Letter to the editor 03.29.10

members walk through protest

I sent the following letter concerning accusations of racism to the Daily Beacon, the University of Tennessee’s student newspaper, on March 29, but it was never printed:

Columnist Sam Smith is either a victim or, worse, a collaborator of propaganda. On March 20, the day before passage of the historic blunder misnamed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, several male members of the Congressional Black Caucus sauntered through a large crowd of mostly white demonstrators outside the Capitol–that is to say, they pulled a publicity stunt.

I have watched several videos of the incident, and I have a few questions that Smith may not have asked himself. Why did this group of black men choose to walk through the excited crowd? Almost every other representative traveled to the Capitol that day through the underground tunnel connected to their offices, and almost every other day these men do so as well. Why did all of these black men walk to the Capitol together? Why were two of the members recording the event with mobile devices? Why, after watching all of these videos, did I never once hear the N-word? It was mostly shouts of “kill the bill.” No one in the media, or even on a layperson’s hand-held recorder, has been able to produce any evidence that a racial invective was ever uttered, much less shouted, by the demonstrators that day. Fortunately, it appears the Black Caucus’ attempt to instigate a racial incident failed. The “Tea-Party” contingent was not so racist as had been hoped.

The publicity stunt, however, worked wonders. Just hours later, every evening news program reported that the demonstrators shouted the N-word at the men repeatedly. The intended message is clear: citizens opposed to Obamacare are ignorant, unreasonable racists that should be ignored. Despite the fact that this message is based on lies and propaganda, Smith affirms it.

Then, after forcing Republicans to accept this propaganda as reality, Smith challenges GOP leadership to denounce the fabricated bad behavior of its base, apparently unaware that House Minority Leader John Boehner has already issued a public condemnation. Smith also asks, “How long will we continue to watch the GOP behave this way and accept it as part of our political dialogue?” The answer: until we stop believing the perpetual myths of propagandists like the Congressional Black Caucus.

Advertisements

Free market, profit incentive eliminate racism

racism

I relay the following explanation, which I gave to an anonymous friend who believed that the free market fosters racism, and could not understand why he was wrong.

Okay, I will explain, with a preface.  Your hypothetical situation, in which many employers are racists, assumes that free people are, in large part, naturally racist and averse to being near people of other races.  It assumes that employers much prefer white employees to black ones.  If this is true (a big if), the market will tend to eliminate their racist natures.  Simply, here’s how (and remember that this situation is based on your racist assumptions, which may or may not be accurate):

All other factors being equal, demand for a white employee is much higher than demand for a black employee.   Therefore whites tend to be employed at a high wage, and blacks tend to be employed at a much lower wage, if at all.  In this context–which in its results resembles reality–imagine two manufacturers that produce the exact same product, one of which hires based on racial preference.

The racist employer hires an all-white workforce, and pays his employees the going wage for white labor.  The profit-seeking employer hires the cheapest labor, and therefore ends up with an all-black workforce.  Labor costs are much higher for the employer who employs only whites.  This means the price of his product must also be much higher than the price of the profit-seeking employer’s identical product.  Consumers will therefore buy from the profit-seeker, with whom the racist cannot compete.  The racist manufacturer will fail, leaving all of his white employees unemployed.  This unemployment, which must happen many times over if racist employment is prevalent in society, cheapens white labor, and in short order the price of labor is determined by the price or quality of labor–not by skin color.  In this way, the price mechanism, the market, and the profit incentive eliminate racist business practices.

Hate crime legislation perpetuates injustice

Blind Justice

What we have established is not justice.  We have established laws, law enforcement, legal proceedings, punishments, and all the trappings of a system of justice.  At a glance, the credulous simpleton may call that system justice, and on a windy night, he may see a white sheet on a clothesline, and call it a ghost; in the second instance, he is perhaps less the fool.  A mysterious white figure in the night is not a ghost, and a justice system is not justice, and it may be that, over the course of history, humans have known true justice only as often as they have known true ghosts.

The Senate recently passed legislation expanding the definition of hate crimes, and also expanding federal jurisdiction over the enforcement of hate crime legislation, which reminded me of a justice system injustice: hate crime legislation.

One hope of such legislation is to deter hate crimes by handing down harsher sentences.  The proponents of hate crime legislation also claim that it promotes justice.  In Congress, as usual, absurdity triumphs.

Firstly, the term “hate crime” is problematic (can we please have some “love crime” legislation?).  Is a crime committed out of greed any less offensive, any less dangerous, or any less deserving of punishment than one committed out of hate?  What about a jealous crime?  Is the jealous felon more noble than the hateful one?  Blind justice does not see a greedy murderer, a jealous murderer, and a hateful murderer; she senses that all three act with malicious intent, and if their crimes are otherwise identical, their emotions are inconsequential.  Of all killers, she absolves only the fearful self-defender, who is no criminal at all, and who may serve as an example to further test the justice of hate crime legislation.

