Just think of what it would be like if hospitals decided to no longer triage its emergency room patients or no longer decided to target and treat specific diseases. Instead, the new business model going forward would be to treat every illness the same and to only address those sicknesses that are common amongst all people. Lets then say that this became a national mandate. How well would it be received by the public and why? Who would benefit and who would lose?
Change in America, in regards to race, means essentially the same thing. America now wants a generalized treatment of social ills. No more special interest treatments! Only those problems that are common amongst the general population will be treated, as too many people in the general population are upset that others are getting more or different attention than from what they are getting. It does not matter that some problems are more severe in degree and or kind than “the general” populations, and hence, a need for triage and targeting of the specifics. To hell with that, every entity is to be treated the same, regardless of history or condition.
Even more absurd and callous than that, in this parallel, is that even mentioning the fact that your injury is different, in degree and or kind gets you ostracized as playing the “special injury card”. The analogous concept in an Emergency waiting room is the “someone is sicker than you card”, that allows someone injured more serioisly and differently than you to be treated before you and different than you (i.e. discrimination). Is it fair to let someone sicker than you go before you and have that sickness treated based upon its specific merits, which may be different than yours? One would hope that America could be so understanding about the socioeconomic condition of blacks in America. America still needs a triaged social policy that targets, separates and treats based upon the specific and often different causes, effects, history of the population.
Here is a thought. Who gets to define “change” so that we will know it when we see it? Who gets to define what "working together" is so that we will know it when we see it? I imagine that these terms will be filled democratically by virtue of majority rule. Right? I mean that is the fairest thing to do....right? Well, who is the racial majority in America, by far? Whites just happen to be the racial majority so the definition of “change” and other rhetoric will be defined by their perceptions and beliefs. They are certainly not going to be defined by 13% of the total population that has little weight in the majority rule construct, and even less socioeconomic strength to lobby in its behalf. So it’s obvious to see that more things suppose to “change” the more they are actually going to remain the same.
So what must be understood is that the “Change” people seek, in regards to race, and regards to politics, is simply the majority getting minority to accept things the majority's way. In other words, America is to be defined by its “average” and not its extremes, which are seen as the root of division. It’s the “general rule”, so to speak, over the exceptions to the rule. Unfortunately for the black community in America, the general rule is not greatly influenced by the us. In a tug of war, 13 pulling against 70 will produce an obvious winner. So any problem endemic, disproportionate, acute or different in kind, if not degree, from the “general rule” of America, will not be addressed or targeted for treatment. That is ominous for poor blacks, but seems acceptable for many middle class blacks who share more in common with the white population these days, to benefit from policy representing the needs of the majority (whites).
There are different pathways to the same destination. The problem is that if the path or reason for poverty is not the same for everyone. A generalized, white, approach based upon the causes of poverty and social problems within the white community, at it is becoming the template, for change, will not work efficiently on other groups whose path to the destination differed. Black America has the most unique path to the destination of poverty and social problems here in America. Hence, having social policy geared towards the generalized path based upon shared experiences will not work for black people.
As an example, let’s take the issue of legalization of drugs. The black community has been ravaged, more than any other, over the last several decades, from drugs. The reason being is that drug dealing offered economic opportunity, albeit illegal, to many poor black communities. One can also make the argument that the community was purposely targeted, after the riots against the “system” in the 60’s, so that it would implode and not explode.
The violence associated with drugs is very similar to the violence associated with illegal liquor selling during prohibition. So eliminating the prohibition of certain drugs could radically reduce violence and other problems in the black communities, just like violence was radically reduced when prohibition was repealed. However, since the “general population” does not suffer the effects of this violence anywhere near the rate of the black community, the benefit cost analysis is different and hence they see more of a cost than benefit. Consequently, something that could potentially benefit the black community is stymied by majority rule benefit cost analysis.
