12 February 2009


Despite my haircut, love of firearms and belief that the 2nd Amendment is the reset button for the Republican form of government; I would like to point out right now that I do not advocate or endorse the assassination or murder of any elected official.

Unlike this guy, apparently.

I don't think we're to the "shoot the bastards" point.  Ask me again around election day 2010.  I think we're getting close to the tipping point where we're going to have to admit we're not the nation defined by the constitution and draft something that more accurately describes what we're doing OR we're going to have to have blood running in the streets to put said Constitution back in effect.  That is, if we're honest.

I don't think we are.  I do think that we're going to have someone, like that guy maybe, who are going to give it a go.  If the neo-nazis rise up in revolt against the government count me as someone who would give The Devil a favourable (sic) mention in Parliament if Hitler should invade Hell.  Heck, you might even be able to count on me to stand with the government against them in a shooting contest.  I think I have made my distaste of the government well known here without putting proper distance on racists.

I rail against identity politics because the core question, for me, is, "Are they people?"  If yes, then they have the same rights and responsibilities as I do.  It says, "We the People".  Are Blacks people?  Are Women people?  Are Jews people?  Are Homosexuals people?  I say yes, to all of them.  I am not any of them.  I am white, male, atheist and hetro.  I will stand with you for your rights, as long as you stand with me for mine.

Notice that I say "rights and responsibilities" there.

Sorry about the slavery thing, but it was predominately white men who fought, bled and died to free your race.  It was also predominately Republican politicians who fought to eliminate the legal structures that prevented your equality; Lincoln and that whole Civil War thing, Eisenhower sent troops to enforce desegregation, etc...  What this fight leads to is letting you, and your people, vote and be treated just like everyone else under the law.  When we create laws that set lower standards for a black man, for example, to enter college we are not "helping overcome years of racism" we are saying, "niggers ain't gots deh smarts ta be gettin' no learnin'."  I say it in those terms so that I cannot be misunderstood.  An equal does not need special help to achieve the same goals I do.  If there is a barrier in the law that discriminates against a black person, by all means, let us smash it down.  If the "barrier" is apathy or laziness, then I am sorry you don't want to be in college.

Standards must be the same for everyone or they are not STANDARD!  If you need the standards lowered to be there, then you don't DESERVE to be.  You literally did not earn your place.  This is where racism and sexism is breeding now.  This is where the everyday schlub is noticing the imbalance.

"But what if I did honestly meet those standards?" I hear some of you thinking.  Well, you did earn it and you do deserve to be there.  Isn't fun to encounter people who don't believe that you earned it?  That attitude is the NATURAL EFFECT of affirmative action.  Because there are people who did not earn it, people who got in and over because we didn't apply the same standard to everyone, you will be assumed to have used those breaks to get where you are and not through your own abilities.  These laws lessen your achievement.

I will support programs that give access to education to people so that they can learn what they need to enter and advance in college.  Just because you are from a shit-hole with sub-par schools should not be a barrier to you getting an education.  I oppose distributing this aid on the basic of race, religion or gender.  ANYONE from a shit-hole with sub-par schools should have access to the remedial education programs.  Hell, I will even say that ANYONE should have access regardless of where they are from.  Rich white boys may have skipped their education the first time it was presented as well.

If a job requires you to carry a given load over a given period of time, then you must carry it that long!  Period.  If you cannot, then you cannot perform that job.  Saying that women only have to carry 80% of that weight for half the time is SEXIST.  It's saying, "I am aware that you are not my equal and will never be, so here you don't have to meet the same standard I do."  Another way to say it is, "I am better than you, let me prove it by meeting a higher standard."  If someone who lifts 80% for half the time can, indeed, do the job as well as someone who meets the higher standard then we should lower it.  If the job is defined by strength and endurance, then the strongest will be more successful at it.  Setting a strength and endurance standard for entry into such a job is simply filtering for those who can perform it the best.

If you feel you must comment on this topic, I will not tolerate Devils Advocates.  Either post YOUR beliefs as to why I am wrong, or have missed something, or keep it to yourself.

No comments:

Post a Comment

You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.