs are "victims"?
Perhaps it is comforting to bluster, perhaps it allows a sense of control over things that are not controllable, but it is simply more likely that society - or at least part of it - has taught these little want-to-be gangsters that they have a right to blame others. It will certainly be interesting to see the excuses some people make for them if one acts out this threat - or dies in the attempt. I do have to ask: given these tweets, given one is a "cracker", I have to wonder if they have now provided a justification for lethal force if one is faced by a gang of these "gangstas" who approach them?
Whatever it is, you know, most people just want to be left alone to live our lives, to do no one else any harm; we don't care what you look like, what music you listen to, who you screw, or if you like to talk shit to make yourself feel more "empowered". And I am sure that, should Zimmerman be convicted, masses of white Americans will not riot and burn their own neighborhoods or any one else's, nor commit random crimes based on skin color - it didn't happen when OJ was acquitted - but did when Rodney King's assailants were. Go figure. When will we demand that people meet expectations instead of excusing their misbehavior?
Anyone wonder why we are where we are today, how we got to coddling little "gangstas" and psychopaths, justifying their bad behavior, while the culture goes to hell?
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
The hits keep right on coming
Busy day for blogging - every time I turn around more melodrama pops up.
Take this for instance!
This "Tea Party" group (and that is irrelevant) has apparently been marching in this July 4th parade with their rifles for many years without incident. They are law-abiding citizens. But this year; well, the SHTF! What is the big deal? Is this the new America where we have to continually deal with, cater to and, thereby, reinforce melodramatic and idiotic BS? Perhaps the "community" is polarized because some number of them are just plain ignorant and immature and no one will dare confront this as a way to educate them. Perhaps it is because some number of ignorant people want to limit the rights of others. When did this become a country by of and for scared, ignorant children?
It is well known that allowing organisms (including people) to avoid the things they fear does nothing to eliminate that fear, does nothing to "educate" them on the irrationality of that fear. In fact, the reduction in aversive arousal that accompanies avoidance is reinforcing phobic behavior. In such cases, one of the best treatments available is exposure; someone who has a fear of snakes can learn to overcome it by not avoiding it, but through gradual exposure to that stimulus without negative consequences until the arousal diminishes (basically).
So what's that got to do with this foolishness?
Well, as long as we keep letting the irrational fears of those with hoplophobia determine what the rest of us can do, we will continue to allow them to avoid reality and feed their fears. If we keep agreeing with them that it would just be too dangerous to let a group of law-abiding citizens, who have done so in the past, to march with unarmed rifles, then we are simply retraining them over and over to maintain an irrational fear, to be ignorant.
When I talk to people I know, some of whom know that I am an advocate for gun rights and carry a firearm concealed whenever I legally can, and they express concerns about what might happen IF someone were to carry a gun "here" (they often seem to forget that someone IS carrying one - concealed, after all, means concealed), I like to remind them that the odds are that most places they go there is a firearm there. Given that the population in this state is about 20 million and there are about 1 million CWFL holders - an average of 1 in 20 will be carrying - even greater if we limit our candidates to adults as the law mandates.
Take your kids to McDonald's, chances are there is at least one legally carried and concealed firearm there. Going to the grocery store, out to lunch or dinner - likely there is an law-abiding armed citizen there - maybe me. Thing is, you do not even know it or who it may be. Scary, huh? But if the firearms themselves were so dangerous, if they had a "mind of their own" then you would have known this a long time ago. There IS a gun there...a legal gun carried by a responsible owner. And, strangely, what you do not know seems unable to hurt you. And, you know what...there may be a time when you will be glad it was there (like this).
What non-gun-owners do not realize is that the vast majority of legal gun carriers are less likely to start, engage, or escalate trouble because they know that there is a gun there. If I am out and someone acts like a jerk, I am much more likely to walk away because I know that there is the potential for a lethal force. I know that ego needs to take a backseat.
Please - put your ignorant prejudice phobia aside long enough to get educated. Stand back, let people march and express themselves, exercise their freedoms - you might find it is, at worst, a harmless exercise in liberty and, at best, you might learn something. Don't decide you are going to prove all the negative stereotypes of the ignorant anti-gun zealots out there. If you are going to make a decision on such an issue, make it as an informed person, an educated citizen - that is what our nation was founded upon - that is how government by the people was designed to work.
Don't be like the silly little girl from Ms. Magazine (yes, I know that is demeaning - it is what she deserves) who thought the best way to approach this issue was to put her ignorance on parade. She belittled herself and was nothing more than an unflattering caricature.
Take this for instance!