People need to look for the debit anytime people start talking about credits. Every credit has a debit in nature and life as nothing is gained without something being lost or given up. The change that people are looking for will come at a cost and price to many. An America less divisive is not necessarily a good thing. Before the Civil Rights movement, whites in the South thought things were pretty good and were arrogant and or uncaring enough to think that they could speak for blacks. The only way to get from injustice to justice was via divisiveness and agitators who forced the issue. That change represented a loss of a degree of white privilege and impunity, but resulted in the gain or rights for blacks in the South.
When white America thinks of the causes of division, they see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as the postcard child for why America is divided. Its people like them who are constantly pointing out and talking about issues of race. In other words, it’s not whites or the history of whites that manifested a racial divided America observable by anyone with open eyes; rather, the symptoms are the cause. So the change required to bring America together is defined, by the general population which is white, is to discredit, demote and remove people like Jackson and Sharpton and all who think as they do. The goal is to sweep the legacy of America’s racial past and its influence on the racial conditions of the present, under the rug forever. That is the change that America is seeking with the help of middle and upper class blacks joining together in class warfare against the black underclass.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Political this and that
I have a lot of different thoughts running through my head today, concerning the poor state of politics, to such degree that I do not know where to start or how to organize them. Some thoughts seem to dominate more than the others, however. For example; why do the republicans hate the Clinton’s so much? The enemy (Clintons) of my enemy (Republicans) is thus my friend, although I don't particularly like or care for this new friend. Also, who thrust Obama into the limelight and Why? Furthermore, why has Obama been treated with kid gloves in the primaries, with many black folks crying foul when he is not? If Obama were able to win the Democratic nomination, he would be eviscerated by the attack machine of the Republican party who knows how to play on white racial prejudice and fears.
In regards to the Clintons, what can I glean from the fact that they are despised so much by the Republicans? The answer is akin to the same reason why some women in a bar or club will immediately dislike a beautiful woman who walks in, to the degree that they want to tear her down. The Republicans hate the Clintons due to the same root emotion as those women in bars. It’s fear. They feel threatened by the strong competition. It will be harder for them to get the attention they want and what they want when there is strong competition. So the compeition must somehow be torn down, by those in fear, in order to reduce their attraction.
The Clinton’s know how to play politics! Bill Clinton is a master at understanding the strategy and game. He aggressively goes after what he wants and he takes no prisoners. He understands his Republican competition. In fact, his methodologies are very Republican like. He knows how to play their games and uses it to the advantage of his goals and the Democratic Party, better than the Republicans can, which irks the republicans. No one likes to be beaten at their own game. If the Clinton’s were conservative Republicans, they would have replaced Ronald Reagan as the modern icons of the party. Although Clinton reallly did nothing for blacks, other than symbolism, the enemy (Bill Clinton) of our enemy (conservative racist) became the friend of blacks.
In regards to Barak, how and why did he gain name recognition? The answer is his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. At that convention he was anointed and exalted for being a great speaker, but more importantly, for being a different kind of black leader. He immediately became the symbol of the type of black leader who could bring America together, by virtue of closing the chapter on the traditional Civil Rights style black leaders who continue to unapologetically fight for justice on behalf of blacks. Whites see this as divisive and that America could come together racially if not for these racial agitators.
In the minds of many, bringing America together is in reality a euphemism for removing agitating Civil Rights type black leaders and thinking from the negotiating table. Many people want to put the past behind us and ignore its aftermath upon the present…..racially. Thus, anyone who then dares link the racial past to the racial present, notwithstanding the validity of the link, is seen as being divisive and must be demoted. Truth hurts many and naturally produces divides between righteous and unrighteous, fact and fiction, fantasy and reality. As long as their is right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice...division should exist, lest we all accept whats wrong, whats, bad and injustice. There should be no compromise between these extremes!
Essentially, Barak Obama was white America’s opportunity to demote a certain type of black leadership and thinking by promoting the type of black leader and thinking more acceptable for them. This was simply a subconscious conspiracy of like minds as whites are sick and tired of the race issue and its implication and exposure of them. There are many Harvard Educated intelligent white folks who could have said what Obama said, without it catapulting him or her to a run for the President. Obama attraction for white America is racial. The change and coming together, as they see it, is blacks moving to the position of whites, but not whites moving closer to the position of blacks. In their mind, that what “change” means.
