Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

How to end racism

I'm really getting tired of the notion that only white people can be racists. To that end, I present you with the dictionary definition of the term “racism”, from dictionary.reference.com…

rac·ism    (rā'sĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key
n.  

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

rac'ist adj. & n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition - Cite This Source
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Now that that's out of the way, tell me where the “white” or Caucasian race is mentioned. You don't see it in the definition of “racism” as given by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, do you? If you did, then wouldn't that be an example of the second definition listed?

I'm fairly sure that, in this day and age at least, we all can pretty much agree that the belief identified in the first definition given above is erroneous. No race is superior to others. Are we not all humans, regardless of our race?

American Conservatives believe in many of the principles laid down by the founders of our nation, and in particular we hold the Declaration of Independence in some high regard. In fact, we believe in and affirm that one of the founding principles of our nation can be found in these words…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…

Believing that, we must reject the belief found in the first definition of racism given above. And so I now turn to the second definition of the term, “discrimination or prejudice based on race”. You and I both know that there's a lot of that in today's world. Accusations of racism fly whenever a conservative criticizes Barack Obama it seems — even to the point that the very word “socialism” is treated by the media as a “code word” for black. We're told by some even that if Barack Obama loses the presidential election it will be evidence that the American electorate can't transcend racism, rather than a rejection of the policies that he espouses.

Here we are, more than forty five years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. uttered these famous words still obsessed with racism in politics…

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Dr. King was dreaming of a day when discrimination based upon race would no longer be a factor in how people judge each other. And yet today's multiculturalists tell us that we must be aware of race. They tell us that it's wrong to seek to not discriminate based upon race because that's merely a denial of our fundamental makeup. They tell us that we must reject the notion of a colorblind society because such a concept enforces racism rather than ends it.

I categorically reject those arguments. There is only one way that you can end discrimination based upon race, and that is to stop discriminating based upon race. Any multicultural program that requires us to focus on the unconscious or “cultural” racism of white people (a racial distinction), while denying the possibility that attitudes that discriminate against white people are possible (for an example of such educational material, see this lovely “art project”) is, by the second definition given above plain and simply racist.

I'll say it again, just to make it clear.

There is only one way that you can end discrimination based upon race, and that is to stop discriminating based upon race.

Media bias ... again

Here's a question for you. How many people buy and sell stocks each day? Isn't it reasonable to assume that there are millions of people in the market and that on any given day hundreds of thousands of them are making trades? I don't ever actually see any statistics on that. Nevertheless, headlines like this one leave me scratching my head…

“Stocks dive on belief global recession is at hand”

Who determined the reason why stocks “dived”? The market isn't even closed yet, and stocks appeared to rebound at least for a while. In fact, for the last several days, stocks have alternately gone up and down with wild swings. It seems to me that the “analysts” that write these headlines have a vested interest in bad news.

I just don't think that I can accept the major news media's “reasons” for stock market behavior. They seem to me to be nothing more than speculation about the motives of the many thousands of people trading in the markets. Especially when the headline comes out within less than an hour after the market changes. There's no way they could have interviewed a large enough sample of people to determine what the reasons for the change are.

Article leads are interesting examples of bias as well. How about this one, from an RSS item.

A federal appeals court has halted the execution of a Georgia man accused of gunning down an off-duty police officer in 1989.

View article

First of all, an appeals court wouldn't be halting the execution if the Georgia man had merely been “accused”. There'd be no need. He was convicted. According to the jury in the trial court he committed the murder.

Reading the article opens up the possibility of some reasonable doubt. After all, seven of nine witnesses recanted their testimony. Still, two of the nine did not, and it only takes two. I don't disagree with the appeals court, just the misleading summary in the RSS feed.

Here's another headline I find strange…

Rove Avoids Citizen Arrest During Meeting

An anti-war protester confronted former Bush administration aide Karl Rove while he spoke at a San Francisco mortgage bankers' meeting.

This wasn't a “Citizen's Arrest” — it was a publicity stunt from a Code Pink anti-war protester. Allegedly this so-called citizen's arrest would have been for “treason”. If it had been an actual arrest, I'm sure that Rove could have sued for false arrest. These Code Pink people don't seem to understand the definition of treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I don't believe that Karl Rove levied war against the United States. I don't think that he adhered to their enemies, in fact I think he advocated waging war against their enemies. He certainly didn't give the enemies of the United States aid or comfort. In my not so humble opinion a better headline for this article would have been…

Code Pink Moron Fails at Publicity Stunt

But then, that's being unkind to morons. By dignifying this stunt with the headline they gave, CBS is showing their own bias in favor of anti-war protesters and against former members of the President's administration.

The major media also seem to believe that government must spend money. In fact, they seem to believe that something is wrong with a government that takes in more money than it can spend. Government must spend money faster than it can take it in.

Iraqis have billions but lack know-how in spending it

Iraq's government has an unusual money problem as much of the world grapples with a credit crunch - it can't spend its oil riches fast enough.

So, Iraq is actually building it's treasury in a time when “much of the world” is having to deal with the consequences of decidedly stupid fiscal policies and they “lack know-how”? I think it's fabulous that they're building their treasury — the media on the other hand must be devastated to see yet another example of success in Iraq.

This particular article by the Associated Press sets my teeth on edge in other ways too…

Money also was scarce for more than a decade after the U.N. Security Council imposed sanctions to punish Saddam Hussein's regime for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

Hmm… wasn't that what the “oil for food” program was put in place for? Oh wait… Saddam Hussein diverted most of that money into his own pocket didn't he. Maybe money was scarce in Iraq because it had a corrupt government, not because of sanctions. But then, the Associated Press wouldn't ever reach that conclusion would they?

Instead, the orders generally came from above and needed only to be implemented. Prices also were fixed under Saddam, aiding cost estimates.

"It was easier before the war. It was more stable," she [Shetha Nasser]said. "The decision tree actually probably applies more in Iraq now because there are so many different variables here."

So we have the inevitable “it was better under the dictatorship” argument as well. Apparently the Associated Press can't resist finding someone to advocate for totalitarianism as opposed to freedom and liberty. After all, freedom and liberty are hard — because the people living under them have to use their brains.

I've got to tell you, using your brains beats having them blown out by a shotgun or beaten out by one of Saddam's thugs.

Sometimes I just hate reading the news.