This "Tea Party" group (and that is irrelevant) has apparently been marching in this July 4th parade with their rifles for many years without incident. They are law-abiding citizens. But this year; well, the SHTF! What is the big deal? Is this the new America where we have to continually deal with, cater to and, thereby, reinforce melodramatic and idiotic BS? Perhaps the "community" is polarized because some number of them are just plain ignorant and immature and no one will dare confront this as a way to educate them. Perhaps it is because some number of ignorant people want to limit the rights of others. When did this become a country by of and for scared, ignorant children?
It is well known that allowing organisms (including people) to avoid the things they fear does nothing to eliminate that fear, does nothing to "educate" them on the irrationality of that fear. In fact, the reduction in aversive arousal that accompanies avoidance is reinforcing phobic behavior. In such cases, one of the best treatments available is exposure; someone who has a fear of snakes can learn to overcome it by not avoiding it, but through gradual exposure to that stimulus without negative consequences until the arousal diminishes (basically).
So what's that got to do with this foolishness?
Well, as long as we keep letting the irrational fears of those with hoplophobia determine what the rest of us can do, we will continue to allow them to avoid reality and feed their fears. If we keep agreeing with them that it would just be too dangerous to let a group of law-abiding citizens, who have done so in the past, to march with unarmed rifles, then we are simply retraining them over and over to maintain an irrational fear, to be ignorant.
When I talk to people I know, some of whom know that I am an advocate for gun rights and carry a firearm concealed whenever I legally can, and they express concerns about what might happen IF someone were to carry a gun "here" (they often seem to forget that someone IS carrying one - concealed, after all, means concealed), I like to remind them that the odds are that most places they go there is a firearm there. Given that the population in this state is about 20 million and there are about 1 million CWFL holders - an average of 1 in 20 will be carrying - even greater if we limit our candidates to adults as the law mandates.
Take your kids to McDonald's, chances are there is at least one legally carried and concealed firearm there. Going to the grocery store, out to lunch or dinner - likely there is an law-abiding armed citizen there - maybe me. Thing is, you do not even know it or who it may be. Scary, huh? But if the firearms themselves were so dangerous, if they had a "mind of their own" then you would have known this a long time ago. There IS a gun there...a legal gun carried by a responsible owner. And, strangely, what you do not know seems unable to hurt you. And, you know what...there may be a time when you will be glad it was there (like this).
What non-gun-owners do not realize is that the vast majority of legal gun carriers are less likely to start, engage, or escalate trouble because they know that there is a gun there. If I am out and someone acts like a jerk, I am much more likely to walk away because I know that there is the potential for a lethal force. I know that ego needs to take a backseat.
Please - put your ignorant prejudice phobia aside long enough to get educated. Stand back, let people march and express themselves, exercise their freedoms - you might find it is, at worst, a harmless exercise in liberty and, at best, you might learn something. Don't decide you are going to prove all the negative stereotypes of the ignorant anti-gun zealots out there. If you are going to make a decision on such an issue, make it as an informed person, an educated citizen - that is what our nation was founded upon - that is how government by the people was designed to work.
Don't be like the silly little girl from Ms. Magazine (yes, I know that is demeaning - it is what she deserves) who thought the best way to approach this issue was to put her ignorance on parade. She belittled herself and was nothing more than an unflattering caricature.
Oh, Joe!
I would have to imagine that no one has ever accused Joe Scarborough of being overly tolerant. It is not his forte. In fact, I think he takes pride in it.
And Joe is also so accommodating - he consistently provides examples of both his egocentricity and ethnocentricity. Witness (an interesting choice of words given the topic) this exchange this morning with Jerry DeWitt.
What is remarkable is that he begins his interview with DeWitt by noting that, although DeWitt's book is called "Hope after Faith" he would consider the journey DeWitt has taken as one from faith to hopelessness. In this we can see the usual snarky, know-it-all, disdainful Joe Scarborough approach.
Not unexpected!
However, then, in an example of his typical complete lack of insight, one of his initial questions to DeWitt was whether if, having gone from faith to hope, was he now disdainful of those who still had faith. Joe, in fact, asserted that most atheists were openly hostile of those who still believe and, by implication, that this was terrible.
So - Joe, being Joe - first shows his complete disdain for someone else's beliefs, then derides them for their perception of their seeming disdain for his.
Classic; stupid, but classic.
And Joe is also so accommodating - he consistently provides examples of both his egocentricity and ethnocentricity. Witness (an interesting choice of words given the topic) this exchange this morning with Jerry DeWitt.
What is remarkable is that he begins his interview with DeWitt by noting that, although DeWitt's book is called "Hope after Faith" he would consider the journey DeWitt has taken as one from faith to hopelessness. In this we can see the usual snarky, know-it-all, disdainful Joe Scarborough approach.
Not unexpected!
However, then, in an example of his typical complete lack of insight, one of his initial questions to DeWitt was whether if, having gone from faith to hope, was he now disdainful of those who still had faith. Joe, in fact, asserted that most atheists were openly hostile of those who still believe and, by implication, that this was terrible.