In light of that, is it hard to see why Obama has tried to keep race out of the debate? He was branded and elevated for a purpose in regards to race, by white America. That is not to suggest that he is not talented, qualified and charismatic and that blacks don’t find his politics and style appealing. Moreover, many blacks are tired of traditional black leaders as well, which is not unexpected given the influential power of the media and their constant attacks on black leaders. Obama is a mediator, but there should be no mediation between right and wrong. If Barak was President instead of Lincoln, how would he have brought both sides together on the issue of slavery? Would he have compromised that blacks be made indentured servants, as opposed to slaves, to give something to both sides? Sometimes compromise is not what is needed.
Finally, why is Obama being treated with kid gloves? Like I noted above, one of the reasons is that that his candidacy looses viability as soon as it becomes racial, like America. He cannot maintain the black vote and a strong white vote if he is asked tough question that reflect the racial divide in the response. For example, when is someone going to ask Obama about Reparations and what he thinks of the concept or need, if not viability? There are many issues in America where blacks and whites have divergent and passionate opposite views. He is not being asked any such question, because to do so would threaten the process of bringing America together, by exposing the truth of the divide. No one is to note that the Emperor has no clothes on.
So now Obama has climbed into the ring of politics to carry forth this mission, which he seems perfectly happy to do, and now some blacks are crying foul when he gets punched. Think of it this way. Say a professional female boxer wanted to fight a professional male boxer of the same weight class. At that point in time, the male boxer cannot win. If he fights her like he fights his male competitors and tries to knock her head off, he will be looked down upon. Politics is a rough and nasty game and the fact that Obama decided to step into the ring; he cannot expect to be treated with kid gloves by the Clintons. If the Clintons don’t do it, the Republicans will be relentless in their pounding.
In regards to the Clintons, what can I glean from the fact that they are despised so much by the Republicans? The answer is akin to the same reason why some women in a bar or club will immediately dislike a beautiful woman who walks in, to the degree that they want to tear her down. The Republicans hate the Clintons due to the same root emotion as those women in bars. It’s fear. They feel threatened by the strong competition. It will be harder for them to get the attention they want and what they want when there is strong competition. So the compeition must somehow be torn down, by those in fear, in order to reduce their attraction.
The Clinton’s know how to play politics! Bill Clinton is a master at understanding the strategy and game. He aggressively goes after what he wants and he takes no prisoners. He understands his Republican competition. In fact, his methodologies are very Republican like. He knows how to play their games and uses it to the advantage of his goals and the Democratic Party, better than the Republicans can, which irks the republicans. No one likes to be beaten at their own game. If the Clinton’s were conservative Republicans, they would have replaced Ronald Reagan as the modern icons of the party. Although Clinton reallly did nothing for blacks, other than symbolism, the enemy (Bill Clinton) of our enemy (conservative racist) became the friend of blacks.
In regards to Barak, how and why did he gain name recognition? The answer is his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. At that convention he was anointed and exalted for being a great speaker, but more importantly, for being a different kind of black leader. He immediately became the symbol of the type of black leader who could bring America together, by virtue of closing the chapter on the traditional Civil Rights style black leaders who continue to unapologetically fight for justice on behalf of blacks. Whites see this as divisive and that America could come together racially if not for these racial agitators.
In the minds of many, bringing America together is in reality a euphemism for removing agitating Civil Rights type black leaders and thinking from the negotiating table. Many people want to put the past behind us and ignore its aftermath upon the present…..racially. Thus, anyone who then dares link the racial past to the racial present, notwithstanding the validity of the link, is seen as being divisive and must be demoted. Truth hurts many and naturally produces divides between righteous and unrighteous, fact and fiction, fantasy and reality. As long as their is right and wrong, good and bad, justice and injustice...division should exist, lest we all accept whats wrong, whats, bad and injustice. There should be no compromise between these extremes!