If a human kills another in indisputable self-defense, that human is guilty of no crime; no one inquires into the dead’s race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  It is not unthinkable that, had the assailant been of another gender, the person acting in self-defense would have employed non-lethal measures.  This possibility, however, does not affect justice; justice is blind to group distinctions.  The person acting in self-defense always acts justly.  In like manner, the person committing a crime always acts unjustly; still, justice is blind to group distinctions.

“Hate crimes” are designed to protect victims who may be targeted because of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.  However, judges only protect certain groups.  Absurdly, it is ruled that many majorities and even some minorities cannot legally be the objects of hatred.  A white, heterosexual, Christian, American male is incapable of being the victim of a hate crime, no matter how vehemently his attacker hates white, straight, Christian, American men.  If a criminal targets obscenely wealthy people only because they are obscenely wealthy, and the criminal admits to hating such people, he cannot be charged with a hate crime.  Hate crime legislation requires that individuals belonging to certain groups are given more legal protection than others.  This is unequal treatment under the law; it is, by definition, injustice.

Most harmfully, hate crime legislation actually encourages and perpetuates group bias, inequality, and injustice.  An unbiased perspective cannot prevail among a people whose government legally differentiates between individuals on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, income, economic status, political ideology, or any other such distinction; and that is exactly what hate crime legislation does.  Ironically, it is the self-proclaimed champions of the unbiased perspective that–perhaps unwittingly–prevent it from taking root.

Racist, sexist President Obama appoints racist, sexist judge Sotomayor

Obama appoints Sotomayor

Surprise, surprise. Brief thoughts on the bigoted choice:

President Obama considered only females for the open Supreme Court seat; that’s sexism epitomized.  His choice was, by his own admission, largely influenced by race as well.  If Wal-Mart considered only men when choosing a new board member, and then announced they were proud of their choice because he is not only male but white, they would face a lawsuit.  Objectively, that is exactly what Obama did (only with a Hispanic woman), to the cheers of “liberal” bigots everywhere.  The absurdity and injustice of the process was disgustingly bigoted.  As is our wont, government sponsors injustice, the government-educated majority loves it, and everyone capable of objective, critical thought has to accept it, because democracy, in all its tyrannical splendor, is the new god.

Sifting through the crap

Crap

99.9% of everything you will ever hear from a U.S. politician or media pundit is total crap. I present to you five widely discussed issues that do not matter, so that next time you hear them on the radio or television, you can say to yourself “this is pointless conversation”:

  1. Energy policy: The energy industry is part of the economic market. It operates most efficiently on its own and requires no help from the government (unless there is a monopoly in the market). Anyone who thinks limiting our choices on energy is a good thing is delusional. Stay away from them. It is remarkable how many believe that people can be made better off by the imposition of limitations on their choices. Here’s how it works, honestly and simply: when (and only when) gas prices become too high, an alternative energy source will become dominant.
  2. Environmental issues: If your property is being damaged by another person’s (or group’s) pollution, sue them. If you can prove your case, you will win. Chances are, you’ll be one of many, and those who choose to pollute will soon stop because of the amount of expenses they are incurring from mounting lawsuits. There are no regulations necessary–just the simple legal protection of property.
  3. Illegal immigration: The leaderships of both parties have decided nothing will ever be done to stop this. In fact, they hope to someday unify Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. under a multinational government.
  4. Racism, sexism, feminism, anti-religious sentiments, and other prejudices: You are easier to control if you think along these lines at all. Whether you are practicing these or blaming others for doing so, you are falling right in line with what the status quo wants. You are focusing on an issue that does not matter, which works out perfectly for the people trying to make sure they can continue to steal money from you without your noticing.
  5. Islamofascism: This is a huge myth. If you think radical Muslims are about to take over the United States, you are wacko. You need to see a mental health professional and talk about your irrational fears.

From now on, if you hear one of these issues mentioned on the news or anywhere else, remember that someone is trying to entertain or bewilder you, and that nothing they say can swindle you out of a wise and well-reasoned vote. The list above is far from exhaustive.

Now that you know what sorts of issues don’t matter, here’s some that do: The Constitution, Bill of Rights, fiscal restraint, and sound monetary policy (the elimination of fiat currency). If your legislators are focusing more on the first list than this one, they need to be replaced.