So - Joe, being Joe - first shows his complete disdain for someone else's beliefs, then derides them for their perception of their seeming disdain for his.
Classic; stupid, but classic.
Hyperbole?
You may not like someone's opinion if it disagrees with yours, but I am not sure that this tweet by The Grand Master of Chick-Fil-A is "homophobic". He, indeed may be, but the tweet does not seem so.
It seems an ongoing saga in Modern America - we cannot disagree with each other without being the worst example of intolerance. Yes - I know both sides do it, but while it has never been a mystery that the "right" does so, the "left" now seems to be catching up in a big way.
You're white and want to rationally discuss race and its place in America? You're a racist! Want to insist on your second amendment rights? You're a gun nut who doesn't care about the children! Your beliefs disagree with acceptance/promotion of a gay lifestyle? You're homophobic!
It seems an ongoing saga in Modern America - we cannot disagree with each other without being the worst example of intolerance. Yes - I know both sides do it, but while it has never been a mystery that the "right" does so, the "left" now seems to be catching up in a big way.
You're white and want to rationally discuss race and its place in America? You're a racist! Want to insist on your second amendment rights? You're a gun nut who doesn't care about the children! Your beliefs disagree with acceptance/promotion of a gay lifestyle? You're homophobic!
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Well, really?
What seems just as stupid is vilifying executions when one is in favor of abortion.
This is the logic I cannot follow - the death penalty is bad, gun violence is bad, abortion is okay. Whether it is Rick Perry or this "Blue Texan" I just do not see how it adds up.
So when you note that "Obviously, the irony of cheering on Rick Perry, who's executed more people than any other governor in US history (including innocent people) -- was lost on him" - that's true enough, but all I can say is the obvious irony of complaining about 500 executions in Texas when 1.5 - 2.5% of women in Texas have had abortions every year over the past two decades seems to allude you - most of those unborn were innocent, I'll wager. This is why you sound so stupid. You write shit like this for people who agree with you.
Death is death - seems like you are either for it or agin it!
This is the logic I cannot follow - the death penalty is bad, gun violence is bad, abortion is okay. Whether it is Rick Perry or this "Blue Texan" I just do not see how it adds up.
So when you note that "Obviously, the irony of cheering on Rick Perry, who's executed more people than any other governor in US history (including innocent people) -- was lost on him" - that's true enough, but all I can say is the obvious irony of complaining about 500 executions in Texas when 1.5 - 2.5% of women in Texas have had abortions every year over the past two decades seems to allude you - most of those unborn were innocent, I'll wager. This is why you sound so stupid. You write shit like this for people who agree with you.
Death is death - seems like you are either for it or agin it!
If this is not the dumbest thing...
...then it is damned close!
So - the big plan - close schools so that children have to travel further through crime-ridden and self-defense challenged Chicago so as to get to school.
Then we can spend money on "Safe Passage Routes"? Doesn't the need to establish "safe pasage routes" admit that all of the other areas are not safe? Even after all these years of banning legal ownership of friearms, this shining city on the lake is not safe?
So - the big plan - close schools so that children have to travel further through crime-ridden and self-defense challenged Chicago so as to get to school.
Then we can spend money on "Safe Passage Routes"? Doesn't the need to establish "safe pasage routes" admit that all of the other areas are not safe? Even after all these years of banning legal ownership of friearms, this shining city on the lake is not safe?
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Hey...that's how I feel...pt. 2
DOMA is dead and gay folks can start marrying up, the Voting Rights Act has been gutted and Paula Dean is the devil incarnate!
So now I am getting emails from a multitude of organizations wanting my money, my signature, my time, to help support their right to marry in my state, their right to vote, their outrage over "The word that shall not be spoken by white folk".
Folks - I wrote this a while ago but now that hysteria is all around once more I feel the strong need to reiterate it. I know it does not matter, but it is through a strong sense of betrayal that I have to say this out loud. I am not gay, I am not a woman, I am not black. I know you think that makes me special (I know people think that all of us heterosexual white males hold secret meetings and plot the downfall of civilization and well as to split up all the money). Nonetheless, even though I am part of a "privileged class" (yep, my life has been one long freebie), I have, for many years, supported a range of rights for all who desire them. If I had been motivated by self-interest for the past several decades, I could and would have made different choices.
No, I will never want to marry another man - it is a foreign idea to me; no, I will never need an abortion; no, Paula Deen (nor anyone else) will never ever insult or "hurt" me, no matter what word she uses - my skin is thicker than that. No, disenfranchising black voters will not affect me personally - I have never been one - and the hysteria over the blathering of an old, southern white woman does not matter to me. I have nothing to gain from tax increases (because they will fall on me) or decreases (because I will not get one), lower student loan interest rates (paid mine off many years ago), or better unemployment compensation (I do not need it). I am so old that no matter what we do to the environment, it will not recover in my lifetime, nor will it kill me.