Essentially, Barak Obama was white America’s opportunity to demote a certain type of black leadership and thinking by promoting the type of black leader and thinking more acceptable for them. This was simply a subconscious conspiracy of like minds as whites are sick and tired of the race issue and its implication and exposure of them. There are many Harvard Educated intelligent white folks who could have said what Obama said, without it catapulting him or her to a run for the President. Obama attraction for white America is racial. The change and coming together, as they see it, is blacks moving to the position of whites, but not whites moving closer to the position of blacks. In their mind, that what “change” means.
In light of that, is it hard to see why Obama has tried to keep race out of the debate? He was branded and elevated for a purpose in regards to race, by white America. That is not to suggest that he is not talented, qualified and charismatic and that blacks don’t find his politics and style appealing. Moreover, many blacks are tired of traditional black leaders as well, which is not unexpected given the influential power of the media and their constant attacks on black leaders. Obama is a mediator, but there should be no mediation between right and wrong. If Barak was President instead of Lincoln, how would he have brought both sides together on the issue of slavery? Would he have compromised that blacks be made indentured servants, as opposed to slaves, to give something to both sides? Sometimes compromise is not what is needed.
Finally, why is Obama being treated with kid gloves? Like I noted above, one of the reasons is that that his candidacy looses viability as soon as it becomes racial, like America. He cannot maintain the black vote and a strong white vote if he is asked tough question that reflect the racial divide in the response. For example, when is someone going to ask Obama about Reparations and what he thinks of the concept or need, if not viability? There are many issues in America where blacks and whites have divergent and passionate opposite views. He is not being asked any such question, because to do so would threaten the process of bringing America together, by exposing the truth of the divide. No one is to note that the Emperor has no clothes on.
So now Obama has climbed into the ring of politics to carry forth this mission, which he seems perfectly happy to do, and now some blacks are crying foul when he gets punched. Think of it this way. Say a professional female boxer wanted to fight a professional male boxer of the same weight class. At that point in time, the male boxer cannot win. If he fights her like he fights his male competitors and tries to knock her head off, he will be looked down upon. Politics is a rough and nasty game and the fact that Obama decided to step into the ring; he cannot expect to be treated with kid gloves by the Clintons. If the Clintons don’t do it, the Republicans will be relentless in their pounding.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
The problem with the Democrats is...
The problem for Democrats is that the Party constituents do not know how to play the game of two party politics as well as constituents of the Republican Party. Republicans are passionate about one thing more than anything else and that is keeping a Liberal out of the White House. Their anti-liberal passion trumps any passion they have for any of their favorite Republican, more so than the Democrats are able to trump their party favorites to strategically unify to defeat the Republicans.
If you are a coach trying to steer your team to victory, you have to play the players who are going to get the job done and that is not necessarily the coach’s favorite. When Randy Moss played for the Minnesota Vikings, he was seen as a jerk and a-hole and I am sure that there were receivers on the team who the coach liked a lot more, however, they could not catch the ball and score touchdowns like Moss could. The problem with Democrats is that they want to play their favorites and seem to place little value in the strategy of putting the player on the field that is most likely to score touchdowns against the Republicans in the general election.
Personally, I am a radical and there is currently no party for radicalism, as I feel that America needs radical changes. That said, there are still only two options and my choice of the two bad options would be Democrat. Of the Democrats, my favorite was Kucinich, he had radical ideals most of which I agreed with. However, he has no viability. My second favorite, ignoring strategy, would be Obama. I really like the brother. I like how he carries himself and I think he is as competent, if not more, than any other president to date. My least favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton. She was once asked about the issue of reparations and the way she answered it, so crudely, so undiplomatically and so emphatically no that I never cared for her much after that. That noted, if a Democrat asked me who to vote for I would say Clinton, assuming that winning the general election against the Republicans was the goal.