You’re welcome.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was real; Obama is a fraud

civil disobedience

“Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.” But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Forty-five years ago, a humble servant of God sat in a detainment facility in Birmingham, Alabama, and wrote a letter to his fellow clergymen, whom he felt had left him too desirous of support in his fight for freedom. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, King displayed wisdom that extends far beyond the reaches of the media’s anointed black leaders of America today. King’s words make Barack Obama sound as thoughtful as George Wallace.

Barack Obama is the self-proclaimed historical apex of liberty and justice in America. In addition to being incorrect, this assertion reveals his own narrow mind and prejudiced heart. Obama is currently the most prominent member of a group of elite blacks who have climbed atop the shoulders of a once-pure movement for liberty and justice, tracking mud and flinging dung along their path, and corrupting the exterior of the civil rights movement, whose core struggle for individual freedom under God will always remain pure. Dishonest, selfish opportunists, like the Obamas, the Clintons, the Sharptons, and the Jacksons, have given a bad name to a great cause.

King was, like myself, a faithful individualist. He believed in the sciences, natural rights, natural law, and the rule of God. This philosophy is what gave him the wisdom, compassion and courage to follow an unpopular and dangerous path. Obama is almost exactly the opposite of King. Like so many politicians before him, Obama believes he is a better ruler than God. He idolizes himself, and nearly all of his followers join in his regrettable rejection of truth. He follows a path beaten to a point of no adversity, and lined with easy cash for liars, sycophants and opportunists.

I could easily attack John McCain on the same charge, because he too would rather rule than lead, but McCain has not so boldly demanded comparison of himself to anyone I particularly admire. He has shown great honesty in allowing himself to be compared to the current President of the United States. There is sadly little difference between the two selfish front-runners for the presidency. When Barack Obama, however, allows himself to be cast in the same light as Martin Luther King, Jr., he commits an awful error that cannot be ignored. King himself, if he were to know Barack Obama, would liken the Senator more to Pilate than to the Messiah, as some in the media have called him.

King believed in God, and the rights of the individual. Obama believes in democracy, and the conscience of a mob, which bears similarity to one that would have lynched King, given the opportunity.

King believed in challenging people. Obama believes in bending to challenges.

King saw one race. Obama sees many.

King wanted Americans to rule themselves. Obama wants to rule Americans.

King’s color was, to himself, merely the external shell of his human being. Obama believes his color is his being. Given their environments, it seems these attitudes would be reversed, but principle is not determined by time or place, and everywhere that King was overflowing with it, Obama will lack it unconscionably.

King saw things as they were. Obama sees things in whatever light he wishes to view them.

King believed in God. Obama believes he is God.

King fought the chains of government. Obama tightens and secures them.

King was a prophet. Obama is a profiteer.

King was suspicious of men who sought power. Obama seeks power.

In short, King was a truly principled man, and Obama is a disingenuous fraud.

Activist re-inventions

null
“It may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve.” – Thoreau

“Eternal vigilance,” we have been told, “is the price of liberty.”  Americans have heard this for generations, but the true meaning of the statement is seldom understood.  The institution of liberty removes all necessity for movements in its favor, and in a truly free environment, the only political movements that develop must aim to reduce liberty in some way.  A truly free society must remain vigilant against all political activists. 

Unfortunately, humankind has never known a truly free society, so liberal activism has always been in need.  Liberal activism brought slavery to an end and made equal rights human social institutions.  Activists of liberal movements are inspired to fight for liberty and equality, but once their aims are met, their necessity dissolves.  Success did not bring an end to the women’s rights and civil rights movements, however.  Remnants remain, the prominent of which are not at all liberal, but harbor within themselves, and unpardonably perpetuate and instill in society, the very qualities that they claim to despise.

The vast majority of civil rights activists, who so admirably stood for freedom in the 1960s, discontinued activism upon the realization of equal rights and equal opportunity.  The same can be said of many women’s rights activists.  Can there be greater evidence of the success of these movements than the Democratic Presidential primary of 2008? 

Because blacks and women now hold legal equality (and even certain legal advantages) in this country, the need for activism in their favor has all but disappeared.  True advocates of liberty wish only to be treated fairly as individuals, and those that continue to fight for a freedom already attained, are either swinging at windmills or seeking personal gain at the expense of liberty and those that believe in it.  Remnants of successful rights movements must re-invent inequality, or re-define equality, in order to survive.  It is as if Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson miss the dissolved external hatred that they once found both real and profitable.  These men, formerly revered as civil rights activists, are merely opportunistic businessmen.  If the likes of Jackson and Sharpton come to believe, as most Americans do, that a person is a person, regardless of superficial qualities, they lose all marketability; so, in the absence of injustice, they re-invent a collectivist mentality that should have faded away, and they are the true believers and sowers of racism in America today. 

If sexism and racism make a comeback in this country, it will be the work of the feminist and racial rights “leaders.”