So, since I have often voted for those who support these initiatives that mean little to me personally, I have, for years, supported causes that I had no personal stake in. And it is clear at this point that I have gotten shit on in return.
Hence, for now, every email from each of you asking me to support your cause, from gay marriage, to women's rights and choice, to voting rights, to immigration will get the same response from me. "When you come out in support of the right that is personally relevant and important to me - my right to keep and bear arms as a law-abiding citizen - then I will consider supporting yours." As long as you make it impossible for me to support you without in turn denying my own rights, we will have to part ways. So don't come to me when you find you cannot get married in my state, when they institute a voter ID or poll tax, when they cut voting hours during your favorite times to vote, don't come to me when they close the abortion clinics in your state or shove a vaginal probe where the sun don't shine. You are on your own, abandoned by me as you have abandoned me.
Until you find a way to acknowledge my rights, your selfishness and self-indulgence will be met with my disdain and I will become a single issue voter.
UPDATE: So here's a good example of what I mean. These people think that I should give a damn about someone else's rights when they could care less about mine. Folks - I am not going out on the limb for you any more, not going to argue for fairness for you when you argue for restriction for me. As far as I am concerned, until you stand up for my rights, the people in Texas and anywhere else can close all the abortion clinics, ban gay anything and keep everyone they want from voting. In fact, as you become more militant in trying to limit my rights, I may just have to respond in kind.
Yes, I think I will have to make a deal with the devil, as ignorant as I might think he is; if the unsavory likes of a Louie Gohmert, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms, then they will get my vote. That's how fed up I am with selfish snobs who want to exercise their rights but want to constrain mine.
So now I am getting emails from a multitude of organizations wanting my money, my signature, my time, to help support their right to marry in my state, their right to vote, their outrage over "The word that shall not be spoken by white folk".
Folks - I wrote this a while ago but now that hysteria is all around once more I feel the strong need to reiterate it. I know it does not matter, but it is through a strong sense of betrayal that I have to say this out loud. I am not gay, I am not a woman, I am not black. I know you think that makes me special (I know people think that all of us heterosexual white males hold secret meetings and plot the downfall of civilization and well as to split up all the money). Nonetheless, even though I am part of a "privileged class" (yep, my life has been one long freebie), I have, for many years, supported a range of rights for all who desire them. If I had been motivated by self-interest for the past several decades, I could and would have made different choices.
No, I will never want to marry another man - it is a foreign idea to me; no, I will never need an abortion; no, Paula Deen (nor anyone else) will never ever insult or "hurt" me, no matter what word she uses - my skin is thicker than that. No, disenfranchising black voters will not affect me personally - I have never been one - and the hysteria over the blathering of an old, southern white woman does not matter to me. I have nothing to gain from tax increases (because they will fall on me) or decreases (because I will not get one), lower student loan interest rates (paid mine off many years ago), or better unemployment compensation (I do not need it). I am so old that no matter what we do to the environment, it will not recover in my lifetime, nor will it kill me.
So, since I have often voted for those who support these initiatives that mean little to me personally, I have, for years, supported causes that I had no personal stake in. And it is clear at this point that I have gotten shit on in return.
Hence, for now, every email from each of you asking me to support your cause, from gay marriage, to women's rights and choice, to voting rights, to immigration will get the same response from me. "When you come out in support of the right that is personally relevant and important to me - my right to keep and bear arms as a law-abiding citizen - then I will consider supporting yours." As long as you make it impossible for me to support you without in turn denying my own rights, we will have to part ways. So don't come to me when you find you cannot get married in my state, when they institute a voter ID or poll tax, when they cut voting hours during your favorite times to vote, don't come to me when they close the abortion clinics in your state or shove a vaginal probe where the sun don't shine. You are on your own, abandoned by me as you have abandoned me.
Until you find a way to acknowledge my rights, your selfishness and self-indulgence will be met with my disdain and I will become a single issue voter.
UPDATE: So here's a good example of what I mean. These people think that I should give a damn about someone else's rights when they could care less about mine. Folks - I am not going out on the limb for you any more, not going to argue for fairness for you when you argue for restriction for me. As far as I am concerned, until you stand up for my rights, the people in Texas and anywhere else can close all the abortion clinics, ban gay anything and keep everyone they want from voting. In fact, as you become more militant in trying to limit my rights, I may just have to respond in kind.
Yes, I think I will have to make a deal with the devil, as ignorant as I might think he is; if the unsavory likes of a Louie Gohmert, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott will stand up for my right to keep and bear arms, then they will get my vote. That's how fed up I am with selfish snobs who want to exercise their rights but want to constrain mine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)