Democrats cannot seem to understand that a great place to vacation is not necessarily a great place to live. They don’t seem to realize that their favorite candidate might not have what it takes to be the nation’s consensus favorite candidate in the general election, through no fault of the candidate. They cannot seem to unify in a strategy to benefit the collective interest of the party and would rather place more value in the sub interest of the party. This has created the type of division and disunity that leads to the party's nomination not being the best player to get the job done against the Republicans.
The Democrats cannot see the forest for the trees. The Republican party may seem weak right now, but I can guarantee you at the end of the day they will put forward the best player on their team who has the best chance of keeping a liberal out of the White House. The same cannot be said about the Democrats due to the fact that their passion to keep a Republican out of the White House is less than their passion for their favorite canidate in the primaries. This is not how to play the flawed game of two party politics. We need to scrap the two party system, but for now, that is the game that needs to be played and Democrats are behaving as if the viable options are not binary.
Right now, despite the terrible tenure of the Republicans in the executive and legislature since 2000, if the economy holds on through November, via rebates and money (credit) give aways...look for the divisions in the Democratic party, resulting from the efforts to get the 1st black president or the 1st female president, to ultimately result in the 44th president.......being a Republican! When that happens....you can bet that the same people who placed individual interest over party interest and viablity in the general election, will be complaining on Blogs and Forums about how the Republicans are screwing things up. Yet, they will only have themselves to blame for not focusing on the collective interest of the parties viability in the Presidential election against a Republican.
If you are a coach trying to steer your team to victory, you have to play the players who are going to get the job done and that is not necessarily the coach’s favorite. When Randy Moss played for the Minnesota Vikings, he was seen as a jerk and a-hole and I am sure that there were receivers on the team who the coach liked a lot more, however, they could not catch the ball and score touchdowns like Moss could. The problem with Democrats is that they want to play their favorites and seem to place little value in the strategy of putting the player on the field that is most likely to score touchdowns against the Republicans in the general election.
Personally, I am a radical and there is currently no party for radicalism, as I feel that America needs radical changes. That said, there are still only two options and my choice of the two bad options would be Democrat. Of the Democrats, my favorite was Kucinich, he had radical ideals most of which I agreed with. However, he has no viability. My second favorite, ignoring strategy, would be Obama. I really like the brother. I like how he carries himself and I think he is as competent, if not more, than any other president to date. My least favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton. She was once asked about the issue of reparations and the way she answered it, so crudely, so undiplomatically and so emphatically no that I never cared for her much after that. That noted, if a Democrat asked me who to vote for I would say Clinton, assuming that winning the general election against the Republicans was the goal.
Democrats cannot seem to understand that a great place to vacation is not necessarily a great place to live. They don’t seem to realize that their favorite candidate might not have what it takes to be the nation’s consensus favorite candidate in the general election, through no fault of the candidate. They cannot seem to unify in a strategy to benefit the collective interest of the party and would rather place more value in the sub interest of the party. This has created the type of division and disunity that leads to the party's nomination not being the best player to get the job done against the Republicans.
The Democrats cannot see the forest for the trees. The Republican party may seem weak right now, but I can guarantee you at the end of the day they will put forward the best player on their team who has the best chance of keeping a liberal out of the White House. The same cannot be said about the Democrats due to the fact that their passion to keep a Republican out of the White House is less than their passion for their favorite canidate in the primaries. This is not how to play the flawed game of two party politics. We need to scrap the two party system, but for now, that is the game that needs to be played and Democrats are behaving as if the viable options are not binary.
Right now, despite the terrible tenure of the Republicans in the executive and legislature since 2000, if the economy holds on through November, via rebates and money (credit) give aways...look for the divisions in the Democratic party, resulting from the efforts to get the 1st black president or the 1st female president, to ultimately result in the 44th president.......being a Republican! When that happens....you can bet that the same people who placed individual interest over party interest and viablity in the general election, will be complaining on Blogs and Forums about how the Republicans are screwing things up. Yet, they will only have themselves to blame for not focusing on the collective interest of the parties viability in the Presidential election against a Republican.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
